Any ideas on what should transpire next episodes? Sepcifically: 1. How would Caesar settle affairs in Dacia prior to his departure? 2. How does Caesar celebrate his triumph? 3. What are the political developments in Rome upon Caesar's return? 4. What do preparations look like for the Parthian campaign?
Congratulations on making yet again another great video, I find your content really interesting. Could you please make more videos about Dacia? Thanks again
@@aoh4844 Thanks for the support, please do share around on social media as it definitely helps. Regarding Dacia, I'll eventually cover Trajan's Dacian wars. More immediately however I think I am working on a new series on Units of History and can dedicate an episode to discussing the Falxmen of Dacia.
I'm surprised you don't think Caesar would pull a Gaul and Annex the whole thing. That said, you obviously know more of Caesar then I do. Do you think any of the Dacian tribes would have been vassal states/tributaries/allies of Rome in the aftermath? I mean of course the ones not in Moesia.
Would it be settling affairs in dacian (likely going simalary to historical events) checking up in Rome (another triumph likely overdone to quell any social unrest among plebians and warn his rivals and giving Octavian some sort of title to show some support and raise his prestige in preparation for greater roles) then preparing for the parthian campaign possibly with Egyptian support through political ties and assemblies legions in Greece for the March forming a sort of two pronged attack (from Egypt in the south and Roman provinces in the north)
You should also do a 'What if Alexander had survived longer' not only might the empire had stayed together for longer, but he also had plans to conquer Arabia, and go westward with plans as far as Britannia
@@Erg893 Nonetheless it's true. The Greeks of Alexander's age knew more of the world than most people think. Although I agree it is unlikely he would have conquered it
@@TheVanillaBoy8 There's a book called the Macedonian Inheritance by Eric Flint which puts a 21st century Cruiser into the Ptolemaic Setting and Shatter War by Dana Fitzgerald that has time rift. The Macedonian Inheritance is more setting than plot, but it has some EXCELLENT descriptions. And the Greeks, including the Silver Shields travel to the New World.
@@MedjayofFaiyum Thank you, I read a lot of alternate history novels and always look for more, though it's hard to come upon good alt-history books. I'll look into this
ViceroyJocks One of the reasons why Alexander is held in such high regards is also because he died so young, if he died at 60-70 after making mistakes not sure that his glory would be the same, imagine if Napoleon died at the top of his power in July 1807, before making his mistakes we'd be looking at him as an indeniable genius
Caesar was not a title initially, but a cognomen. If Caesar adopts Octavius, he will change his name as IRL. But if Caesar could become a title in this alternate history depends on the constitution implemented by Caesar and his successors.
Wel when his nephew took over after he died Agustus was the name of emperor and Caesar was the name Of the next emperor so I’m assuming it would be the reverse or similar by ceasar would be the title for next emperors and not agustus
@@frankneugebauer6455 I think what he means is that Caesar kind of became a sort of martyr when he was assassinated, and Octavian taking the title to honor him eventually leads to it becoming an actual title, but if caesar wasn't assassinated, it may have just remained as his name instead, even if octavian took his name on, it wouldn't have had the same effect as it did in real life.
@@templarkiller2926 Caesars assassination has nothing to do with the later title, imho. As soon as Caesar adopts Octavius he becomes Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus. Caesar became a title, because the Iulii managed to implement a de facto monarchy. And so Caesar became a title latest with Galba, who was not adopted. So the question is, what kind of constitution Caesar implements.
I think Caesar would spend more Time in Dacia, he spent 10 years in Gaul, it is safe to assume that this peace is only a temporary one, between 2-3 years or at least until he concludes his Parthian campaign, then I would probably venture to see Caesar trying to conqueror all of the Kingdom, after all that would get him another Triumph or two.
I agree. However, at this time, Caesar had the entire resources of Italy, the Greek states, Pergamum, and (probably) Egypt at his disposal while he could only muster resources from northern Italy for his Gallic wars, not to mention the massive experience gap as both Caesar and his commanders/officers were, by then, a veteran of various campaigns instead of bunch of inexperienced and untested men as they were in the beginning of Gallic wars. I think Caesar could conclude the Dacian campaign much faster, although not in mere months as suggested in this video.
I disagree. Considering Trajan's two wars each took only one year and in this TL, Caesar was only aiming to take territory south of the Danube (whose inhabitants hated the Dacians). Hence, with Dacia's internal strife, it's very realistic that they would fold in exchange for nominal independence.
@@WR288 First of all both Dacian wars took 2 campaigning seasons, not 1 like in this video. And the 1st war also ended with Rome only annexing the territories south of the Danube. When Trajan crossed the Danube in 101 he only got extremely lucky at Tapae when it started to storm and the Dacians withdrew out of superstition. The Roman casualties were great enough and the campaign drawn-out enough to force Trajan back across the Danube to wait out the winter and prepare for the next year. The 2nd war also didn't go super smoothly, beyond occupying the capital the Romans suffered considerable losses in numerous skirmishes throughout Dacia. Even after the king had killed himself to prevent capture by the Romans the individual tribes kept fighting on.
If the map is true even half of Thrace was not captured by the Romans yet. As Dacians are Thracians, the video makes wild assumptions that the Southern Thracians will not cease the opportunity to attack Caesar in the back.
fun fact: did you knew that Roman army, after the first Daco-Roman wars, had to rethink their whole armor (from shields to shoulder to head protection) because of how deadly the Dacian Falx was as a weapon?
@@ozgurpeynircinot true. The thing was that the war was in dacian soil essentialy... At some point the dacian allies started to get restless and looking for ways to pull out of the war.
@@ryanwells1484 wow, slow down, Mongols are about 12 centuries later :p The ripple effects of conquering Parthia may very well have entirely changed the life of the Nomad tribes of mongolia ^^
@@greywolf845 thanks for appreciating the detail and thought that went in to this. Also do feel free to share around on social media and reddit as it always helps the channel
In my own opinion, to be more "realistic" I think this alternate timeline of Ceasar's Invasion of Dacia is too short if he decided to attack the capital than just seizing and capturing the southern part of the kingdom for Rome.. I believe it might take 4-7 years due to the fact of his experience in Gaul and my belief of this delay because of long sieges, political maneuvers, alliances, temporary peace talks, etc.. Just look at Gaul for example, in fact in the map Gaul and Dacia looks similar in size and Dacia is united under one king at the start of the war compared to unorganized tribalistic Celts in the Gallic campaign..
What made Gual so tedious to conquer was the fact that it was made up of small independent tribes. Ceasar had to painstakingly conquer each tribe individually. I.e. Until they united against him, which ended things faster. Dacia was already united.
Tyler Durden only recently united- if the Dacian king dies then Caesar has the same problem all over again- additionally the Gauls were at their most effective when they were united
I don't believe that the outcome will be 100% total victory for Caesar, the Dacians would be able to cut their supplies easily, also in 101-102, 105-106 in the Dacian Roman wars, there are writings mentioning a traitor that helped the romans get to Sarmisegetusa through a mountain path. Also, the Romans improved their equipment during Trajan's campaign, because they needed extra protection against the Dacian falx, Caesar's army doesn't have the later empire equipment improvement. Burebista was also a very good strategist, I believe that if they would get Caesar to march through the mountains, it would have been Teutoburg all over again. Given these facts, I really believe that the odds could go either way. Also, Dacia was never totally conquered by the Romans. They got just 25% of the Dacian land after the Trajan's Campaign.
Invicta Would you say that there is fair argument to be made for Lepidus as Caesar’s right hand man, as opposed to Mark Antony, who as previously mentioned, completely botched the situation in Rome while Caesar was in Greece and Asia Minor
44 B.C. - Lucius Verenus accompanies Caesar to the Senate and, completely ignoring an old crone who tries to attract his attention, enters the building with Caesar and Marcus Antonius. Caesar wins the Senate's near-unanimous approval for his Dacian and Parthian campaigns. All except Cicero and Cato back him. These last two are later seen slinking out of the Senate with their heads bowed.
The Dacian Kingdom was much more organized than Gaul, being a singular sovereign state. And outside opposition I feel would only unite them more. I feel like this war may have been a little rougher for Caesar than portrayed with the siege of the mountain fortress of Sarmizegetusa being a stalemate that would last past the campaigning season. Caesar may have taken tribute and liberated the coast but I feel like most of Moesia wouldn't go to him. The Dacians after he left would be set on a course of "modernization" as they were after the first attempt of invasion of Dacia with engineers being imported and more Romanesque equipment being made for their men. I think that they could have developed into a longstanding rival after this. And who knows, Burebista may well have been a tribal uniter/conquering figure on par with Genghis Khan given his impressive unification and territorial gains which are a bit larger than shown in the video and been able to give Caesar a run for his money especially if he had support from outside Sarmatian tribes as Decebalus had later.
Graham Perkins I think you paint an idyllic picture of the Dacian state, it was far from stable and the king was heavily opposed by the nobles. Caesar was also an expert at pitting it local leaders against Each other. He also had 16 battle hardened legions at his disposal, and the entire resources of the republic from Hispania to Egypt. There is no scenario where he doesn’t conquer Dacia in it’s entirety.
@@LouisKing995 I agree with GP - I think it would have been impossible to achieve all this in a few months. Probably in a few years but not in a few months. Caesar fought in Gaul for what, 8 years, albeit with fewer legions. Sarmisegetuza is surrounded by mountains and forests and there are only two passes to get there. Perfect places for ambushes. See what happened to Cornelius Fuscus at Tapae.
@ Graham Perkins you are right, the battle would have lasted longer but as Trajan won against Decebal in the end, I think Caesar would have won too against Burebista.
@@V.D.22 Traian had the force of the Roman empire at his peak while Decebal had only half o Burebista's strength. At the time of the Burebista , the dacian kingdom was at his peak. And Burebista was also prepairing heavily for this war. I heard many experts that said this would have been the biggest clash o 2 civillisations until that point.
I think it’s not that he’s lost interest, it’s that his videos are taking a lot longer due to the fact that he’s already done a lot of the most common “what if’s” and a lot of historical changes would result in similar changes that he’s already gone over. I think in one of his most recent videos he basically said that he can’t just narrow down one or two changes because everything will change.
Yo, Caesar fucked up romans by declaring himself emperor, Roman Empire was more stable, tolerable and competent during the republic, he never thought about what would happened if he will die, what will be of the empire if his successors will be unable to rule or if they will be too weak to control such an immense empire, just because 1 man has exceptionally capabilities of ruling a great empire, that doesn't mean his dynasty and future successors can do the same.
@@notyourdaddude1957 they literally chose their heir based on there likely hood to be a good imperator commodus was the exception and ended the empires golden age but that’s 300 years later
@Edbotikx Old enough to be mature about it. Like dude come on if you don't find a joke funny can't you just fuck off? Stop ruining other peoples mood, parasite.
If you ever have more Ideas about Alt History, I'd gladly watch those any day. your videos on Antiquity are absolute masterpieces, it really uncovers a mostly unknown world to the public, even I consider myself a History buff, but I still learn alot with your videos (I particularly love the early Rome days videos, the kingdom and all, it really shows how they advanced at a quick rate in comparison to our germanic tribal kingdom ancestors) I won't say "Don't Stop" because you also have a life to live, but I'd say, any video you do is a welcome surprise :) Have a good one !
I don't know man. The Dacians were far more organized, and better armed and trained than the Gauls. I think you don't give them enough credit. Their main centers were also highly fortified with stone walls.
well they fell pretty easily when Rome actually turned its sights into them so there's that... the most deciding factor was apparently that they were less numerous, and didn't have the extensive network of allies Rome had, no matter how good and organized they were they never had a chance as a small, isolated territory vs the mightiest continental power of that age.
@@admontblanc To you 3 wars, 2 dead governors a few lost eagles,2 defeats and the largest most well equiped army rome ever mustered with armour upgraded just to counter the dacian falx is prety easy? Excuse me general knowitall may I have your autograph? :)
Hi, nice video. I agree with most of the video, but let's not forget that Dacia was not Gaul, and Burebista was no fool. Dacia was a unified kingdom kingdom, ruled by a strong hand from Sarmisegetuza. Burebista proved himself a good conqueror, as he managed to defeat many tribes in the east, including celts, fight the Sarmatians in the north and conquer the greek cities. It's kind of hard to believe that Caesar will manage to disunite the kingdom, as all chieftains pledged under Burebista. In fact, the only reason they united was because of the threath of the Boii, whom they later defeated.
