It was not a province of Dacia at that time - it was Moesia Inferior , Civitas Tropaensium. It was just a battle with a union of barbarian tribes which attacked Roman possessions . Decebalus Dacia was much smaller , exactly what the Romans conquered in 106 . Like on Trajans Column, you can see Dacians were helped by various other tribes in their fights against Romans - Sarmatians, Germanics, Roxolans . This was not a kingdom but a conjunctural military alliance .

@@seaman5705 So conjunctural that Dacian capital was literally named "Sarmis e Getusa"... Indeed :)

Uau - dacopatii au renuntat la "puritatea" dacilor si au descoperit ca nu prea se trag doar din geti ? Ati descoperit si ca getii nu erau chiar traci ? Ati descoperit si ca dacii nu au existat pana pe la sfrsitul secolului 2 BC ? Bun si cum crezi ca ce spui tu aduce Adamclisi in regatul lui Decebal ? Vezi ca ungurii au o teorie cum ca Sarmizegetusa ar insemna ceva in limba lor spurcata . Atunci sa va vad ce mai inventati la scoala de handicapati mintali - Roxin & Vinereanu !@@BozesanVlad

1. VARIANTA MITICĂ SARMIS (HERMES) + GETUZO (GEȚI) = GEȚII LUI HERMES 2. ‘The citadel built of the palisades on mountain peak’ from ZERMI (*gher-mi, mountain peak, top cf. *gher ‘stone’, ‘high’) and ZEGE-T (*geg(h)t) ‘City of warm river’ from ZARMI ‘warm’ (derived from Sanskrit gharma ‘warm’) and ZEGET ‘flow’ (derived from Sanskrit sarj, bactrien harez; sarjana, harezâna ‘flow’), the city being named after the nearby river Sargetia ‘The palace that illuminates the world of life’ from "ZARMYA" ‘palace’ (Sanskrit harmya ‘palace’), ZEGETH ‘world of life’ (Sanskrit jagat, jigat ‘go’, ‘mobility / world of life’) and "USA" ‘illuminaing’ (‘enlightening’, ‘burning’) Ca sa nu mai aiurezi !@@BozesanVlad

i live 5 min near the bridge , is my dog fav spot chilling there. And yes , it was the biggest bridge. they had to change the course of the danube to build it

@@MTGnEWbie420 the Danube was much more shallow in the past as it had a very wide floodplain. many kilometers wide. it was deepened especially after the 1972 floods. it was easier to work on the bridge in the antiquity.

You can also see the crossed reinforcing bars on the helmet as additional protection for the head.

I actually skipped back a few times to check out the armor. Its amazing to have sources like this. @@MichaelWilliams-tv1bm

If you look carefully, you'll notice the stone steps around the monument, they look worn - they are the original ones, not reconstructed (at least partially so).

They honored the Dacians too, otherwise they wouldn't have made statues of them in their capital.

maybe in the future they will have digital 3d scans safely stored and be ready to replicate anything from the past regardless of size

There are no romans this days. All italians nowdays had under 1% romans DNA.

From what I remember we learned in school, there were supposedly carved by the Roman soldiers themselves, as a homage to their fallen comrades and the hard won victory.

@@adrian.farcas There we are! Thank you!

I was thinking the same as I was surprised to see such primitive sculptures. It could that it was done by the Legionnaires but I don't think that it was recruited local people simply slaves doing the heaviest work but I'm only guessing...

@@paoloviti6156 Apparently it was the legionnaires, or at least a few of them. That's why the sculptures have that 'folk art' or homemade look to them.

I'am not sure the hypothesis that the reliefs were carved by Roman soldiers has been confirmed. The monument's artistic style, which schematizes the naturalistic conventions of Greco-Roman art is characteristic of provincial art in much of the Empire including Britain, Gaul, Germany, and the Levant. From what I have read, indigenous artistic traditions heavily influenced art in the provinces. Eventually this less Classical style prevailed some 200 years later in Italy and Rome itself, as demonstrated by The Arch of Constantine, which juxtaposes reliefs salvaged from a monument of the Emperor Hadrian with sculptures featuring a much less naturalistic and schematic style similiar to Trajan's monument in Romania.

