you're reading...

Reportajele mele

Cand a fost cucerita Sarmizegetusa Regia?


De ce oamenii mari isi pierd timpul cu intrebari la mintea copiilor? Ia orice scolar si o sa-ti spuna ca romanii i-au invins pe daci in doua razboaie succesive, in anii 101-102 si 105-106, cind, in sfirsit, au reusit sa cucereasca Sarmizegetusa Regia, desfiintind statul dac. Scrie negru pe alb in manualele de istorie. Dar in acest caz tocmai asta e problema…

Unul dintre primii “eretici” care au contestat dogma oficiala este istoricul Coriolan Opreanu, care sustine ca Sarmizegetusa regala a fost cucerita inca de la sfirsitul primului razboi. De fapt, intiietatea i se cuvine lui Cassius Dio (c. 155-c. 236), care spune ca, in 102, imparatul Traian s-a intors la Roma, lasind in capitala dacilor o garnizoana romana si pe regele Decebal, impovarat de conditiile unei paci imposibile. Sapaturile arheologice au scos la iveala numeroase urme de constructii romane in situl de la Sarmizegetusa Regia, celebru azi in special pentru incinta lui sacra (vedere aeriana, sus). Romanii au distrus templele, dar au reconstruit cetatea, dublindu-i practic suprafata. “Tot ce stim despre primul razboi dacic, directiile atacului roman, sarcinile tactico-strategice ale legiunilor, inclusiv realitatile anterioare anului 101 arata ca Sarmizegetusa a fost ocupata in 102” – spune istoricul Iancu Motu.

In anul 102, romanii ocupasera Banatul, Oltenia, Muntenia, sudul Moldovei si Tara Hategului. E putin probabil ca resedinta lui Decebal sa fi ramas libera in spatele liniilor inamice. Asezarea unei armate in capitala dacilor (jos, portiune din zid) si amenajarile romane, in special largirea cetatii, aveau rost numai pentru a garanta respectarea pacii din 102 si ar fi fost oarecum ilogice dupa victoria finala. “Scoala Daicoviciu a preferat o interpretare speculativa: Cassius Dio nu s-ar fi referit la Sarmizegetusa regala dacica, ci la viitoarea Sarmizegetusa dinTara Hategului – viitoarea Ulpia Traiana. Numai ca si în acest caz arheologia arata altceva: acolo nu s-au gasit urme dacice, care sa justifice dispunerea unor trupe romane în acel loc în 102. Motivatia tezei care contravin scrierilor istorice si datelor arheologice, este mai curind una de orgoliu patriotic si regional” – spune prof. dr.  Mircea Babes.


Alte argumente

Legiunea a-VI-a Flavia Felix a lasat urme clare la Sarmizegetusa. Nu se putea decit in 102. Dupa aceasta data, o regasim in castrul de la Berzovia, in Banat.

Oprirea lui Traian la numai 1 km de Sarmizegetusa in 102, dupa cucerirea cetatilor de la  Costesti sau Fetele Albe, este extrem de improbabila.

* Articol aparut in numarul de noeiembrie 2003 al revistei National Geographic. Versiunea in limba engleza, mai jos.

When was Sarmizegetusa Regia conquered?

A controversy with a predictable answer

Why would grown-up people loose their time trying to answer childish questions? Pick up any pupil and they will tell you that the Romans defeated Dacians in two successive wars, between years 101–102 and 105–106, respectively; at the end of the latter they finally conquered Sarmizegetusa Regia and abolished the Dacian state. So it stays written in any history schoolbook. But, in this case, exactly this seems to be the problem…

One of the first “heretics” that challenged the official view is historian Coriolan Opreanu, who asserted that Sarmizegetusa was conquered even at the end of the first war, when Traian wouldn’t come to conquer Dacia but to teach a lesson to one of his client-kings. In fact, the priority of this theory should be given to the Roman historian Dio Cassius (155-235? A.D) who says that, in 102, emperor Traian returned to Rome leaving in the Dacian capital a Roman garrison (stratopedon) and the king Decebal under the burden of an unbearable peace. Archaeological diggings revealed numerous vestiges of Roman constructions in the site of Sarmizegetusa, famous today for his sacred sacred precinct (photo). The Romans destroyed the temples but rebuilt the city and practically have doubled its size. “All we know about the first Dacian War, the directions of the Roman attacks, the tactical and strategic tasks of the legions, not to mention the situation preceding year 101 (such as the type of relationships between the Roma Empire and the Geto-Dacians, the military presence of the Romans north of the Danube in the first Century AD, the formation of client-king type relationships with local dynasties, the raising of some centers of opposition against Romans on the middle and lower course of Danube, the changes in military and political visions of Rome during the Flavians epoch) shows that Sarmizegetusa was occupied in 102”, says historian Iancu Motu.

At Sarmizegetusa wasn’t found yet any Roman coin newer than 106, a surprising fact if we assume that Roman troops would have been maintained there for 5-10 years after the second Dacian war in order to guard the devastated ruins of the capital, as claimed by the partisans of the “106 Conquest”. Equally improbable is the hypothesis that Traian would have stopped at only one kilometer from Sarmizegetusa, after he took the strongholds of Costesti and Fe]ele Albe. At the end of the first war, the Romans have occupied the regions of Banat, Oltenia, Muntenia, the south of Moldova and the County of Ha]eg. It is highly improbable that the very residence of Decebal would resist behind the enemy lines. The setting of an army in the Dacian capital-city and the Roman constructions, especially the enlargement of the city would have been useful only to avoid the violation of the peace of 102; they would have been somehow illogical after the final victory of 106. However, the researchers from Cluj continue to claim that all Roman buildings discovered here were built after 106.

“The ‘Daicoviciu School’ preferred a speculative interpretation: Cassius Dio wouldn’t talk about the Dacian royal Sarmizegetusa, but about the future Roman Sarmizegetusa — the Ulpia Traiana. But even in this case, the archaeology shows something else: there have been found no Dacian remains there — nothing that would justify the setting of Roman troops in that place in 102. The motivation of these theories that contravene the historical finds and archaeological data is mostly related to a patriotic and regional pride”, says professor Mircea Babes. Yet, this controversy is postponed until all the finds from Sarmizegetusa and from the complex in Orastiei Mountains will be published.

Indirect arguments

The 3rd roman legion Flavia Felix left clear evidence at Sarmizegetusa. It could not happen but in 102.  After this date the legion is moved to the Berzovia Roman camp in Banat.

The main direction of the 105 Roman attacks was from the Pannonic provinces aiming at the new Dacian power center of the Piatra Craivii.

Originally posted 2011-05-25 09:23:11.


2 Responses to “Cand a fost cucerita Sarmizegetusa Regia?”

  1. Congratulations!

    Posted by rusnac | 20/11/2009, 11:36
  2. Salut Cata, a aparut noul Traveler?

    Posted by florin | 02/04/2012, 09:50

Post a Comment