@@InvictaHistory Burebista's case was a mixture of Caesar and Alexander. He was assassinated by the nobles because his plans were too ambitious. He planned of invading Crimea and engaging the kingdoms along the Black Sea. I believe that, seeing the threath that was Caesar such actions would dissapear.
Though Ceaser would've definitely won the campaign, I feel like the war would've definitely been a bloody one. As stated in the video the falx was a very good weapon when fighting the romans, that's why during Trajan's wars they adopted the manica and modifed the helmets. Also the dacians were good metal workers and many had access to weapons and armor so they would've been quite tough to defeat.
The falx was good at going against armor; but for repeated use and war, was still inferior to the roman gladius and scutum. It is in the nature of of how the blade is curved forward, it has it's advantages and disadvantages, on certain youtube sword and smithy channel conversations. Sure, you could pierce more of the Roman armor in a swinging blow; but at what cost vs sword options in your fight when they are attacking yourself with the gladius? I am not sure it is the best trade off there. I think the Gladius would be able to position itself to beat out more soldiers than the other way around against the falx and shield, if everything was equalized.
@@adrianbundy3249 One handed falxes do exist, and i feel like a dacian oval shield and a one handed falx is a better combo than a gladius and scutum. You can't really chop with a gladius. You can't cleave through shields, you can't chop armour.....The gladius was used mostly for stabbing, and maybe some light slashing. The falx could chop, slash, and that curved tip can REAAALLY puncture stuff.
@@adrianbundy3249 Given its inward curvature, I think one aspect many people overlook when looking at the falx is that the wielder could also pull it backward from behind the enemy's shield, grabbing arms, legs and necks along the way, not just hacking at the enemy armor and shield like an axe.
Caesar would’ve lost, Trajan had to throw everything at Dacia, that’s when the Roman empire was at the strongest during Trajan reign, now imagine what Dacia would’ve been able to do when Burebista was king, during his time, Dacia was 3x in size and army, there’s absolutely no way that Caesar could’ve won.
Interesting video and I enjoyed it but I'll have to disagree on some things. 1. You were right about the Greek cities probably falling easy but maybe not all. Dacians, unlike the Celtic and Germanic the Romans fought, actually had a bit more experience and technology in siege warfare. It's quite possible that the taking of the Greek cities would have taken the Romans up until the end of the year to accomplish. 2. While this was going on it's very likely based on both the actual Dacian wars and latter resistance against the Ottomans by the country's descendants, that the Dacians would have been raiding south of the Danube while this went on. It may have even prompted a general Illyrian uprising as well. 3. This scenario where the Romans would have taken villages one by one that you propose is also highly unlikely. From what we saw with the Dacians/Getae when Alexander fought them, and before that when the Persians were near the Danube, the Dacians would have practiced extensive scorched earth tactics. There wouldn't have been any villages to plunder by the Romans. Which leads me to my next point. 4. Caesar sieging the capital...which was on top of a mountain...in the middle of Dacia...which would have had it's resources depleted/moved due to scorch earth strategy...highly unlikely. And the defenses are not the Celtic wood/mud bog fortlets of Gaul. These were technologically advanced walls. The fact of the matter is when Trajan defeated Decebal, Rome was much stronger than during the time of Caesar and Dacia was much weaker than in the time of Burebista. So this scenario sees a weaker Rome (relative to it's future self) to a stronger Dacia (relative to it's future self.) At most I think Caesar could have had some success with the coastal cities simply due to their navy, and he might march around a bit building some bridges and hitting some minor settlements, but then retreat south of the Danube and declare himself winner.
The second point is completely unimportant, and you are greatly overestimating the resilience of Dacia as a united state. Once the aristocrats understand that caesar does not want to subjugate them, they are going to push for peace. A centralized monarchy is the greatest threat to the aristocracy. Also Caesar had way more experience than Trajan.
@@thedripkingofangmar6778 Second point is not unimportant because it shows how the people there fight with the geography they have. You're just assuming the aristocrats would do X because...? Caeser has more experience based on what?
@@seraphbasarab7383 because they actually did it in real life? Also we don't really know exactly when Burebista was killed, depending on the month he might be already dead when Caesar arrives in Dacia. Caesar had a lot more experience than Trajan, by 44 BCE he had fought in every corner of the mediterranean, in Gaul and in Britain.
I love the artwork of the sadly missed Peter Connolly, shown at times in the footage. His groundbreaking artistic reconstructions of Roman armour and military buildings brought Ancient Rome visually into the modern world, not to forget his other fantastic work on the Greeks and Cartheginians, on Rome and Athens. Peter Connolly was an artist and historian extraordinaire, sadly underrated by many and mistaken as an author of books for children, but highly appreciated by those who recognized the importance of his work for experimental archaeology.
I saw you mentioned that Cesar would have won the sige of Sarmisegetuza, but keep in mind one thing. Tranjan struggled with conquering the city because of it's fortifications and defensive chockepoints. The only reason he won was, because of a traitor who consipired against Decebal (the king of dacians in the Ost century BC). He told the romans about the water supply of the city, which they immediatly vut off. At least that is what our Romanian history books tells us. I think that you needed to put a little more emphasys on the siege, because, the romans weren't advanced millitary as they we're in the 1st century BC. Also according to historycal records, after the first Roman-Dacian the romans adapted to the Phalx weapons by increasing the thickness of their armor. You can check historical data here if you want, there are many evidence regarding this aspect. To be honest I think a more plausible time line will be on the same line as Trajan had, and Cesars campaign to Parthian will be delayed or it will never happen.
I'd be very interested in a How They Did It episode about how armies of such size would be amassed via draft, conscription, mercenaries, voluntary, etc.
@@eduardokiryu5456 To be honest, being assassinated added him even more recognition and popularity to his title of legendary conqueror, if he wouldn't have been assassinated, he wouldn't have been such a badass nowadays, that's what made Alexader the Great even more Great, his sudden death brought him even more power and popularity.
I'm so happy that one of my favorite history channels does a video on an unknown topic like this. I know that Historia Civilis mentioned it, but still. Can't wait for Part 2, and if this becomes another Siege of Jerusalem, I will be PISSED.
man the audio qaulity has gotten so good compared to these older ones. super blessed to have the mic qaulity up to the same amazing qaulity that the content has always been too
An interesting video but, I think you underestimate Burebista, I mean he had an army of 200000(one of the biggest in europe at that time) and he didn't take greek polis to plunder them but to adopt greek technology giving them full autonomy. In war between Trajan and Decebalus dacians used greek and roman tactics. Because of falx sword Trajan needed to adopt special equipment for his legions in invasion of Dacia. Anyway Burebista managed to unite all dacians so he was not an average general. And in order to invade Dacia, Caesar needed to send most of his army, it s not like he could send his army at once on sea.
In comparison to the troops Caesar would be bringing in his planned 16 legion campaign... They would have less per soldier against Rome than the Gaul's did, per legionaire. Sure, they would have more than the gauls did overall; but Caesar would have a lot more legionaires. That has to count for a lot. So maybe it goes even more smoothly for Caesar than it did in Gaul. Vercingetorix was not a fool either; he proved his competence and had experience in a lot of other fights before his showdown with Caesar too.
@@adrianbundy3249 Burebista was a far more experienced general than Vercingetorix; he started as the chieftan of one Dacian tribe and through wars and intimidation he managed to unite them all. Thus becoming a true king. Not only that, but after uniting the Dacians he started wars against some of the Celtic tribes that were in the area (some were completely massacred, like the Boii or Taurisci) and after doing that he started expanding his kingdom by conquering neighbouring tribes who were not in fact Dacians (like the Iazyges). His army was vast, well trained, battle hardened and knew the terrain. So, theoretically, the campaign would have been much harder than the one against the Gauls. I don't see how Rome could have defeated him in several months, considering that about 150 years later it took the Romans 5 years to defeat it and Decebalus didn't have even close to the territory or the resources that Burebista had. BUT, and that is very important, Burebista was an impopular king. Most Dacian tribes only followed him out of fear and given the opportunity, I think many of them would have defected. So if Caesar would have been a good diplomat (and we knew he was) many of those well trained soldiers of Burebista might actually end up fighting against him. Proof of that is the very fact that Burebista was assasinated by his nobles.
Mihai Cuc It would have been harder than Gaul....but Caesar conquered Gaul with newly minted legions and only the resources of northern Italia at his back, and if we are to believe ancient sources (which I assume you do since you cited an army of 200,000 for the Dacians) then at Alesia, Caesar faced a similar number of Gauls and in doing so he pulled of, perhaps, the most sophisticated combination of siege and pitched battle ever. For his Dacian campaign he would have 16 battle hardened veteran legions and the entire resources of the republic, from Hispania to Egypt at his back. Yes it would be harder than Gaul, but ceasar would have more resources than he did in Gaul, better soldiers than he did in Gaul, and Much more experience than he did in Gaul AND more experience than Trajan had when he invaded Dacia. Also, as you alluded to, Dacia was not politically stable, the nobles could be influenced, and Ceasar was very good at playing factions of against each other.
@@LouisKing995 I do agree, for the most part; I think Caesar would have won in the end, one way or another, if he was determined enough. I think the core of matter is: how much would Burebista have been able to keep his army loyal. If the tribes remained loyal, then there is no way Caesar would have won in several months. Dacia's terrain is rugged and at the time it was covered by vast forrests (more than 80%, by some estimates). Dacian army was big and let's not forget that it was kept on almost constant fighting by Burebista for almost 4 decades. So they were very experienced. Again, I'm not saying that Caesar would have lost, but they were much better than anything the Gauls had so a win in several months is out of the question. The terrain in Dacia was such that they could even avoid being seen by Caesar in that time. They could have just waited for the winter and attack the Romans then; fighting in winter time was in fact a preferred tactic of the Dacians, they often raided their neighbours during winters, while the Romans never did (unless they had to). But if the Dacian army would have been disloyal, then anything might have happened. And I think Caesar would have played this card; it is simple, very effective and he has done it numerous times throughout his life.
Mihai Cuc Oh I agree it wouldn’t be quick, we are talking about a fully armed kingdom who’s likely witnessed the Romans savage the mediterranean, Gaul and Macedon for half a century. They’d be on guard and I doubt the Dacians would give Ceasar a decisive battle if they could help it. But in the end he’d win, and it would be worth the slogz. honestly spending the time conquering Dacia and absorbing into the empire fully would have been far more worthwhile than trying to subdue Parthia. Dacia is much closer to home and much easier to Integrate into Roman life imo, Dacian falxmen would have complimented the legions well. Dacia could be made into a Roman province fairly rapidly, indeed like it was under Trajan centuries later. And all that gold baby. Parthian lands would be far from Rome and costly to maintain, much better to fortify that frontier imo, but Roman generals were plagued by the desire to emulate Alexander and I suppose Crassus had to be avenged.
Happy to hear you talking about one of the groups of people that formed the Romanian nation. I'm hoping that in the future you will make a documentary about the Dacian Wars or about emperor Trajan because for such an important Roman Emperor there are no documentaries about him on UA-cam.
So the good news is that this is awesome and I love it. The bad news is that I misread when it had been published and thought the other parts would have been released, instead, I now have to wait...I WANT IT NOW!
YESSS!!!!! I've never clicked faster on a video. The video I never knew I needed but that hits my history nerd itch in all the right places. Was just thinking about his siege of alesia last night.
One of my favorite things about history is alt history, what could have been different at the turning points of history like this one. Really excited to see this channel cover that now!