Just a piece of rock

No it isn't? It's definitely worth visiting! The one discussed in the video is interesting but the restauration makes is look brand new :(

@@marnox1755 That's fine because it doesn't try to trick anyone that it's the original... would you have preferred they made it more "worn out"..

its been rebuilt (faithful to the original ) while the original was just a pile of bricks and rubble .

It's totally rebuilt, all the original elements, the carvings, the statue on top are all in the museum down in the valley next to the ancient city. But the original monument, the mount, is under what you see now. So basically the modern building protects the old one underneath .... with special permits you can enter inside and see it, even go all the way to the top..

Well, our ancestors are now both romans and dacians, romans came in and intermingled with the natives, that's why our country is called ROMAnia.

Dacians didn't evolve from apes in those lands, they also conquered and assimilated the previous stone age (Neolithic) agriculturalists, which in turn assimilated the previous hunter-gatherers (Paleolithic). According to the latest research, the modern population genetic mix is about 30% Paleolithic, 50% Neolithic and only 20% contributed by the Indo-European migrations (Thracian/Dacian/Celtic/Roman). So about 80% similarity with those before the indo-europeans, and in fact much of their culture and certainly the ways of living (which lasted some 3000 years, more than any other afterwards, see Cucuteni-Trypillia culture) has been continued by the subsequent agriculturalists almost into the modern age. We celebrate the Romans because they were the last major piece of the puzzle and, most importantly, because of the linguistic continuity into the present.

​@@adrian.farcasthank you

​@@adrian.farcasBravo Un raspuns concis si corect

If I remember Dacians after last war Dacians were erased and Dacia repopulated with Roman Citizens from different regions.

google maps maps.app.goo.gl/1HBEF6xtURECPoZf6?g_st=ic

That one piece was recovered from the household of one the locals there - it was used as fountain/well stone, hence the round cut!

He was, expecially the conquest of Dacia paid all Roman Empire debt and they lived afterwards from the spoils of Dacia. They still are. And he said after conquest: "I'm home". Of course, for no reason :)

Budapest is Aquincum, but Barbarianized

Tropaeum Traiani was erected by the Romans. But the idea of trophies comes from the Greeks, yes

the wikipedia page on the monument has very good photos of all the metopes etc - look for "Tropaeum Traiani"

Well, it's not a participation trophy, he actually won.

@@Bayard1503 I know that. I just made a joke, that's all.

I think the more we discover about them, they appear more human.

Not at all. Veterans, upon retirement-which was, if memory serves, after twenty years service-received a lifetime pension. Also, throughout the Republic, it was all citizen soldiers.

Seriously

​@@odietamo9376During the Empire, service in the legions lasted 25 - 30 years or even 40 years. After completing his military service, the veteran received a severance pay and a plot of land on which he could settle and make a living from farming.

@@czterookikral2466 Yes, I am aware of that, but 40 years?! That seems awfully long, even by today’s standards. But at least during some periods during the empire a retired soldier received a pension. I was once at an ancient coin and small antiquities show and a dealer there had for sale such a pension document. It was about the size of a postcard, made of bronze, and had the text inscribed on it of the pensioner’s details and what he was entitled to annually. I badly wanted to buy it! However, it was beyond what I could afford at the time. I think I even took a photo of it, it so fascinated me.

the Battle of Adamclisi, of course...

The decisive batle that led to the conquest of Dacia?

@@eem8039 The battle took place in the same extended campaign, in 102. But it is not part of the final battles that took place in 105-106 and culminated with the siege of Sarmisegetusa. It was one of the important battles of the war, but actually one where the romans where on the defence as the dacians tried an incursion into Moesia.

@eem8039 it was a large one. Might be the biggest field clash from that war, and the monument are for probably couple of smaller one with the last, large one near the Adamclisi - the biggest city in the area. There is a large plain in front of a step small plateau - hill, perfect suited for cavalry but also for roman infantry.

