166-180:The Antonine Plague >Marcomannic Wars. 250-270:The Plague of Cyprian >First Gothic Wars >>The Liberation of Dacia and the end of Rome. 540~750:the Plague of Justinian, 50% population drop >The Slavization of the Balkans. 535–536: Extreme weather events. The continuity of ‘Magna Dacia’.


All the big ‘barbarian’ migrations, were preceded by plagues and social problems. Migrants replaced populations decimated by plagues, plagues definitely killed more people than wars and ‘barbarian killings’. ‘Barbarians’ replaced palace civilizations with rural civilizations, they replaced centralized societies based on slavery and inequities with more decentralized and democratic  societies.

Goths, slavs, huns, avars and so on, were in fact mixed and numerous tribes, with a continuous substratum and changing military elites. They all gained momentum in the ‘Old Europe’/Magna Dacia area, the Carpathian-Danubian human reservoir plus the 2 main R1a launching pads ie the NW Pontic steppes & the Pannonian  steppes. They all started in the same area, the area which first repopulated Europe after the last Ice Age, the area that produced the largest European population – the geto-thraces, from where the celts colonised Western Europe, returning back in the end as various ‘Germanic tribes’ to finish the Roman Empire, together with the Free Dacians. All these tribes had a continuous substratum based on the Old Europe population, with the epicenter in present day Romania, the ‘Dacian epicenter’, with different R1b and R1a mixtures. Some of these FEDERATIONS had more R1b elites – celts, goths, germanic tribes, some had more R1a elites – scyths, sarmatians, ‘huns’, avars, slavs, bulgars, with very small asian mixtures – the real huns, the real bulgarians, and later the real Hungarians ..

The conquest of the Dacian gold mines was the last big Roman victory, the retreat from Dacia was first of Rome’s long-term possessions to be abandoned. The death of Decebal in 106 was only the beginning of a continuous pressure from the Free Dacian areas, so many attacks/wars with 2 big waves in 166-180 and in 250-270, which led to the Liberation of Dacia and eventually to the end of the Roman empire. << istorieveche.ro/2014/23-de-razboaie-si-rascoale-dacice-intre-106-271-d-hr

The plagues contributed to the ethnogenesis of present day nations. Urban and  plain areas were of course more exposed to plague decimation, (and to military occupation / decimation) than rural, mountain areas. Decimated areas were filled up with ‘barbarian’ migrants, the Dacian/Carpathian epicenter had the best continuity while the Pontic, the Pannonic and the South of the Danube plains were filled up with more slavic, bulgarian and hungarian migrants.


0] Demography. (to be researched). Historians’ estimates of the population of Roman Dacia range from 650,000 to 1,200,000. (!?) Free Dacia had probably a population 2 times bigger than the population of Roman Dacia, ie 1,2 to 2,4 million. The Pannonian planes plus NW Pontic plains another 1,2-2,4millions. The Antonine Plague killed an estimated 5 million people. The Plague of Cyprian  probably killed another 5 million people. It is estimated that the Plague of Justinian caused Europe’s population to drop by around 50% between 541 and 700.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography > Late Antiquity saw various indicators of Roman civilization begin to decline, including urbanization, seaborne commerce, and total population. Only 40% as many Mediterranean shipwrecks have been found for the 3rd century as for the 1st.[2] During the period from 150 to 400, the population of the Roman Empire is estimated[by whom?] to have fallen from 70 million to 50 million, a decline of almost 30%. Proximate causes of the population decrease include the Antonine Plague, Plague of Cyprian, and the Crisis of the Third Century. European population probably reached a minimum during the Extreme weather events of 535–536 and the ensuing Plague of Justinian. Some have connected this demographic transition to the Migration Period Pessimum, when there was a decrease in global temperatures that impaired agricultural yields. The Early Middle Ages saw a continued de-urbanization of the population, but relatively little population growth because of continued political instability with Viking expansion in the north, Arab expansion in the south and to the east Slavs and Magyars.[1] This rural, uncertain life spurred the development of feudalism and the Christianization of Europe.Estimates of the total population of Europe are speculative, but at the time of Charlemagne it is thought to have been between 25 and 30 million, and of this more than half were in the Carolingian Empire that covered modern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, Austria, Slovenia, northern Italy and part of northern Spain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography > The population of the entire Greek civilization (Greece, the Greek-speaking populations of Sicily, the coast of western Asia Minor, and the Black Sea) in the 4th century BC was recently estimated to be 8,000,000 to 10,000,000. This is over ten times the population of Greece during the 8th century BC, about 700,000 people. The population of Sicily is estimated to range from about 600,000 to 1 million in the 5th century BC. The island was urbanized, and its largest city alone, the city of Syracuse, having 125,000 inhabitants or about 12% to 20% of the total population living on the island. With the other 5 cities probably having populations of over 20,000, the total urban population could have reached 50% of the total population.