In the First Dacian War, the Dacians and their Sarmatian allies were able to cross the Danube River in winter while it was frozen and attack the Roman holdings. They ended up killing the governor and capturing various legionary eagles. They also tried to replicate this in the future war but bad weather and the fact that Trajan was now expecting this so he succesfully prevented it. Something like this would have surely happened in this hypothetical scenario and because Caesar wouldn't really be aware of this kind of stratagem he might be caught of guard. The Dacians and Sarmatians could thus ravage Dobrogea and part of Northern Thrace and severely hurt his supply lines which would prompt him to retreat. However, the success of this operation would really depend on the weather (if it is cold enough for the Danube to freeze properly) and also whether Caesar is able or not to forsee this. I doubt the famous general would be so easily defeated but hey, you don't know. At the very least what the Dacians could hope for in a best case scenario is an inconclusive war that would be followed by a future more decisive one. It is also worth mentioning that the Dacians were under the leadership of Burebista, a very competent statesmen that not only managed to unite the Dacians but also managed to win the allegiance of other nations (the Germanic Marcomani and the Sarmatians). Because of that he might be able to count on their aid. If the war in Dacia would last too long, the Marcomani might exploit Roman absence and attack Noricum and Pannonia. Additionally, the Parthians might also attack Syria.
I think you're underestimating the Dacians here a bit. In stark contrast to the Gauls they were more united still and could and would react more decisively to a roman invasion. For example, why would they not harass and attack the Romans already, when the latter try to cross the Danube? And how does Caesar get through the ancient forest and the carpatian mountains? Have you ever been there. Its fucking beautiful, but to people who fear dark, ancient forest full of barbarians, these places can be scary as hell. And if the Romans feared the forest of Germania, this region would be the same. With the added obstacle of a big mountain chain with tricky weather. Sieging Sarmizegetusa should also be harder compared the siege of Alesia. The latter isn't as big of a fortress in my opinion. And the Dacian's probably won't need as much time to arrive there as the allied gaulic forces needed. To the contrary, the big dacian army would probably be there in very advantageous positions. How is Caesar building his lines of walls like he did at Alesia? He wouldn't have the time and would face a better organized and more cohesion against a foreign foe. The dacians wouldn't even need to engage him in a big field battle. They could constantly use hit and run tactics on his army, knowing the terrain and weather way better, using both to their advantage. They probably would have an easier time as well crossing the mountains attacking and cutting Caesars supply chains. And on top of that, we haven't even talked about that these tribes could be very mobile if they had to be. The Dacian would probably have more than enough time to supply Sarmizegetusa well for the warriors, evacuating the women and children to a safe place for the time being. Because the time the romans would need to cross the mountain towards the capital, especially while being heavily harassed, would easily be enough to do that. Not to mention that heavy harrassing while crossing the mountain by a foe so numerous and well organized as the Dacians were could even mean, that the Romans had to withdraw here. Getting to Sarmizegetusa from the east is way harder compared to coming from the west in my opinion. So i really really doubt that this campaign you're describing here would work out for Caesar. It might be something different if he manages to come from the west. But coming from the east, crossing the Carpatian mountains, no way he does that easily in any way shape or form. The mountains are like a massive natural wall, where the Dacians have all the advantages. The higgest mountain is 2600 m. Thats over twice as high compared to any mountain range the roman legions had to face in Germania accept for the Alpes in the south of course. So the Dacians would surely use that terrain as well. The mountains and forests are the real defense of the capital for an army coming from the east. These mountain are also not a really good terrain for big field battles. So the major and biggest strength of the roman legions falls flat on its face here.
Yes that's shat I thought as soon as I clicked this WHAT IF ALEXANDER DIDN'T DIE! Then he would of taken the world. Rome might of not happened the way it did
@@shaolindreams he had been a lot of times before his dead (you can search for that), and there were no advanced medical treatment back then, it makes a lot of sense that he may had gotten sick and die young. Before vaccination, some wounds are lethal enough, tho the infection of disease might no spread quickly into the body.
@@netbotcl586More likely for some commoner.. We are talking about a King of a vast empire here.. He had the best treatment possible at that time. You do realise that this subject has not been proven either way and is unknown? and that it's been a highly contentious debate between historians over the centuries on how he died. So for us it's still a mystery. There's is even a new theory that suggests he suffered from a rare autoimmune disorder known as Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). The conqueror exhibited strange symptoms, including fever, abdominal pain, and progressive paralysis that left him immobile but still completely sound mentally just eight days after falling ill.
you have to read more about the Sarmisegetusa s walls. and remember that the dacian beat romans once and the empire paid tribute after that. Eventually the romans defeated the dacians only by betrayl and they conquered only a quarter of the territory which included the gold mines that saved the empire economy. And I really like your work, keep adding more videos related to history.
Some historical estimates even pointed to the Dacians being able to field around 250000 men, which would make an invasion of the kingdom quite hard. Trajan needed around 200000 troops to conquer a smaller and less united Dacia, so for Caesar to be able to conquer the territory with less than 100000 people seems unrealistic. There's also a difference in resources : while Gaul is pretty poor in metals, Dacia had plenty of it, which made it easier for Dacians to produce large quantities of weapon and armor. Historically, when the Romans invaded Dacia, they also had to deal with Scythians/Sarmatians, who also sought to have influence around the Greek colonies. The territory is called Scythia Minor for a reason. After a Dacian campaign, another one in Parthia would have been suicidal, even if Caesar had succesful in his war against Burebista.
*Lepidus, was the ultimate "yes man", he survive during so many conflicts, only to become the biggest joke in roman history, forgotten during Cesar Gaelic wars, forgotten during Cesar/Pompeii wars, forgotten during Octavian mark Anthony wars, and forgotten when Octavian became Emperor, later had his titles taken away from him and vanish from society, only to be remember as someone serving under everyone else.*
I don't believe the Dacians would simply allow the Romans to construct a massive bridge across the Danube river, they were all fully united, and Burebista was a smart military leader, the construction of that bridge would DEFINITELY be slowed down significantly.
I am failing to see how it would end up any different though than when he crossed the Rhine. Where they any more intelligent than the Germans? Besides, Caesar's incredible engineering corp he relied on so much, seemed to construct these bridges at speeds that shocked everyone else.
@@adrianbundy3249 The germans had very little iron in their native homeland. Clubs and spears were the most common, axes sitting just behind. Armour was very rarerly used, but even then, it was made out of leather. If you were very rich, hell, you could get some chainmail, but that was rare too. Shields of the common folk were made out of hide covered wicker, wooden shields with iron bosses being used only by the noblemen. Basically, the average germanic infantry man would get: -Light tunic and pants -Hide covered wicker shield -Spear, club, or axe While the average dacian infantry man would get: -Light tunic and pants -leather scale armour -wooden shield -one handed falx or a celtic sword -Sica dagger The germans had very little variety when it comes to equipment. The primary weapon of a typical warrior would be, as stated before, an axe, club, or spear,while the average dacian soldier could choose between a spear, a club, an axe, a two handed falx, a one handed falx, a billhook, and a sword. The dacians also had siege weapons, unlike the germans.
Burebistas kingdoms western and northern parts included quite a few conquered germanic tribes, wich immediatley rebelled after his death reducing the size of his kingdom to half. I think his situation(militarily) would have been worse than Decebalus's. not to mention romans could make a boat bridge, or sneakily cross like they did in/from britain.
As a descendant of the Dacians, I can confirm one aspect: that they were quite stubborn and unruly. Trait they passed down, to some extent, to the romanian people. As you pointed out in your scenario, it is a double edged sword. We love to resist and remain disdainful of "the other". It could have meant resistance to the romans as well as splitting away from the other damn tribe. The latter is more likely. The only thing keeping today's romanians together is the civilization we inherited from the romans. To summarize the dacian substrate of our national spirit: "Cine sunt ei, si de ce sa ma conduca pe mine?" ("Who are they, and why should they rule me?"; the they is quite broad) Edit: not saying they were stupid. Or small people. Oh, no. No, no. Not the dacians. Just foolishly stubborn, next to everything that was good.
How they were stubborn? They accepted a foreign language far to easily and how are romanians decented from dacians? How did they inherit their stubborness since they literally gave half their country up during ww2?
@@obiwankenobi7731 your medieval military authors commonly reffered to the "vlachs" (who also called themselves "daci") as untrustworthy, as they "betrayed their own" and took a foreign language. By stubborn I meant being non cooperative, even with your own kin. Sometimes especially with your own kin. Here, it still is "every man for himself". We couldn't have been otherwise, ever since. Always getting stomped by barbarians and imperialists, helping to drive them out and then still getting the short end of the stick.
Vlachs didn't call themselves daci They were from many peoples Some were dacians but many more were greeks They were untrustworthy because they betrayed us at least the non greek ones There were many more greek vlachs than now inside romania but their governments romanified them The first revolt before the greek revolution was in moldovlachia not greece itself
I love a good "What If" regardless if whether it's a story or a part of history. I will always read it or listen to it and enjoy it. Like I did with this video. Nice job whoever made it.
Julius Caesar Depends, West or East? One helped the other decay and lived some time before some rando Turks from Asia would come and extinguish them. A glorious continuation to be sure and definitely more inclusive but Romans against Romans is something no Caesar would ever wish on the Roma for the West, or Hellas for the East
@Invicta, really love your videos. I'm a history lover, specially that time period and cannot say enough good things about both your videos, the research put in, the way you deliver it...everything. I wish I had more income because I would definitely donate if I could. Such good work with a clear and concise way of delivering on ineresting topics.
You are half right Argedava was the capital however Burebista moved the capital sometime during his reign to Sarmizegetuza. So by the time this campaign would of started, the capital of the Dacian kingdom would be Sarmizegetuza.
Mihai Martinas comment like yours, too much chauvinism and senseless nationalism. “Everything” used to be Romanian, all that bs. And may be i am Romanian:)
As a Romanian, i had to learn a lot about Dacian history in school. Even though I went to school after the communist era, the revisionist history that was thought in schools prevailed for a while and what I learned is a blend between version of histories. The communist version was that the Dacian people were demigods and the rest of the world were savages and the current version of history which is much more tame and in line with the general world view. Like the flat earthers, there's a group that believe that Rome never conquered Dacia and it was all a big historic lie, which in my opinion is total nonsense, however that's what some people in my country consider and are poisoning facts with bad fiction. Anyway, as an artist what I find really intriguing is the process of the Romanian etnogenesis, the blend between two totally different cultures that started with the Trajan conquests in the beginning of the second century and ended with the Aurelian retreat over 150 years later. This period had such a powerful impact on our society that even two thousand years later we are still speaking a version of vulgar Latin, while being geographically surrounded by countries that speak mostly Slavonic tongues. We can even call it an almost complete assimilation in the roman ethos. However linguistic research suggest that we still use few words of Dacian descent like abur (steam), barza (stork), mazare (peas), viezure (badger), buza (lip), etc, so we can actually talk about a disproportionate blend of cultures. I wonder how was this colonization so fast and successful in such a short time span, especially that there's a theory that the Aurelian retreats were not only military, but populous too.
Remember that Constantine I also reconquered Dacia. I forget how and why the Romans abandoned it a second time in 350 AD, losing it forever. The Roman Empire, since adopting Greek as their language (though ancient Latin had left its mark on its government), almost had the region of Dacia (by then, Wallachia and Transylvania) back when Manuel I Comnenus had gotten the large medieval Kingdom of Hungary under its hegemonic sphere and almost joined the two realms via political marriage between his daughter and Hungarian Prince Bela "Alexius" (having been raised in Roman court he was both Hungarian and Roman in heritage) before such plans fell through with the birth of Alexius II. Had this plan succeeded, and Manuel exacted justice on his treasonous brother Andronicus (Manuel was too soft on him despite accounts of treason), then history would have been VERY different. (Andronicus would assassinate Alexius II when he was 10 years old, and this would cause a chain of events that led to the 1204 Sack and Partition of the Roman Empire by Enrico Dondollo and the rogue Fourth Crusade)
After the assassination of Julius Nepos, the institution of two emperors was legally abolished, so that there would only be one Roman Empire thence. Beginning about 200 years after 480, the Roman Empire began to phase out Latin in the government in favor of the Greek language that the native Hellene lands they governed spoke. Some time in the 500's the Papacy began to draft a forgery called the Donations of Constantine, saying that the Bishop of Rome, that is the Pope, inherited Imperial powers over the Christian Church as given to them on the deathbed of Constantine I (as the Roman Imperial Church was seen as the only real church in the eyes of the Roman Empire's legality, truthfully this is bollocks as Christianity transcends Roman borders but also it was Theodosius that created the Roman Imperial State Church some decades after Constantine). The Donations of Constantine would allow the legal BS for the Papacy to crown Karl Karling the Great as the Holy Roman Emperor of a new Western Empire of the Romans, something that would be supported by Imperial Christians as the Roman Empire based from the Marmara was undergoing its radical Iconoclast period (very unpopular among the people).
www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_romandacian. So Dacia was part of Rome for about 20 years and you claim that Latin influence have marked that region for 2000 years, even if that region has been ruled for centuries by other nations afterwards. This is remarkable claim... and you share both traction and roman blood... This is just very very curious. And you don't question the origins of this story since you yourself said that before and after communism you got different versions of your origins? what makes you think that you have the right version now days?