Depending on the soldiers. Archeological discoveries shows Dacian scaled armour with helmet and shields.

it was a winter battle in the first campaign, but lorica segmentata is here also as you can see in min 3:30 in the video. It was a mix of old and new, auxiliaries included. In the second campaign (after few years) the roman army deployed the update. At the time when the columns was erected the most prevalent/models is mostly used.

I think those are from the remaining original stones - as the steps below, which are also mostly original. Before reconstruction, what was left there was only the core mound mostly made from earth on top of those stairs, while the former shell of stones and carvings were scattered all around. The carved stones are now in the nearby museum and the monument shell was reconstructed with copies of the originals. Originally, like 140 years ago, they were planning to take them all to Bucharest and reconstruct the monument there in a public plaza somewhere (using the original carvings and stones) but it never happened...

Yep, modern Romanian Dobrogea (Scythia Minor) was one of the provinces

Not really same results. The killing is much worse, and takes the life of hundreds of thousand people, if not millions

Of what I understood, the original one is underneath the reconstruction, it is still preserved and you can visit it

@@InAeternumRomaMater but he never show the reconstructed coat of arms and the dissapeared pieces or why them dissapeared

@@kaiokendo What re-constructed coat of arms? And two pieces (of what I know) has fallen in the danube river, if there's other missing pieces, then they might have either been stolen or not found/destroyed. Still, the reconstruction is a very good picture of what Tropaeum Traiani looked like back then, and the original one is preserved plus many items from the original triumphal monument

I see shields ...

It is not really the idea behind the monument. Trajan was quite Anti-Christian

Dobrogea was not conquered in the Second Balkan War , but was given to Romania in 1878 after Treaty of Berlin concluding Russo-Turkish war that we call Independence War . Somehow the Russians as winners, gave up Dobrogea in exchange for south of Bassarabia . And it was not a conquer back , since only Mircea the Elder owned for few years Dobrogea taking advantage of the fall of Bulgarian Empire - he quickly lost it to Ottomans . Dobrogea belonged to Romans, than Slavs (610), than Bolgars , than Ottomans . It was Romanized after 1878 . In 1878 a max of 15% of population was Romanian and was placed along the Danube . What you know about Balkan War , was south Dobrogea (Cadrilater) being taken by Romania when Bulgaria was defeated . Population in Cadrilater was 90% Bulgarian , so we have no reason to be proud that we stole other's land .

@@seaman5705 If it is wrong for us to take our ancestral land, as we are children of our mother Rome, then it is obviously wrong for the Bulgarians to live in a land that they stole centuries ago? And you are right, it was the independence war not the Balkan War, thank you for your correction. While you are certainty right that Ioan Mircea the Great did conquere Despotate of Dobromir for a short period of time, it is very ignorant to exclude the fact that most of Moesia (including Dobrogea) was part of our Empire that we Vlach's founded in 1185 after our revolt urged upon us by our two vlach brothers Asan and Peter. While the Empire was obviously called Bulgaria, it acted as an "translatio imperii", just as the name Holy Roman Empire. So, we had Dobrogea for hundreds of year's, before the conquest of Mircea, and it was Latin even before the arrival of the Bulgarian's.

Petty nationalism , my brother ! We are the descendants of Vlachs which in turn were the descendants of the mighty Romans , but the Empire was a Bulgarian one - they were the landlords , they were the masters . Even if the Vlachs helped with their revolt in creating the Second Empire , I very much doubt that the Asen brothers were Vlachs . And even if they were , they acted as Bulgarians, not siding with the Vlachs . In 1241 , if I remember correctly , one of the descendants of the Asens , forbid the Vlachs to use their Latin language and religion under death punishment . Probably it was one of the turning points in convincing the Vlachs to migrate north of Danube and to end in giving birth to our ethnicity . I don't even want to open the discussion about the etymology of the name Asen or Asan - but while I know many Asen in Bulgaria , I don't know any Asan in Romania . And if one would exist , would have Turkish roots and would have a deprecated name which once was Hasan . But to return to Dobrogea - it was Bulgarian allright up to the Ottoman conquest , than it was Ottoman . It was conquered by the Russians and ceded to Romania in exchange for southern Bessarabia . As I mentioned , Romanian population was scarce and by the side of the river which means , Romanians only crossed Danube for fishing. When you don't have a majority of a population in an area and you never had it, you don't claim it like yours . It is too idiotic, nationalistic, chauvinistic , irredentist.@@InAeternumRomaMater