There are many estimates of the population for the Roman Empire, that range from 45 million to 120 million with 55-65 million as the classical figure. More modern estimates place this number at the higher end (80-120 million). Russell’s 1958 estimate for the population of the empire in 1 AD: Total Empire – 46.9m. European part – 25m. Asian part – 13.2m. North African part – 8.7m. European areas outside the Empire – 7.9m. Estimates for the population of mainland Italia, including Gallia Cisalpina, at the beginning of the 1st Century AD range from 6,000,000 according to Beloch in 1886, 6,830,000 according to Russell in 1958, less than 10,000,000 according to Hin in 2007,[13] and 14,000,000 according to Lo Cascio in 2009


1] The Free Dacians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dacia >>  The Free Dacians who bordered the roman province, allying themselves with the Sarmatians, hammered the province during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Following a calmer period covering the reigns of Commodus through to Caracalla (180-217 AD), the province was once again beset by invaders, this time the Carpi, a Dacian tribe in league with the newly arrived Goths, who in time became a serious difficulty for the empire. Finding it increasingly difficult to retain Dacia, the emperors were forced to abandon the province by the 270s, becoming the first of Rome’s long-term possessions to be abandoned. Dacia was devastated by the Goths, Taifali, Bastarns together with the Carpi in 248-250, by the Carpi and Goths in 258 and 263, the Goths and Heruli in 267 and 269.[3][4] Ancient sources implied that Dacia was virtually lost during the reign of Gallienus (253-268), but they also report that it was Aurelian (270-275) who relinquished Dacia Traiana. He evacuated his troops and civilian administration from Dacia, and founded Dacia Aureliana with its capital at Serdica in Lower Moesia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae >> +R1b+R1a >> The ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Bastarnae was probably Germanic, which is supported by ancient historians and modern archeology.[1][2] However, some ancient literary sources imply Celtic or Scytho-Sarmatian influences.[2] The most likely scenario is that they were originally a group of East Germanic tribes, originally resident in the lower Vistula river valley.[3][4] In ca. 200 BC, these tribes then migrated, possibly accompanied by some Celtic elements, southeastwards into the North Pontic region. Some elements appear to have become assimilated, to some extent, by the surrounding Sarmatians by the 3rd century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxolani >> +R1a >> In the mid-1st century AD, the Roxolani began incursions across the Danube into Roman territory. One such raid in AD 68/69 was intercepted by the Legio III Gallica with Roman auxiliaries, who destroyed a raiding force of 9,000 Roxolanian cavalry encumbered by baggage. The Roxolani avenged themselves in AD 92, when they joined the Dacians in destroying the Roman Legio XXI Rapax. During Trajan’s Dacian Wars, the Roxolani at first sided with the Dacians, providing them with most of their cavalry strength, but they were defeated in the first campaign of AD 101–102. They appear to have stood aside as neutrals during Trajan’s final campaign of AD 105–106, which ended in the complete destruction of the Dacian state. The creation of the Roman province of Dacia brought Roman power to the very doorstep of Roxolani territory. The Emperor Hadrian reinforced a series of pre-existing fortifications and built numerous forts along the Danube to contain the Roxolani threat. They are known to have attacked the Roman Province of Pannonia in 260; shortly afterwards contingents of Roxolani troops entered Roman military service. Like other Sarmatian peoples, the Roxolani were conquered by the Huns in the mid-4th century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costoboci >> +R1a+R1b >> The origin of the Costoboci is uncertain.[60] The mainstream view is that they were a Dacian tribe, among the so-called “Free Dacians” not subjected to Roman rule.[61][62][63]However some scholars suggested they were Sarmatian,[64][13] Slavic,[65] Germanic,[66] Celtic,[citation needed] or Dacian with a Celtic superstratum. During the period 400-200 BC, Transylvania and Bessarabia saw intensive Celtic settlement, as evidenced by heavy concentrations of La Tène-type cemeteries.[91]Central Transylvania appears to have become a Celtic enclave or unitary kingdom, according to Batty.[92] Ptolemy lists 3 tribes as present in Transylvania: (west to east): the Taurisci, Anartes and Costoboci.[93] The first two are generally considered by scholars to be of Celtic origin. The Lipitsa culture displays numerous Celtic features. The presence, throughout the region identified by ancient geographers as inhabited by the Costoboci (SW Ukraine, northern Moldavia and Bessarabia), interspersed among the sites of sedentary cultures such as Lipitsa, of distinct Sarmatian-style inhumation cemeteries dating from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD….The Costoboci have been linked, on the basis of their geographical location, with the Lipiţa culture.[71][72][73] This culture’s features, especially its pottery styles and burial customs, have been identified as Dacian by some scholars,[74][75] leading to the conclusion that the Costoboci were an ethnic-Dacian tribe.[76]According to Jazdewski, in the early Roman period, on the Upper Dniestr, the features of the Lipita culture indicate ethnic Thracians under strong Celtic cultural influence, or who had simply absorbed Celtic ethnic components.[77]