I don't think that Caeser would have ran into as many fortified areas in Dacia as Trajan did because Domitian didn't send the military aid to Dacia yet
The thing is the Dacians fought the Romans in pitched battles during the Dacian wars 4 TIMES: 3 times at Tapae (massacring the Roman Army led by Cornelius Fuscus the first time and inflicting heavy losses during the other 2 engagements) and once at the bloody battle of Adamclisi where there were over 4000 dead Romans and the the wounded were so many that Trajan tore his clothes to pieces for bandages. The thing is back then the conclusion of a battle was decided by morale and the Dacian morale was very high because of their religion (they considered death a liberation followed by a happy eternal afterlife alongside the Dacian god Zalmoxis, especially if it was glorious, and literally held big happy parties when someone died and mourned any birth). Moreover, the Dacian falx was clearly not a thing the play with. So, if Ceasar was going to conquer Dacia and defeat the 100000 men strong Dacian army, he would've done it while stepping over a very big pile of corpses.
The fortifications we see in the Dacian Wars of Trajan were built using funds and engineers from Rome following a previous war between the two realms. Caesar's advance would not have been hampered by nearly the same degree of fortified resistance, as Rome had at this point not yet ceded engineers and funds for Dacia to build those fortifications in the first place.
Great video. I think Caesar would be more likely to keep attacking smaller tribal settlements and homelands, one or two at a time, instead of going after the capital so soon. The Dacian king could not hold together his fragile alliance when the tribes around him saw their homelands burned and their people enslaved. I believe the Dacian confederation would've splintered, and Caesar could more easily defeat them in detail before moving on Sarmizgetusa in early 43 BCE, triumphing over a force far smaller and demoralized than his own.
I agree. I believe he would've been patient and did as you said. The campaign season would've ended and he'd spend that time manipulating things to his advantage and preparing. Then come back the next time the campaign season rolls around in a few months time and crush them in one swift stroke. I don't think he would've settled for anything less than total victory and Dacia's conquest and submission.
The fact that Caesar wanted to attack Parthia too still needs to be considered. He wouldn’t want to put the time into continuing to conquer the Dacian tribes one by one. Also, Caesar has always been quick in strategy, so in a case where he has a timetable (he needs to attack Parthia too), there is no reason to believe that rule wouldn’t hold
The dacians were fanatics when it comes about theyr freedom. I believe that Burebista was killed shortly after Caesar because the nobles needed in him in the possible war against Caesar. Even if we dont have many records about Burebista campaigns, we can assume he was a brilliant general. Dacia was the second power in Europe at that time. Caesar would had have a hard time in Dacia
I feel like you sorta undersold the dacians on their actual fighting capabilities. Trajan during his war with dacia had far more troops and resources than Caesar, not to mention a FAR weaker Dacian state. Oh and also the dacians borders streched a tad further at this point în history, specifically Galicia was the most northern region, a majority of Bulgaria was owned, a majority of Serbia was also owned, and it West westwards all the way around Tyrol, the Dacian Kingdom was more of an empire at this time and were known as some of The fiercest warriors în The world since they literally believed themselves immortal so breaking a Dacian line or demoralizing them was a lot harder than usual, not to mention as you said, the falx, which you mentioned but didn't Take into account how the falx could injure or even kill a roman soldier în a single hit. This really felt like a romaphiliac video seeing how some of The campaign went, alike the idea the dacians, the guys who were so scary the pannonians joined rome for protection against them, would be able to really be taken out so easily
New Romanian Mapper /NRM Caesar conquered all of Gaul with guppy legions and the resources of merely northern Italy. He could have conquered Dacia with 16 veteran legions and the entire resources of the Republic, he was in an entirely different league to Trajan.
If I’d been Emperor, I’d have chopped down all the trees in Germany and made my northern border into a short eastern border. Manpower? A few thousand people in the 19th century removed forests spanning tens of thousands of square miles using just axes: took them one generation.
I think a Roman could have come up with the same plan. How would you secure those operations. Introducing you to the Hari, the ghost warriors, the wild hunt.
@@kesorangutan6170 Pretty correct. But there´s more. I live near the old Limes (only a few Km away) and you can see the way the Romans did build here how they intented to use this area. This wasn´t a full blown colonisation, this was intended as a buffer zone. And that despite vast iron ore deposits on both sides of the Limes (even today you are able to find occasionally manganese nodules lying on the surface). But the terrain, even without forests would have greatly hampered the Roman Army. Same goes for Dacia. The later conquest of Dacia under Trajan can be easily considered as one of the greatest feats of the Imperium Romanum - and to leave and reorganise the area in the next century says a lot. One of the things many people don´t know is that the Picts reguarly raided the British Isles from the sea even under the Romans. That would have been an interesting thing to see what would have happened if the empire didn´t crumble. And just another remark - I would have liked to see what would have happened if the Romans would have tried to march through Scythia with the plan stated in above video. That could have been pretty well the end of any ambitions in this area. And I don´t think Parthia would have been easy either.
@@zoetropo1 What? I don´t think you´ve read or understood my comment in any way. Did I say anything about Romans to be wimps? In any way? Or that they couldn´t operate under cold weather? They did it here for two hundred years with some success and it was primarily the internal strife that caused them to retreat.
You cannot cross the carpathians with an army if its passes are defended. The Soviet Union didnt even manage that, I doubt an ancient army could do it. Not that goimg around them from the southwest would be particularly hard.
Given JC’s chronic issues with his subordinates, I’d imagine that as he expanded into Dacia, Parthia, and beyond, and stretched his command resources more and more, he would have had numerous internal issues which would weaken the integrity of the state as a whole. It may have simply crumbled and fragmented the way Alexander’s empire did following his own death, and may have spelled the early demise of the Roman Empire. The fact that JC’s death left a power vacuum which only Octavian was competent enough at the time to seize control of had the effect of unifying Rome, in a way, under his leadership. Had this not happened when it did, there’s no reason to assume that more competent and reconciled powers wouldn’t have been nurtured. A well-contested Octavian may have split Rome into an alternate civil war that was not so easily dealt with. The result of this could have been the end of Rome, as we know it-and by extension, the end of western civilization as we know it.
@@eliaswewel3899 Keep in mind though that solid plate armor was still around 1000 years away from that point.Most legionnaires at the time used the lorica hamata (mail) and perhaps an early form of the lorica segmentata (soft iron laminar cuirass). I say perhaps for the latter because the earliest finds and depictions are from around 3-4 decades before Caesar would have tried this campaign.
Part 3 is out (at long last): ua-cam.com/video/UYE3RU_U9BA/v-deo.html
I’d be out of a job
Haha.
I'am sure Octaviano would have you as his co consul.
Don't worry mate, Ceasar is still looking for someone to replace Labienus ;)
Naaaahh, you're probably gonna be with Octavian. Oh. And don't die during the great Illyrian revolt this time.
I love everything about this thread
"Minor inconvenience" brought a smile to my face
@@freckleheckler6311 because it wasn't a minor inconvenience in real life mate he fucking died
'Tis but a scratch
Last time I was this early, Rome was a kingdom.
that's pretty damn early goddamn
Last time I was this early Rome was a Greek colony.
Danx Tgcad Was it one before it was a Kingdom?
Last time when I was so early Romulus and Remulus sucked wolf's tits
@@2yoyoyo1Unplugged Probably, yes
women going back in time " i am your granddaughter"
men going back in time "caesar leave three days early and tell no one not even brutus"
Or even better and easier just tell him what modern dictators be doing
Tell Spurrina to be less vague about all this.
"here, have one of these. It's called a 'cheeto.'"
"Invest in Bitcoin"
@@calvinhuynh2016 invading the 2nd largest state in Europe and fail miserably
Any ideas on what should transpire next episodes? Sepcifically:
1. How would Caesar settle affairs in Dacia prior to his departure?
2. How does Caesar celebrate his triumph?
3. What are the political developments in Rome upon Caesar's return?
4. What do preparations look like for the Parthian campaign?
All of them
Congratulations on making yet again another great video, I find your content really interesting.
Could you please make more videos about Dacia?
Thanks again
@@aoh4844 Thanks for the support, please do share around on social media as it definitely helps. Regarding Dacia, I'll eventually cover Trajan's Dacian wars. More immediately however I think I am working on a new series on Units of History and can dedicate an episode to discussing the Falxmen of Dacia.
I'm surprised you don't think Caesar would pull a Gaul and Annex the whole thing. That said, you obviously know more of Caesar then I do. Do you think any of the Dacian tribes would have been vassal states/tributaries/allies of Rome in the aftermath?
I mean of course the ones not in Moesia.
Would it be settling affairs in dacian (likely going simalary to historical events) checking up in Rome (another triumph likely overdone to quell any social unrest among plebians and warn his rivals and giving Octavian some sort of title to show some support and raise his prestige in preparation for greater roles) then preparing for the parthian campaign possibly with Egyptian support through political ties and assemblies legions in Greece for the March forming a sort of two pronged attack (from Egypt in the south and Roman provinces in the north)
You should also do a 'What if Alexander had survived longer' not only might the empire had stayed together for longer, but he also had plans to conquer Arabia, and go westward with plans as far as Britannia
Britannia? You got to be kidding lmao
@@Erg893 Nonetheless it's true. The Greeks of Alexander's age knew more of the world than most people think. Although I agree it is unlikely he would have conquered it
@@TheVanillaBoy8 There's a book called the Macedonian Inheritance by Eric Flint which puts a 21st century Cruiser into the Ptolemaic Setting and Shatter War by Dana Fitzgerald that has time rift. The Macedonian Inheritance is more setting than plot, but it has some EXCELLENT descriptions.
And the Greeks, including the Silver Shields travel to the New World.
@@MedjayofFaiyum Thank you, I read a lot of alternate history novels and always look for more, though it's hard to come upon good alt-history books. I'll look into this
ViceroyJocks One of the reasons why Alexander is held in such high regards is also because he died so young, if he died at 60-70 after making mistakes not sure that his glory would be the same, imagine if Napoleon died at the top of his power in July 1807, before making his mistakes we'd be looking at him as an indeniable genius
Shakespeare would have been unhappy about that.
Context?
@@mojojojo6758 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_(play) this probably
Daniel Pavlick why?
Et tu Bruté?
@@zorronegro229 I'm just thinking we would've missed out on Antony's speech, the whole drama with Brutus and Cassius, in short, an amazing play.
Here’s a simple question: what would have happened to the “title” of Caesar?
Caesar was not a title initially, but a cognomen. If Caesar adopts Octavius, he will change his name as IRL. But if Caesar could become a title in this alternate history depends on the constitution implemented by Caesar and his successors.
Wel when his nephew took over after he died Agustus was the name of emperor and Caesar was the name
Of the next emperor so I’m assuming it would be the reverse or similar by ceasar would be the title for next emperors and not agustus
@@frankneugebauer6455 I think what he means is that Caesar kind of became a sort of martyr when he was assassinated, and Octavian taking the title to honor him eventually leads to it becoming an actual title, but if caesar wasn't assassinated, it may have just remained as his name instead, even if octavian took his name on, it wouldn't have had the same effect as it did in real life.
@@templarkiller2926 Caesars assassination has nothing to do with the later title, imho. As soon as Caesar adopts Octavius he becomes Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus. Caesar became a title, because the Iulii managed to implement a de facto monarchy. And so Caesar became a title latest with Galba, who was not adopted.
So the question is, what kind of constitution Caesar implements.
If he wouldn't have messed up to badly then Czars would still have been Czar and Kaiser would have still been Kaiser.