@@seaman5705 You must have been a very smart student in ur history class. The so called "Second Bulgarian Empire" was founded by the Vlach's, and the brother's were Vlach's. Niketas Choniates, the Byzantine Chronicler who lived between 1155-1217, described the revolt as following: "When Vlachs were afflicted with the disease of open rebellion, the leaders of this evil being those I cited above,''''''' the Emperor marched out against them [spring 1186]. (..) At first, the Vlachs were reluctant and turned away from revolt urged upon them by Peter and Asan, looking askance at the magnitude of the undertaking. To overcome the timidity of their compatriots, the brothers built a house of prayer in the name of the Good Martyr Demetrios." He also states that the two brothers, Asan and Peter were of the same race and origin as the Vlach's: "And after the nations of the East have calmed down, receiving both random gifts and annual gifts (for this is how the leaders of the Roma today know how to win the good will of foreigners, longing for peace, like young maids who busy themselves with the torso ), wants to take a foreign wife, because the one he had lost by death. However, entering into negotiations, through messengers, with Bela, the king of Hungary, he took his daughter as his wife, who was not yet ten years old. But sparing to spend for the wedding feasts from the money of the treasury, he collected them unsparingly from his own lands; and, out of pettiness, he besieged other cities in the parts of Anhialos, secretly, but above all, he made the barbarians of Mount Haemus, who were formerly called Mysians, and now Vlachs, enemies of the Sies and the Romans. These, entrusted by the inaccessibility of the land in which they lived and relying on their fortresses, which are also very numerous and erected on steep rocks, once again submitted against the Romans; but then, finding the so-called pretext of Patroclus in abducting their flocks and oppressing themselves, they broke into a violent insurrection. And they were bringers of misfortune and agitators of the whole nation, one Peter and with Asan, of the same race and origin" Robert de Clari, a french Knight and writer in the 4th crusade called Ioannitsa Kaloyan (Little Ioan the handsome) as "Jehans li Blakis", which is medieval french for "John the Vlah". Niketas Choniates, just as he wrote above, the vlach's were before called Mysians (Mysian=Vlah), and he always called Ioannitsa as "Ioannitsa the Mysian", a perfect mirror between the two nicknames, and Choniates made it clear that a Mysian is a Vlah. The other french writers, like Villehardouin and Henri de Valenciennes’s, a very important mentioning is when they regard the "Blaquie" (Eng: Vlachia) as the country of its ruler "Burile" (Boril the Usurper) but calls it Great Vlachia (Blakie la Grant) in anticipation of its conquest by Emperor Henry. Which is the point that I'm making. The Empire, in its name have an "translatio imperii", which is the name used by the German's for their claim over the title "Roman Empire", as they believed their German Empire was the descendant of the Roman one. Which is the same case with the Vlach one, it claimed descendant of the Bulgarian one, but was not really Bulgarian, only after a Bulgarianization which happened in the last century of its existence. We know that Tsar Kaloyan claimed "translatio imperii" of his vlach empire from his letters with Pope Innocent IIIrd, Kaloyan the Vlah's letter: "In the first place we, as a beloved son, want from our mother, the Roman Church, a Tsar's crown and dignity, as our Emperors of old had them. As we find it recorded in our books, one was Peter, the second Samuil and others who preceded them on the throne." Innocent's reply: "You, however, humbly asked the Roman Church to give you a crown, as it is said in your books that it was granted to Peter, Samuil and your other predecessors of illustrious memory ... We, therefore, gave instructions that our registers be carefully read the better to assure ourselves and we learned clearly that many tsars were crowned in the land subordinated to you." Kaloyan the Vlah's response: "After that, last June, our Majesty sent our Archbishop and /head/ of the entire Bulgarian land and of the universal holy and great Church of Turnovo and a great man of my Kingdom, now raised to a Primate and Archbishop of all Bulgaria and Vlachia, named Vassilii, who, on his arrival in Drac was not allowed to proceed to Your Holiness, so that Your Holiness might fulfill the wish of our Majesty in accordance with the custom of my predecessors, the Tsars of the Bulgarians and the Vlachian's - Simeon, Peter and Samuil, the ancestors of myself and of all other Tsars of the Bulgarians." Note the titles he uses "Archbishop of the entire Bulgarian lands", "Archbishop of all Bulgaria and Vlachia", later Ioan Asan the Second, his own son calls himself "Tsar of all Bulgarians", it is the same tactic used by the German Emperor's of the Holy Roman Empire, but they were never Roman nor was the Empire Roman. It was a legitimacy claim. Now your argument around the name "Asen, Assen or Asan", it was of Cuman origin, no one is denying that, but so was the name of Basarab the Founder of literally an independent Principality of Vlach's, so was the name of Dobromir Chrysus a Slavic name for a Vlach chieftain around Macedonia who was mentioned being a "Vlach by race". So was Litovoi's name a Slavic name, so was Vlad Dracula's name a Slavic name, neither the name Ștefan in its original form was of Vlach origin. Already by the time of the Asănești revolt in 1185 were their names influenced by outside people, nothing knew. Now, I really need to know the source of where Ioan Asan the Second banned the Romance language of the Vlach's. The other thing I want to talk about is the fact that u claim we migrated north of the danube by the 13th century, when we know that vlach rulers from 10th-11th/12th century are mentioned, like Gelou, Menumorut and Ioannes of Onads, Duke of Wallachia