In AD 167 the Roman legion V Macedonica, returning from the Parthian War, moved its headquarters from Troesmis in Moesia Inferior to Potaissa in Dacia Porolissensis,[97][98] to defend the Dacian provinces against the Marcomannic attacks. Taking the opportunity,[99] in 170[100][88][101] or 171,[88][102] the Costoboci invaded Roman territory.[89] Meeting little opposition, they swept through and raided the provinces of Moesia Inferior, Moesia Superior, Thracia, Macedonia and Achaea, they reached Athens where they sacked the famous shrine of the Mysteries at Eleusis. In the same period the Costoboci may have attacked Dacia. Soon after AD 170,[126] the Vandal Astingi, under their kings, Raus and Raptus, occupied the territory of the Costoboci but they were soon attacked by another Vandal tribe, the Lacringi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iazyges >> +R1a >> The Iazyges (Jazyges is an orthographic variant) were an ancient Iranian nomadic tribe. Known also as Jaxamatae, Ixibatai, Iazygite, Jászok and Ászi, they were a branch of the Sarmatian people who, c. 200 BC, swept westward from Central Asia onto the steppes of what is now Ukraine.[1] Little is known about their language, but it was one of the Iranian languages. The Iazyges first make their appearance along the Sea of Azov, known to the Ancient Greeks and Romans as the Maeotis. They are referred to by the geographer Ptolemy as the Iazyges Metanastae (wandering or migrant Iazyges). From there, the Iazyges moved west along the shores of the Black Sea to what is now Moldova and the southwestern Ukraine. They served as allies of Mithradates VI Eupator, king of Pontus (in what is now North-Western Turkey), in his wars against the Romans (c. 88–84 BC). In 78–76 BC, the Romans sent a punitive expedition over the Danube in an attempt to overawe the Iazyges. The prime enemy of Rome along the lower Danube at this time were the Dacians. When the Dacian kingdom built up by Burebista began to collapse, the Romans took advantage and encouraged the Iazyges to settle in the Pannonian plain, between the Danube and the Tisa Rivers. They were divided into freemen and serfs (Sarmatae Limigantes). These serfs had a different manner of life and were probably an older settled population, enslaved by nomadic masters. The Romans wanted to finish off Dacia, but the Iazyges refused to cooperate. The Iazyges remained nomads, herding their cattle across what is now southern Romania every summer to water them along the Black Sea; a Roman conquest of Dacia would cut that route. In 92 May the Iazyges shattered the Roman Legio XXI Rapax. In 107, Trajan sent his general, Hadrian, to force the Iazyges to submit. In 117, Trajan died, and was succeeded as emperor by Hadrian, who moved to consolidate and protect his predecessor’s gains. While the Romans kept Dacia, the Iazyges stayed independent, accepting a client relationship with Rome. In the summer of 166, while the Romans were tied down in a war with Parthia, the peoples north of the Danube, the Marcomanni, the Naristi, the Vandals, the Hermanduri, the Lombards and the Quadi, all swept south over the Danube to invade and plunder the exposed Roman provinces. The Iazyges joined in this general onslaught in which they killed Calpurnius Proculus, the Roman governor of Dacia. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius spent the rest of his life trying to restore the situation (see the Marcomannic Wars). In 170, the Iazyges defeated and killed Claudius Fronto, Roman governor of Lower Moesia. Operating from Sirmium (today Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) on the Sava river, Marcus Aurelius moved against the Iazyges personally. After hard fighting, the Iazyges were pressed to their limits.