I think Caesar would spend more Time in Dacia, he spent 10 years in Gaul, it is safe to assume that this peace is only a temporary one, between 2-3 years or at least until he concludes his Parthian campaign, then I would probably venture to see Caesar trying to conqueror all of the Kingdom, after all that would get him another Triumph or two.
I agree. However, at this time, Caesar had the entire resources of Italy, the Greek states, Pergamum, and (probably) Egypt at his disposal while he could only muster resources from northern Italy for his Gallic wars, not to mention the massive experience gap as both Caesar and his commanders/officers were, by then, a veteran of various campaigns instead of bunch of inexperienced and untested men as they were in the beginning of Gallic wars.
I think Caesar could conclude the Dacian campaign much faster, although not in mere months as suggested in this video.
I disagree. Considering Trajan's two wars each took only one year and in this TL, Caesar was only aiming to take territory south of the Danube (whose inhabitants hated the Dacians). Hence, with Dacia's internal strife, it's very realistic that they would fold in exchange for nominal independence.
@@WR288 First of all both Dacian wars took 2 campaigning seasons, not 1 like in this video. And the 1st war also ended with Rome only annexing the territories south of the Danube.
When Trajan crossed the Danube in 101 he only got extremely lucky at Tapae when it started to storm and the Dacians withdrew out of superstition. The Roman casualties were great enough and the campaign drawn-out enough to force Trajan back across the Danube to wait out the winter and prepare for the next year.
The 2nd war also didn't go super smoothly, beyond occupying the capital the Romans suffered considerable losses in numerous skirmishes throughout Dacia. Even after the king had killed himself to prevent capture by the Romans the individual tribes kept fighting on.
If the map is true even half of Thrace was not captured by the Romans yet. As Dacians are Thracians, the video makes wild assumptions that the Southern Thracians will not cease the opportunity to attack Caesar in the back.
I thought he spent 6 years in Gaul?
fun fact: did you knew that Roman army, after the first Daco-Roman wars, had to rethink their whole armor (from shields to shoulder to head protection) because of how deadly the Dacian Falx was as a weapon?
Esatto
doesn't matter rome simply could human wave endlessly to the last greek and iberian.
@@ozgurpeynircinot true. The thing was that the war was in dacian soil essentialy... At some point the dacian allies started to get restless and looking for ways to pull out of the war.
Last time I was this early I was still 5th in line to be emperor
Turn into a gourd, Claudius!
Then obviously we would have colonized the galaxy... right?
Th3 Kool Aid Man until the mongols came later... then they would
Have been fucked either way lolol
All things in good time.
@@ryanwells1484 wow, slow down, Mongols are about 12 centuries later :p The ripple effects of conquering Parthia may very well have entirely changed the life of the Nomad tribes of mongolia ^^
@Hernando Malinche technically they did, and were called Huns ^^
@LineOfCars He still is. At least hes twisted biography is:
www.amazon.com/Jesus-Was-Caesar-Christianity-Investigative/dp/9059113969
Oh boy, delving into some alternate history I see...I am proud.
Yeah it started off as a shower thought, then a doodle on a board, then an episode, and now a full blown mini-series!
@@InvictaHistory Well hey, good for you! I think this is very unique and studied alternative history, and also very creative!
@@InvictaHistory Im wholheartedly supporting this
@@greywolf845 thanks for appreciating the detail and thought that went in to this. Also do feel free to share around on social media and reddit as it always helps the channel
In my own opinion, to be more "realistic" I think this alternate timeline of Ceasar's Invasion of Dacia is too short if he decided to attack the capital than just seizing and capturing the southern part of the kingdom for Rome.. I believe it might take 4-7 years due to the fact of his experience in Gaul and my belief of this delay because of long sieges, political maneuvers, alliances, temporary peace talks, etc..
Just look at Gaul for example, in fact in the map Gaul and Dacia looks similar in size and Dacia is united under one king at the start of the war compared to unorganized tribalistic Celts in the Gallic campaign..
What made Gual so tedious to conquer was the fact that it was made up of small independent tribes.
Ceasar had to painstakingly conquer each tribe individually. I.e. Until they united against him, which ended things faster.
Dacia was already united.
Tyler Durden only recently united- if the Dacian king dies then Caesar has the same problem all over again- additionally the Gauls were at their most effective when they were united
I don't believe that the outcome will be 100% total victory for Caesar, the Dacians would be able to cut their supplies easily, also in 101-102, 105-106 in the Dacian Roman wars, there are writings mentioning a traitor that helped the romans get to Sarmisegetusa through a mountain path. Also, the Romans improved their equipment during Trajan's campaign, because they needed extra protection against the Dacian falx, Caesar's army doesn't have the later empire equipment improvement. Burebista was also a very good strategist, I believe that if they would get Caesar to march through the mountains, it would have been Teutoburg all over again. Given these facts, I really believe that the odds could go either way. Also, Dacia was never totally conquered by the Romans. They got just 25% of the Dacian land after the Trajan's Campaign.
Part 2 is out: ua-cam.com/video/9vA_76jxMtY/v-deo.html
When will part 3 be out?
Invicta Would you say that there is fair argument to be made for Lepidus as Caesar’s right hand man, as opposed to Mark Antony, who as previously mentioned, completely botched the situation in Rome while Caesar was in Greece and Asia Minor
44 B.C. - Lucius Verenus accompanies Caesar to the Senate and, completely ignoring an old crone who tries to attract his attention, enters the building with Caesar and Marcus Antonius. Caesar wins the Senate's near-unanimous approval for his Dacian and Parthian campaigns. All except Cicero and Cato back him. These last two are later seen slinking out of the Senate with their heads bowed.
👍😷
@@wiseonwords Et tu
I like how, in the thumbnail, Ceaser is just standing there surrounded by question marks like some confused anime girl.
Someone should actually make that anime.
@@dg34895 Doesn't Sekkou Boys already exist?
@@dg34895 Its called unbiased history of rome. Try it. You won't regret it.
The Dacian Kingdom was much more organized than Gaul, being a singular sovereign state. And outside opposition I feel would only unite them more. I feel like this war may have been a little rougher for Caesar than portrayed with the siege of the mountain fortress of Sarmizegetusa being a stalemate that would last past the campaigning season. Caesar may have taken tribute and liberated the coast but I feel like most of Moesia wouldn't go to him. The Dacians after he left would be set on a course of "modernization" as they were after the first attempt of invasion of Dacia with engineers being imported and more Romanesque equipment being made for their men. I think that they could have developed into a longstanding rival after this. And who knows, Burebista may well have been a tribal uniter/conquering figure on par with Genghis Khan given his impressive unification and territorial gains which are a bit larger than shown in the video and been able to give Caesar a run for his money especially if he had support from outside Sarmatian tribes as Decebalus had later.
Graham Perkins I think you paint an idyllic picture of the Dacian state, it was far from stable and the king was heavily opposed by the nobles. Caesar was also an expert at pitting it local leaders against Each other.
He also had 16 battle hardened legions at his disposal, and the entire resources of the republic from Hispania to Egypt. There is no scenario where he doesn’t conquer Dacia in it’s entirety.
@@LouisKing995 I agree with GP - I think it would have been impossible to achieve all this in a few months. Probably in a few years but not in a few months. Caesar fought in Gaul for what, 8 years, albeit with fewer legions. Sarmisegetuza is surrounded by mountains and forests and there are only two passes to get there. Perfect places for ambushes. See what happened to Cornelius Fuscus at Tapae.
@ Graham Perkins
you are right, the battle would have lasted longer but as Trajan won against Decebal in the end, I think Caesar would have won too against Burebista.
@Transylvanian MGTOW monk who? me? yes
@@V.D.22 Traian had the force of the Roman empire at his peak while Decebal had only half o Burebista's strength. At the time of the Burebista , the dacian kingdom was at his peak. And Burebista was also prepairing heavily for this war.
I heard many experts that said this would have been the biggest clash o 2 civillisations until that point.
Today on Alternate History Hub “What if Julius Caesar wasn’t Assassinated”
Have they done an episode on this topic? I tried to look but didn't find it.
Invicta No. Kody is becoming less and less active unfortunately. Great video, I’d love to see more “what if” content like this, very detailed.
@@InvictaHistory I also want to see more what if videos, they're awsome!
I think it’s not that he’s lost interest, it’s that his videos are taking a lot longer due to the fact that he’s already done a lot of the most common “what if’s” and a lot of historical changes would result in similar changes that he’s already gone over. I think in one of his most recent videos he basically said that he can’t just narrow down one or two changes because everything will change.
Don't compare them lmao this is so much better
Then Marc Anthony would never say “And Brutus is an honourable man”
Maybe he would. You could not know.
Isn't that just a Shakespeare quote?
Marcvs Antonivs
"What if Julius Caesar Was Not Assassinated" no pls, dont give me hope
We have much more in store for us.
Gaivs Jvlivs Cæsar
Yo, Caesar fucked up romans by declaring himself emperor, Roman Empire was more stable, tolerable and competent during the republic, he never thought about what would happened if he will die, what will be of the empire if his successors will be unable to rule or if they will be too weak to control such an immense empire, just because 1 man has exceptionally capabilities of ruling a great empire, that doesn't mean his dynasty and future successors can do the same.
@@notyourdaddude1957 no
@@notyourdaddude1957 they literally chose their heir based on there likely hood to be a good imperator commodus was the exception and ended the empires golden age but that’s 300 years later
Caesar : I´m going to conquer the whole known world
Roman senators: we are going to end this man career
@Edbotikx It does
@Edbotikx Old enough to be mature about it. Like dude come on if you don't find a joke funny can't you just fuck off? Stop ruining other peoples mood, parasite.
If you ever have more Ideas about Alt History, I'd gladly watch those any day. your videos on Antiquity are absolute masterpieces, it really uncovers a mostly unknown world to the public, even I consider myself a History buff, but I still learn alot with your videos (I particularly love the early Rome days videos, the kingdom and all, it really shows how they advanced at a quick rate in comparison to our germanic tribal kingdom ancestors) I won't say "Don't Stop" because you also have a life to live, but I'd say, any video you do is a welcome surprise :) Have a good one !
I don't know man. The Dacians were far more organized, and better armed and trained than the Gauls. I think you don't give them enough credit. Their main centers were also highly fortified with stone walls.
well they fell pretty easily when Rome actually turned its sights into them so there's that... the most deciding factor was apparently that they were less numerous, and didn't have the extensive network of allies Rome had, no matter how good and organized they were they never had a chance as a small, isolated territory vs the mightiest continental power of that age.
@@admontblanc To you 3 wars, 2 dead governors a few lost eagles,2 defeats and the largest most well equiped army rome ever mustered with armour upgraded just to counter the dacian falx is prety easy? Excuse me general knowitall may I have your autograph? :)
Have you ever heard of...
THE ROMAN CATAPULT!
@Evermore good thing it's a joke then. :)
@Evermore Where i put what? The catapults or the joke like yourself.
Today we will be asking the question: when will Historia Civilis release the episode on the death of Caesar?
I'm sad to see this wasn't a collaborative effort
@@streetguru9350 Dude, that would have been amazing. I wanna see that now
@@streetguru9350 I'll try and reach out. Maybe we can collab for another episode in the series.
@@InvictaHistory If you do end up working together a bit you could always do a call reviewing the series on his channel or something.
@@InvictaHistory OH SHIT, also you could totally use Civilization, or like Age of Empires or something for visual aides
Hi, nice video. I agree with most of the video, but let's not forget that Dacia was not Gaul, and Burebista was no fool.
Dacia was a unified kingdom kingdom, ruled by a strong hand from Sarmisegetuza. Burebista proved himself a good conqueror, as he managed to defeat many tribes in the east, including celts, fight the Sarmatians in the north and conquer the greek cities. It's kind of hard to believe that Caesar will manage to disunite the kingdom, as all chieftains pledged under Burebista. In fact, the only reason they united was because of the threath of the Boii, whom they later defeated.
Although in real history Burebista was killed in 44 BC so there definitely was some underlying unrest to exploit
@@InvictaHistory Burebista's case was a mixture of Caesar and Alexander. He was assassinated by the nobles because his plans were too ambitious. He planned of invading Crimea and engaging the kingdoms along the Black Sea. I believe that, seeing the threath that was Caesar such actions would dissapear.