found it. It is here: ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamclisi,_Constan%C8%9Ba

When you have a piece of evolve civilisation ages 2000 year ago - it”s great! Someone can”t understand that.

Bastarnae were probably Germanic

It was destroyed when the Germans first discovered it when the Ottomans send them to study the geography of Dobrogea. We Romanians re-built it with the help of archeological research. That's probably why he calls it "mysterious"

@@InAeternumRomaMater ahhh thank you for explaining this Thats a great back story. Very indiana jones.

Perhaps because `naturalistic` representation in the visual arts doesn't come 'naturally' to the untrained artist. In fact, it takes a lot of study and apprenticeship, i.e. a lot of education. The dark ages of migrations and devastation are not exactly the best environment for the transmission of artistic skill and education.

@@miletusdidim8556 The “Dark Ages” produced some of the greatest books, treatises, architecture, and philosophical doctrines that have ever existed. I don’t think lack of education was the issue. I think the mindset was different.

Skill must be learnt first and cultivated through artistic practice in a propitious environment. Another factor might be lack of demand. There must be demand for certain conventions of artistic representation. Perhaps, at the Empire's peripheries, in the distant provinces, such demand did not exist. What was an eyesore for the sophisticated Roman patrician was perfectly acceptable for the rudimentary colonist of Scythia Minor.

@@miletusdidim8556 I suspect it was a philosophical introspection that did it - that is, the Christian faith. People became more interested in what was going on in the spheres of the metaphysical, the supernatural, and the speculative. The outward, material world was (and often still is) seen as sinful, tarnished, broken, and tainted. Whatever the reason, the change is stark and remarkably quick.

I agree that Christianity brought about a transition towards an increased schematism in the visual arts. However, it might be a bit too early to speak about this in Trajan's lifetime.

"Rumania" Haha keep yourself safe bózgór.

I see you are an expert in Romanian history maybe you should bring an excavator here to hunt yourself for some treasures It would be fun

No way is that "recent". Recent might be some additional "skirmishing" but, the vamdalization of the tomb was done already in antiquity. A lot of vicious migrators went thru, after Romans: Gots, Huns, Slavs, Bulgars, Turkic Pechenegs, Cumans, Tartars, Ottomans...