Though Ceaser would've definitely won the campaign, I feel like the war would've definitely been a bloody one. As stated in the video the falx was a very good weapon when fighting the romans, that's why during Trajan's wars they adopted the manica and modifed the helmets. Also the dacians were good metal workers and many had access to weapons and armor so they would've been quite tough to defeat.
The falx was good at going against armor; but for repeated use and war, was still inferior to the roman gladius and scutum. It is in the nature of of how the blade is curved forward, it has it's advantages and disadvantages, on certain youtube sword and smithy channel conversations. Sure, you could pierce more of the Roman armor in a swinging blow; but at what cost vs sword options in your fight when they are attacking yourself with the gladius? I am not sure it is the best trade off there. I think the Gladius would be able to position itself to beat out more soldiers than the other way around against the falx and shield, if everything was equalized.
@@adrianbundy3249 One handed falxes do exist, and i feel like a dacian oval shield and a one handed falx is a better combo than a gladius and scutum. You can't really chop with a gladius. You can't cleave through shields, you can't chop armour.....The gladius was used mostly for stabbing, and maybe some light slashing. The falx could chop, slash, and that curved tip can REAAALLY puncture stuff.
@@adrianbundy3249 Given its inward curvature, I think one aspect many people overlook when looking at the falx is that the wielder could also pull it backward from behind the enemy's shield, grabbing arms, legs and necks along the way, not just hacking at the enemy armor and shield like an axe.
Caesar would’ve lost, Trajan had to throw everything at Dacia, that’s when the Roman empire was at the strongest during Trajan reign, now imagine what Dacia would’ve been able to do when Burebista was king, during his time, Dacia was 3x in size and army, there’s absolutely no way that Caesar could’ve won.
Interesting video and I enjoyed it but I'll have to disagree on some things.
1. You were right about the Greek cities probably falling easy but maybe not all. Dacians, unlike the Celtic and Germanic the Romans fought, actually had a bit more experience and technology in siege warfare. It's quite possible that the taking of the Greek cities would have taken the Romans up until the end of the year to accomplish.
2. While this was going on it's very likely based on both the actual Dacian wars and latter resistance against the Ottomans by the country's descendants, that the Dacians would have been raiding south of the Danube while this went on. It may have even prompted a general Illyrian uprising as well.
3. This scenario where the Romans would have taken villages one by one that you propose is also highly unlikely. From what we saw with the Dacians/Getae when Alexander fought them, and before that when the Persians were near the Danube, the Dacians would have practiced extensive scorched earth tactics. There wouldn't have been any villages to plunder by the Romans. Which leads me to my next point.
4. Caesar sieging the capital...which was on top of a mountain...in the middle of Dacia...which would have had it's resources depleted/moved due to scorch earth strategy...highly unlikely. And the defenses are not the Celtic wood/mud bog fortlets of Gaul. These were technologically advanced walls.
The fact of the matter is when Trajan defeated Decebal, Rome was much stronger than during the time of Caesar and Dacia was much weaker than in the time of Burebista. So this scenario sees a weaker Rome (relative to it's future self) to a stronger Dacia (relative to it's future self.) At most I think Caesar could have had some success with the coastal cities simply due to their navy, and he might march around a bit building some bridges and hitting some minor settlements, but then retreat south of the Danube and declare himself winner.
I think it would have taken Ceasar at least 3 years to conquer most of Dacia.
Well if caesar controled the coastal provinces they would be able to supply his armies...
The second point is completely unimportant, and you are greatly overestimating the resilience of Dacia as a united state. Once the aristocrats understand that caesar does not want to subjugate them, they are going to push for peace. A centralized monarchy is the greatest threat to the aristocracy. Also Caesar had way more experience than Trajan.
@@thedripkingofangmar6778 Second point is not unimportant because it shows how the people there fight with the geography they have.
You're just assuming the aristocrats would do X because...?
Caeser has more experience based on what?
@@seraphbasarab7383 because they actually did it in real life? Also we don't really know exactly when Burebista was killed, depending on the month he might be already dead when Caesar arrives in Dacia.
Caesar had a lot more experience than Trajan, by 44 BCE he had fought in every corner of the mediterranean, in Gaul and in Britain.
I love the artwork of the sadly missed Peter Connolly, shown at times in the footage. His groundbreaking artistic reconstructions of Roman armour and military buildings brought Ancient Rome visually into the modern world, not to forget his other fantastic work on the Greeks and Cartheginians, on Rome and Athens. Peter Connolly was an artist and historian extraordinaire, sadly underrated by many and mistaken as an author of books for children, but highly appreciated by those who recognized the importance of his work for experimental archaeology.
I saw you mentioned that Cesar would have won the sige of Sarmisegetuza, but keep in mind one thing. Tranjan struggled with conquering the city because of it's fortifications and defensive chockepoints. The only reason he won was, because of a traitor who consipired against Decebal (the king of dacians in the Ost century BC). He told the romans about the water supply of the city, which they immediatly vut off. At least that is what our Romanian history books tells us. I think that you needed to put a little more emphasys on the siege, because, the romans weren't advanced millitary as they we're in the 1st century BC. Also according to historycal records, after the first Roman-Dacian the romans adapted to the Phalx weapons by increasing the thickness of their armor. You can check historical data here if you want, there are many evidence regarding this aspect. To be honest I think a more plausible time line will be on the same line as Trajan had, and Cesars campaign to Parthian will be delayed or it will never happen.
I'd be very interested in a How They Did It episode about how armies of such size would be amassed via draft, conscription, mercenaries, voluntary, etc.
This will be a great series
Can't wait for part 2! Excellent video bro!
Next video: Caesar dies in the most undignified and non-glorious way-Death by dysentery!
"Fever, dysentery, miasma, choking eating olives... but that's not a way for a great man to die so many theories about assassination arises"
death by snu snu! ...at the hands of Cleopatra
@@Raducu2oo5 I hate this comment
@@eduardokiryu5456 To be honest, being assassinated added him even more recognition and popularity to his title of legendary conqueror, if he wouldn't have been assassinated, he wouldn't have been such a badass nowadays, that's what made Alexader the Great even more Great, his sudden death brought him even more power and popularity.
I'm so happy that one of my favorite history channels does a video on an unknown topic like this. I know that Historia Civilis mentioned it, but still. Can't wait for Part 2, and if this becomes another Siege of Jerusalem, I will be PISSED.
WHAT IF the series never ends
@@InvictaHistory PLZ NO
Something tells me we'll be waiting forever for part 4/4
man the audio qaulity has gotten so good compared to these older ones. super blessed to have the mic qaulity up to the same amazing qaulity that the content has always been too
An interesting video but, I think you underestimate Burebista, I mean he had an army of 200000(one of the biggest in europe at that time) and he didn't take greek polis to plunder them but to adopt greek technology giving them full autonomy.
In war between Trajan and Decebalus dacians used greek and roman tactics. Because of falx sword Trajan needed to adopt special equipment for his legions in invasion of Dacia.
Anyway Burebista managed to unite all dacians so he was not an average general.
And in order to invade Dacia, Caesar needed to send most of his army, it s not like he could send his army at once on sea.
In comparison to the troops Caesar would be bringing in his planned 16 legion campaign... They would have less per soldier against Rome than the Gaul's did, per legionaire. Sure, they would have more than the gauls did overall; but Caesar would have a lot more legionaires. That has to count for a lot.
So maybe it goes even more smoothly for Caesar than it did in Gaul. Vercingetorix was not a fool either; he proved his competence and had experience in a lot of other fights before his showdown with Caesar too.
@@adrianbundy3249 Burebista was a far more experienced general than Vercingetorix; he started as the chieftan of one Dacian tribe and through wars and intimidation he managed to unite them all. Thus becoming a true king.
Not only that, but after uniting the Dacians he started wars against some of the Celtic tribes that were in the area (some were completely massacred, like the Boii or Taurisci) and after doing that he started expanding his kingdom by conquering neighbouring tribes who were not in fact Dacians (like the Iazyges).
His army was vast, well trained, battle hardened and knew the terrain. So, theoretically, the campaign would have been much harder than the one against the Gauls. I don't see how Rome could have defeated him in several months, considering that about 150 years later it took the Romans 5 years to defeat it and Decebalus didn't have even close to the territory or the resources that Burebista had.
BUT, and that is very important, Burebista was an impopular king. Most Dacian tribes only followed him out of fear and given the opportunity, I think many of them would have defected. So if Caesar would have been a good diplomat (and we knew he was) many of those well trained soldiers of Burebista might actually end up fighting against him. Proof of that is the very fact that Burebista was assasinated by his nobles.
Mihai Cuc It would have been harder than Gaul....but Caesar conquered Gaul with newly minted legions and only the resources of northern Italia at his back, and if we are to believe ancient sources (which I assume you do since you cited an army of 200,000 for the Dacians) then at Alesia, Caesar faced a similar number of Gauls and in doing so he pulled of, perhaps, the most sophisticated combination of siege and pitched battle ever.
For his Dacian campaign he would have 16 battle hardened veteran legions and the entire resources of the republic, from Hispania to Egypt at his back. Yes it would be harder than Gaul, but ceasar would have more resources than he did in Gaul, better soldiers than he did in Gaul, and Much more experience than he did in Gaul AND more experience than Trajan had when he invaded Dacia.
Also, as you alluded to, Dacia was not politically stable, the nobles could be influenced, and Ceasar was very good at playing factions of against each other.
@@LouisKing995 I do agree, for the most part; I think Caesar would have won in the end, one way or another, if he was determined enough.
I think the core of matter is: how much would Burebista have been able to keep his army loyal. If the tribes remained loyal, then there is no way Caesar would have won in several months. Dacia's terrain is rugged and at the time it was covered by vast forrests (more than 80%, by some estimates). Dacian army was big and let's not forget that it was kept on almost constant fighting by Burebista for almost 4 decades. So they were very experienced.
Again, I'm not saying that Caesar would have lost, but they were much better than anything the Gauls had so a win in several months is out of the question. The terrain in Dacia was such that they could even avoid being seen by Caesar in that time. They could have just waited for the winter and attack the Romans then; fighting in winter time was in fact a preferred tactic of the Dacians, they often raided their neighbours during winters, while the Romans never did (unless they had to).
But if the Dacian army would have been disloyal, then anything might have happened. And I think Caesar would have played this card; it is simple, very effective and he has done it numerous times throughout his life.
Mihai Cuc Oh I agree it wouldn’t be quick, we are talking about a fully armed kingdom who’s likely witnessed the Romans savage the mediterranean, Gaul and Macedon for half a century. They’d be on guard and I doubt the Dacians would give Ceasar a decisive battle if they could help it. But in the end he’d win, and it would be worth the slogz. honestly spending the time conquering Dacia and absorbing into the empire fully would have been far more worthwhile than trying to subdue Parthia. Dacia is much closer to home and much easier to Integrate into Roman life imo, Dacian falxmen would have complimented the legions well. Dacia could be made into a Roman province fairly rapidly, indeed like it was under Trajan centuries later. And all that gold baby. Parthian lands would be far from Rome and costly to maintain, much better to fortify that frontier imo, but Roman generals were plagued by the desire to emulate Alexander and I suppose Crassus had to be avenged.
Happy to hear you talking about one of the groups of people that formed the Romanian nation. I'm hoping that in the future you will make a documentary about the Dacian Wars or about emperor Trajan because for such an important Roman Emperor there are no documentaries about him on UA-cam.
I love this kind of alternate history series, please do more
So the good news is that this is awesome and I love it. The bad news is that I misread when it had been published and thought the other parts would have been released, instead, I now have to wait...I WANT IT NOW!
You are the first English speaker that pronounced correctly the word “Dacia”
Correctly? "Dachia" is so painful to hear.
I'm still gonna pronounce it Day-sha. So sorry...
Sorry. But I prefer Da-shia. It is easier to hear.
When one says Da-chia...... spit tends to fly out... sorry.
@@bobbyagbanlog4771 How the fuck are you talking that you spit when you make a ch sound?
YESSS!!!!! I've never clicked faster on a video. The video I never knew I needed but that hits my history nerd itch in all the right places. Was just thinking about his siege of alesia last night.
*sees invicta upload early*
*sees its Caesar*
*picks up my gladius and scutum*
Don't forget your pila and lorica hamata, friend.
Good. You'll make a fine legionnaire.
Gaivs Jvlivs Cæsar
Gladivs and Scvtvm
One of my favorite things about history is alt history, what could have been different at the turning points of history like this one. Really excited to see this channel cover that now!
In the First Dacian War, the Dacians and their Sarmatian allies were able to cross the Danube River in winter while it was frozen and attack the Roman holdings. They ended up killing the governor and capturing various legionary eagles. They also tried to replicate this in the future war but bad weather and the fact that Trajan was now expecting this so he succesfully prevented it.
Something like this would have surely happened in this hypothetical scenario and because Caesar wouldn't really be aware of this kind of stratagem he might be caught of guard. The Dacians and Sarmatians could thus ravage Dobrogea and part of Northern Thrace and severely hurt his supply lines which would prompt him to retreat. However, the success of this operation would really depend on the weather (if it is cold enough for the Danube to freeze properly) and also whether Caesar is able or not to forsee this. I doubt the famous general would be so easily defeated but hey, you don't know. At the very least what the Dacians could hope for in a best case scenario is an inconclusive war that would be followed by a future more decisive one.
It is also worth mentioning that the Dacians were under the leadership of Burebista, a very competent statesmen that not only managed to unite the Dacians but also managed to win the allegiance of other nations (the Germanic Marcomani and the Sarmatians). Because of that he might be able to count on their aid. If the war in Dacia would last too long, the Marcomani might exploit Roman absence and attack Noricum and Pannonia. Additionally, the Parthians might also attack Syria.
I tell you what'd happen, we'd all be speaking Latin, chilling in our togas, waiting for the latest Installment of popular FPS Call of Imperator.
Im more of a hearts of imperium kind of guy
"Caesar, who are you going to attack first...Dacia or Parthia?"
Caesar: "Yes."
Finally a video like that on UA-cam, for a Romanian that loves history this is 🤩
@@clairfayne phaha, the secuii people are not maghiars.
J Kindness Transylvania was never hungarian because the majority of people that lived in Transylvania in the last 19 centuries were always Romanians.
@@Stefanism I am confused so you claim to be from a Thracian origin but you speak a Latin language...? how come?
I think you're underestimating the Dacians here a bit. In stark contrast to the Gauls they were more united still and could and would react more decisively to a roman invasion. For example, why would they not harass and attack the Romans already, when the latter try to cross the Danube? And how does Caesar get through the ancient forest and the carpatian mountains? Have you ever been there. Its fucking beautiful, but to people who fear dark, ancient forest full of barbarians, these places can be scary as hell. And if the Romans feared the forest of Germania, this region would be the same. With the added obstacle of a big mountain chain with tricky weather.
Sieging Sarmizegetusa should also be harder compared the siege of Alesia. The latter isn't as big of a fortress in my opinion. And the Dacian's probably won't need as much time to arrive there as the allied gaulic forces needed. To the contrary, the big dacian army would probably be there in very advantageous positions. How is Caesar building his lines of walls like he did at Alesia? He wouldn't have the time and would face a better organized and more cohesion against a foreign foe. The dacians wouldn't even need to engage him in a big field battle. They could constantly use hit and run tactics on his army, knowing the terrain and weather way better, using both to their advantage. They probably would have an easier time as well crossing the mountains attacking and cutting Caesars supply chains.
And on top of that, we haven't even talked about that these tribes could be very mobile if they had to be. The Dacian would probably have more than enough time to supply Sarmizegetusa well for the warriors, evacuating the women and children to a safe place for the time being. Because the time the romans would need to cross the mountain towards the capital, especially while being heavily harassed, would easily be enough to do that. Not to mention that heavy harrassing while crossing the mountain by a foe so numerous and well organized as the Dacians were could even mean, that the Romans had to withdraw here. Getting to Sarmizegetusa from the east is way harder compared to coming from the west in my opinion.
So i really really doubt that this campaign you're describing here would work out for Caesar. It might be something different if he manages to come from the west. But coming from the east, crossing the Carpatian mountains, no way he does that easily in any way shape or form. The mountains are like a massive natural wall, where the Dacians have all the advantages. The higgest mountain is 2600 m. Thats over twice as high compared to any mountain range the roman legions had to face in Germania accept for the Alpes in the south of course. So the Dacians would surely use that terrain as well. The mountains and forests are the real defense of the capital for an army coming from the east. These mountain are also not a really good terrain for big field battles. So the major and biggest strength of the roman legions falls flat on its face here.
La stessa difficoltà lo ha trovato l'Impero Ottomano ,al tempo di Vlad Tepes, per le montagne CARPATI.,difficili di passare.
Excellent video!
This has brought a slight bit of joy to a seven hour car journey..
*thank you!*
What if Alexander didn't die mysteriously..
he didn't die mysteriously; he had been wounded multiple times from previous battles.
@@netbotcl586 What from 2 year old wounds? Where did you get that information from?
Yes that's shat I thought as soon as I clicked this WHAT IF ALEXANDER DIDN'T DIE! Then he would of taken the world. Rome might of not happened the way it did
@@shaolindreams he had been a lot of times before his dead (you can search for that), and there were no advanced medical treatment back then, it makes a lot of sense that he may had gotten sick and die young. Before vaccination, some wounds are lethal enough, tho the infection of disease might no spread quickly into the body.
@@netbotcl586More likely for some commoner.. We are talking about a King of a vast empire here.. He had the best treatment possible at that time. You do realise that this subject has not been proven either way and is unknown? and that it's been a highly contentious debate between historians over the centuries on how he died. So for us it's still a mystery. There's is even a new theory that suggests he suffered from a rare autoimmune disorder known as Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). The conqueror exhibited strange symptoms, including fever, abdominal pain, and progressive paralysis that left him immobile but still completely sound mentally just eight days after falling ill.
you have to read more about the Sarmisegetusa s walls. and remember that the dacian beat romans once and the empire paid tribute after that. Eventually the romans defeated the dacians only by betrayl and they conquered only a quarter of the territory which included the gold mines that saved the empire economy. And I really like your work, keep adding more videos related to history.
This is an amazing presentation. I look forward to the three other parts.
Thanks! I'm very excited to be putting this all together. Please do share on social media and reddit as well as it helps the channel out a great deal.
Just finished the biography of Julius Caesar by Philip Freeman. Thanks for retconning the ending and giving me a Season 2 to look forward to.
Some historical estimates even pointed to the Dacians being able to field around 250000 men, which would make an invasion of the kingdom quite hard.
Trajan needed around 200000 troops to conquer a smaller and less united Dacia, so for Caesar to be able to conquer the territory with less than 100000 people seems unrealistic.
There's also a difference in resources : while Gaul is pretty poor in metals, Dacia had plenty of it, which made it easier for Dacians to produce large quantities of weapon and armor.
Historically, when the Romans invaded Dacia, they also had to deal with Scythians/Sarmatians, who also sought to have influence around the Greek colonies. The territory is called Scythia Minor for a reason.
After a Dacian campaign, another one in Parthia would have been suicidal, even if Caesar had succesful in his war against Burebista.
I agree but this was caesar you never know. The man did a siege inside a siege for a battle.
*Lepidus, was the ultimate "yes man", he survive during so many conflicts, only to become the biggest joke in roman history, forgotten during Cesar Gaelic wars, forgotten during Cesar/Pompeii wars, forgotten during Octavian mark Anthony wars, and forgotten when Octavian became Emperor, later had his titles taken away from him and vanish from society, only to be remember as someone serving under everyone else.*
He was also an excellent commander. More capable than Anthony.
I don't believe the Dacians would simply allow the Romans to construct a massive bridge across the Danube river, they were all fully united, and Burebista was a smart military leader, the construction of that bridge would DEFINITELY be slowed down significantly.
We found the Romanian
I am failing to see how it would end up any different though than when he crossed the Rhine. Where they any more intelligent than the Germans? Besides, Caesar's incredible engineering corp he relied on so much, seemed to construct these bridges at speeds that shocked everyone else.
The Doom From Latveria exactly
@@adrianbundy3249 The germans had very little iron in their native homeland. Clubs and spears were the most common, axes sitting just behind. Armour was very rarerly used, but even then, it was made out of leather. If you were very rich, hell, you could get some chainmail, but that was rare too. Shields of the common folk were made out of hide covered wicker, wooden shields with iron bosses being used only by the noblemen.
Basically, the average germanic infantry man would get:
-Light tunic and pants
-Hide covered wicker shield
-Spear, club, or axe
While the average dacian infantry man would get:
-Light tunic and pants
-leather scale armour
-wooden shield
-one handed falx or a celtic sword
-Sica dagger
The germans had very little variety when it comes to equipment. The primary weapon of a typical warrior would be, as stated before, an axe, club, or spear,while the average dacian soldier could choose between a spear, a club, an axe, a two handed falx, a one handed falx, a billhook, and a sword. The dacians also had siege weapons, unlike the germans.
Burebistas kingdoms western and northern parts included quite a few conquered germanic tribes, wich immediatley rebelled after his death reducing the size of his kingdom to half. I think his situation(militarily) would have been worse than Decebalus's.
not to mention romans could make a boat bridge, or sneakily cross like they did in/from britain.
Great video dude. Can't wait for the next one.
As a descendant of the Dacians, I can confirm one aspect: that they were quite stubborn and unruly. Trait they passed down, to some extent, to the romanian people. As you pointed out in your scenario, it is a double edged sword. We love to resist and remain disdainful of "the other". It could have meant resistance to the romans as well as splitting away from the other damn tribe. The latter is more likely. The only thing keeping today's romanians together is the civilization we inherited from the romans.
To summarize the dacian substrate of our national spirit: "Cine sunt ei, si de ce sa ma conduca pe mine?" ("Who are they, and why should they rule me?"; the they is quite broad)
Edit: not saying they were stupid. Or small people. Oh, no. No, no. Not the dacians. Just foolishly stubborn, next to everything that was good.
Romanians: we would have civil war.
Serbs:HOLD MY SHLJIVOVICA!
How they were stubborn?
They accepted a foreign language far to easily and how are romanians decented from dacians?
How did they inherit their stubborness since they literally gave half their country up during ww2?
@@GrimFaceHunter I guess we all got it in us out here, brother.
"When I taste rakija
In my head ANARHIJA" :))
@@obiwankenobi7731 your medieval military authors commonly reffered to the "vlachs" (who also called themselves "daci") as untrustworthy, as they "betrayed their own" and took a foreign language. By stubborn I meant being non cooperative, even with your own kin. Sometimes especially with your own kin. Here, it still is "every man for himself". We couldn't have been otherwise, ever since. Always getting stomped by barbarians and imperialists, helping to drive them out and then still getting the short end of the stick.
Vlachs didn't call themselves daci
They were from many peoples
Some were dacians but many more were greeks
They were untrustworthy because they betrayed us at least the non greek ones
There were many more greek vlachs than now inside romania but their governments romanified them
The first revolt before the greek revolution was in moldovlachia not greece itself
I love a good "What If" regardless if whether it's a story or a part of history. I will always read it or listen to it and enjoy it. Like I did with this video. Nice job whoever made it.
I was just thinking about this yesterday. Stop reading my mind Invicta
this is awesome man keep up the good work.
Yes finally a what if video👍👍👍👍👍
Yeah Chad Caesar is back baby!
The chad caeser, the virgin cataphract......
Oh I am
Julius Caesar
A bit of advice, try giving away Judea to someone else before their followers infect Roman citizens in a few years time
*Improved the lives of
Julius Caesar Depends, West or East? One helped the other decay and lived some time before some rando Turks from Asia would come and extinguish them. A glorious continuation to be sure and definitely more inclusive but Romans against Romans is something no Caesar would ever wish on the Roma for the West, or Hellas for the East
@Invicta, really love your videos. I'm a history lover, specially that time period and cannot say enough good things about both your videos, the research put in, the way you deliver it...everything. I wish I had more income because I would definitely donate if I could. Such good work with a clear and concise way of delivering on ineresting topics.
Sarmizegetuza was Decebalus capital not Burebista's his was Argedava near Bucharest
You are half right Argedava was the capital however Burebista moved the capital sometime during his reign to Sarmizegetuza. So by the time this campaign would of started, the capital of the Dacian kingdom would be Sarmizegetuza.
Stupid romanian, dacians have nothing in common with you, and dont correct something nobody cares
@@biggiesmalls3847 what is your problem with the romanians??
Mihai Martinas comment like yours, too much chauvinism and senseless nationalism. “Everything” used to be Romanian, all that bs. And may be i am Romanian:)
@@biggiesmalls3847 well... F bine fratica! 👍
Brilliant idea for a series! Keep up the great work!
As a Romanian, i had to learn a lot about Dacian history in school. Even though I went to school after the communist era, the revisionist history that was thought in schools prevailed for a while and what I learned is a blend between version of histories. The communist version was that the Dacian people were demigods and the rest of the world were savages and the current version of history which is much more tame and in line with the general world view. Like the flat earthers, there's a group that believe that Rome never conquered Dacia and it was all a big historic lie, which in my opinion is total nonsense, however that's what some people in my country consider and are poisoning facts with bad fiction.
Anyway, as an artist what I find really intriguing is the process of the Romanian etnogenesis, the blend between two totally different cultures that started with the Trajan conquests in the beginning of the second century and ended with the Aurelian retreat over 150 years later. This period had such a powerful impact on our society that even two thousand years later we are still speaking a version of vulgar Latin, while being geographically surrounded by countries that speak mostly Slavonic tongues. We can even call it an almost complete assimilation in the roman ethos. However linguistic research suggest that we still use few words of Dacian descent like abur (steam), barza (stork), mazare (peas), viezure (badger), buza (lip), etc, so we can actually talk about a disproportionate blend of cultures.
I wonder how was this colonization so fast and successful in such a short time span, especially that there's a theory that the Aurelian retreats were not only military, but populous too.
Remember that Constantine I also reconquered Dacia. I forget how and why the Romans abandoned it a second time in 350 AD, losing it forever. The Roman Empire, since adopting Greek as their language (though ancient Latin had left its mark on its government), almost had the region of Dacia (by then, Wallachia and Transylvania) back when Manuel I Comnenus had gotten the large medieval Kingdom of Hungary under its hegemonic sphere and almost joined the two realms via political marriage between his daughter and Hungarian Prince Bela "Alexius" (having been raised in Roman court he was both Hungarian and Roman in heritage) before such plans fell through with the birth of Alexius II. Had this plan succeeded, and Manuel exacted justice on his treasonous brother Andronicus (Manuel was too soft on him despite accounts of treason), then history would have been VERY different. (Andronicus would assassinate Alexius II when he was 10 years old, and this would cause a chain of events that led to the 1204 Sack and Partition of the Roman Empire by Enrico Dondollo and the rogue Fourth Crusade)
@@RC15O5 Do you mean the Eastern or Western Roman Empire? The Western Roman Empire spoke Latin, and the Eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek.
After the assassination of Julius Nepos, the institution of two emperors was legally abolished, so that there would only be one Roman Empire thence. Beginning about 200 years after 480, the Roman Empire began to phase out Latin in the government in favor of the Greek language that the native Hellene lands they governed spoke.
Some time in the 500's the Papacy began to draft a forgery called the Donations of Constantine, saying that the Bishop of Rome, that is the Pope, inherited Imperial powers over the Christian Church as given to them on the deathbed of Constantine I (as the Roman Imperial Church was seen as the only real church in the eyes of the Roman Empire's legality, truthfully this is bollocks as Christianity transcends Roman borders but also it was Theodosius that created the Roman Imperial State Church some decades after Constantine). The Donations of Constantine would allow the legal BS for the Papacy to crown Karl Karling the Great as the Holy Roman Emperor of a new Western Empire of the Romans, something that would be supported by Imperial Christians as the Roman Empire based from the Marmara was undergoing its radical Iconoclast period (very unpopular among the people).
www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_romandacian. So Dacia was part of Rome for about 20 years and you claim that Latin influence have marked that region for 2000 years, even if that region has been ruled for centuries by other nations afterwards. This is remarkable claim... and you share both traction and roman blood... This is just very very curious. And you don't question the origins of this story since you yourself said that before and after communism you got different versions of your origins? what makes you think that you have the right version now days?
I was waiting for this kind of series for so long !! Thank you
I’m glad I found this after historia civillis video - rip Caesar
Excellent work Sir.
Love how you broke it down to understandable parts for everyone.
Great what if on Caesar.
In an alternate universe:
Invicta - What if Julius Caesar Was Assassinated?
Great video, loved it
I'm a simple Romanian: I see Dacia on the thumbnail, I click
And then you get colonized.
Great job!!!
"Non mihi, Caesar." - Brutus
Fantastic work! Keep it up!
I don't think that Caeser would have ran into as many fortified areas in Dacia as Trajan did because Domitian didn't send the military aid to Dacia yet
Thoroughly enjoyed.
The thing is the Dacians fought the Romans in pitched battles during the Dacian wars 4 TIMES: 3 times at Tapae (massacring the Roman Army led by Cornelius Fuscus the first time and inflicting heavy losses during the other 2 engagements) and once at the bloody battle of Adamclisi where there were over 4000 dead Romans and the the wounded were so many that Trajan tore his clothes to pieces for bandages. The thing is back then the conclusion of a battle was decided by morale and the Dacian morale was very high because of their religion (they considered death a liberation followed by a happy eternal afterlife alongside the Dacian god Zalmoxis, especially if it was glorious, and literally held big happy parties when someone died and mourned any birth). Moreover, the Dacian falx was clearly not a thing the play with.
So, if Ceasar was going to conquer Dacia and defeat the 100000 men strong Dacian army, he would've done it while stepping over a very big pile of corpses.
The fortifications we see in the Dacian Wars of Trajan were built using funds and engineers from Rome following a previous war between the two realms. Caesar's advance would not have been hampered by nearly the same degree of fortified resistance, as Rome had at this point not yet ceded engineers and funds for Dacia to build those fortifications in the first place.
Great video. I think Caesar would be more likely to keep attacking smaller tribal settlements and homelands, one or two at a time, instead of going after the capital so soon. The Dacian king could not hold together his fragile alliance when the tribes around him saw their homelands burned and their people enslaved. I believe the Dacian confederation would've splintered, and Caesar could more easily defeat them in detail before moving on Sarmizgetusa in early 43 BCE, triumphing over a force far smaller and demoralized than his own.
I agree. I believe he would've been patient and did as you said. The campaign season would've ended and he'd spend that time manipulating things to his advantage and preparing. Then come back the next time the campaign season rolls around in a few months time and crush them in one swift stroke. I don't think he would've settled for anything less than total victory and Dacia's conquest and submission.
The fact that Caesar wanted to attack Parthia too still needs to be considered. He wouldn’t want to put the time into continuing to conquer the Dacian tribes one by one. Also, Caesar has always been quick in strategy, so in a case where he has a timetable (he needs to attack Parthia too), there is no reason to believe that rule wouldn’t hold
The dacians were fanatics when it comes about theyr freedom. I believe that Burebista was killed shortly after Caesar because the nobles needed in him in the possible war against Caesar. Even if we dont have many records about Burebista campaigns, we can assume he was a brilliant general. Dacia was the second power in Europe at that time. Caesar would had have a hard time in Dacia
One of the 'What If's' I wanted for so long. Thank you.
15:42 When you start speaking Sims
I absolutely love this channel, It's so informative and interesting
I feel like you sorta undersold the dacians on their actual fighting capabilities. Trajan during his war with dacia had far more troops and resources than Caesar, not to mention a FAR weaker Dacian state. Oh and also the dacians borders streched a tad further at this point în history, specifically Galicia was the most northern region, a majority of Bulgaria was owned, a majority of Serbia was also owned, and it West westwards all the way around Tyrol, the Dacian Kingdom was more of an empire at this time and were known as some of The fiercest warriors în The world since they literally believed themselves immortal so breaking a Dacian line or demoralizing them was a lot harder than usual, not to mention as you said, the falx, which you mentioned but didn't Take into account how the falx could injure or even kill a roman soldier în a single hit. This really felt like a romaphiliac video seeing how some of The campaign went, alike the idea the dacians, the guys who were so scary the pannonians joined rome for protection against them, would be able to really be taken out so easily
In other words, rome would fall to goths faster.
New Romanian Mapper /NRM Caesar conquered all of Gaul with guppy legions and the resources of merely northern Italy. He could have conquered Dacia with 16 veteran legions and the entire resources of the Republic, he was in an entirely different league to Trajan.
Lovely, I can't wait for the next episodes :D
If I’d been Emperor, I’d have chopped down all the trees in Germany and made my northern border into a short eastern border. Manpower? A few thousand people in the 19th century removed forests spanning tens of thousands of square miles using just axes: took them one generation.
I think a Roman could have come up with the same plan. How would you secure those operations. Introducing you to the Hari, the ghost warriors, the wild hunt.
@@kesorangutan6170 Pretty correct. But there´s more. I live near the old Limes (only a few Km away) and you can see the way the Romans did build here how they intented to use this area. This wasn´t a full blown colonisation, this was intended as a buffer zone. And that despite vast iron ore deposits on both sides of the Limes (even today you are able to find occasionally manganese nodules lying on the surface).
But the terrain, even without forests would have greatly hampered the Roman Army.
Same goes for Dacia.
The later conquest of Dacia under Trajan can be easily considered as one of the greatest feats of the Imperium Romanum - and to leave and reorganise the area in the next century says a lot.
One of the things many people don´t know is that the Picts reguarly raided the British Isles from the sea even under the Romans. That would have been an interesting thing to see what would have happened if the empire didn´t crumble.
And just another remark - I would have liked to see what would have happened if the Romans would have tried to march through Scythia with the plan stated in above video. That could have been pretty well the end of any ambitions in this area. And I don´t think Parthia would have been easy either.
Thorsten Frank: Terrain? Romans are wimps? They built fortifications throughout the Alps.
@@zoetropo1 What? I don´t think you´ve read or understood my comment in any way. Did I say anything about Romans to be wimps? In any way?
Or that they couldn´t operate under cold weather? They did it here for two hundred years with some success and it was primarily the internal strife that caused them to retreat.
good job, you just created some nice open plain
now run! the scythians,alans,sarmatians are moving in on the new steppe-land.
Great video!
You cannot cross the carpathians with an army if its passes are defended.
The Soviet Union didnt even manage that, I doubt an ancient army could do it.
Not that goimg around them from the southwest would be particularly hard.
Given JC’s chronic issues with his subordinates, I’d imagine that as he expanded into Dacia, Parthia, and beyond, and stretched his command resources more and more, he would have had numerous internal issues which would weaken the integrity of the state as a whole. It may have simply crumbled and fragmented the way Alexander’s empire did following his own death, and may have spelled the early demise of the Roman Empire. The fact that JC’s death left a power vacuum which only Octavian was competent enough at the time to seize control of had the effect of unifying Rome, in a way, under his leadership. Had this not happened when it did, there’s no reason to assume that more competent and reconciled powers wouldn’t have been nurtured. A well-contested Octavian may have split Rome into an alternate civil war that was not so easily dealt with. The result of this could have been the end of Rome, as we know it-and by extension, the end of western civilization as we know it.
This dude literally made a video one of the viewers suggested in a matter of days.
11:00 cleaving through armor is an overstatement
Agreed. You can pierce plate armor (through it's very hard) but cleaving through solid plate with only musclepower is impossible
@@eliaswewel3899 Keep in mind though that solid plate armor was still around 1000 years away from that point.Most legionnaires at the time used the lorica hamata (mail) and perhaps an early form of the lorica segmentata (soft iron laminar cuirass). I say perhaps for the latter because the earliest finds and depictions are from around 3-4 decades before Caesar would have tried this campaign.
I thought this was an AlternateHistoryHub video
You make some very good arguments👍
I am hooked, can't wait for your next step👌
Yes. Approved, stamped and granted.
Finalyyyyyy been waiting so Long for this
"Et tu, Brute, contra me?"
I wish I had an UNO reverse card.
Also, my last words were not "E tu, Brute." I just said, "You asshole".