2] 166-180:The Antonine Plague>Marcomannic Wars. The 161-166 war with Parthia had unforeseen and great consequences for the Roman Empire. The returning troops brought with them a plague, the so-called Antonine Plague, which would eventually kill an estimated 5 million people,[4] severely weakening the Empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/166 >> End of the war with Parthia: The Parthians leave Armenia and eastern Mesopotamia, which both become Roman protectorates. A plague (possibly small pox), comes from the East and spreads throughout the Roman Empire, lasting for roughly twenty years. The Lombards invade Pannonia (modern Hungary). They are quickly dispatched by the Roman Army. Dacia is invaded by barbarians. Conflict erupts on the Danube frontier between Rome and the Germanic tribe of the Marcomanni.

wiki/Marcomannic_Wars >> The Marcomannic Wars (Latin: bellum Germanicum et Sarmaticum, “German and Sarmatian War”)[1][2] were a series of wars lasting over a dozen years from about 166 until 180. Roman expedition against the Iazyges and the Germanic invasion of Italy. In the autumn of 169 the Romans had gathered their forces and intended to subdue the independent tribes especially the Iazyges but the Iazyges defeat and kill Claudius Fronto, Roman governor of Lower Moesia. In the same time to the east, the Costoboci crossed the Danube, ravaged Thrace and descended the Balkans, reaching Eleusis, near Athens. The most important and dangerous invasion however, was that of the Marcomanni in the west. Their leader, Ballomar, had formed a coalition of Germanic tribes. They crossed the Danube and won a decisive victory over a force of 20,000 Roman soldiers near Carnuntum. Ballomar then led the larger part of his host southwards towards Italy, while the remainder ravaged Noricum. The Marcomanni razed Opitergium (Oderzo) and besieged Aquileia. This was the first time hostile forces had entered Italy since 101 BC, when Gaius Marius defeated the Cimbri and Teutones. In 175 the Romans focused their attention on the Iazyges living in the plain of the river Tisza (expeditio sarmatica). After a few victories, a treaty was signed. According to its terms, the Iazyges King Zanticus delivered 100,000 Roman prisoners and, in addition, provided 8,000 auxiliary cavalrymen, most of whom (5,500) were sent to Britain.[10][11]Upon this, Marcus assumed the victory title “Sarmaticus“. The war had exposed the weakness of Rome’s northern frontier, and henceforth, half of the Roman legions (16 out of 33) would be stationed along the Danube and the Rhine. Numerous Germans settled in frontier regions like Dacia, Pannonia, Germany and Italy itself. The Germanic tribes were temporally checked, but the Marcomannic Wars were only the prelude of the invasions that would eventually disassemble and end the Western Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries.

3] 250-270:The Plague of Cyprian > First Gothic Wars en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague >> according to the Roman historian Dio Cassius, the plague caused up to 2,000 deaths a day in Rome, one quarter of those infected. Total deaths have been estimated at five million.[4] The Antonine Plague of 165–180  killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas and devastated the Roman army. Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776–1831) concluded that ”The ancient world never recovered from the blow inflicted on it by the plague which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.” According to the 5th-century Spanish writer Paulus Orosius many towns and villages in the Italian peninsula and the European provinces lost all their inhabitants.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Cyprian >> The Plague of Cyprian is the name given to a pandemic, probably of smallpox, that afflicted the Roman Empire from AD 250 onwards during the larger Crisis of the Third Century.[1] It was still raging in 270, when it claimed the life of emperor Claudius II Gothicus. The plague caused widespread manpower shortages in agriculture and the Roman army. Some modern scholars believe that this plague may have been a key driving force behind the spread of Christianity in the Empire. In 250 to 266, at the height of the outbreak, 5,000 people a day were said to be dying in Rome. The plague still raged in AD 270: in the account of the wars against Goths waged by Claudius Gothicus given in the Historia Augusta it is reported that “the survivors of the barbarian tribes, who had gathered in Mount Haemus in the Balkans, were so stricken with famine and pestilence that Claudius now scorned to conquer them further”. And “during this same period the Scythians attempted to plunder in Crete and Cyprus as well, but everywhere their armies were likewise stricken with pestilence and so were defeated.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century > 4] The Crisis of the Third Century, also known as Military Anarchy or the Imperial Crisis, (AD 235–284) was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression. The Crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Alexander Severus at the hands of his own troops, initiating a fifty-year period in which 20–25 claimants to the title of Emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. 26 men were officially accepted by the Roman Senate as emperor during this period, and thus became legitimate emperors. By 258–260, the Empire split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire, including the Roman provinces of Gaul, Britannia and (briefly) Hispania; the Palmyrene Empire, including the eastern provinces of Syria Palaestina and Aegyptus; and the Italian-centered and independent Roman Empire, proper, between them.Later, Aurelian (270–275) reunited the empire; the Crisis ended with the ascension and reforms of Diocletianin 284.

With the onset of the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast internal trade network broke down. Before the crisis an interchange of goods between the various provinces reached a scale unprecedented in previous history and not repeated until a few centuries. After the crisis large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods from the empire’s great urban areas, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient “house economy” that would become commonplace in later centuries, reaching its final form in the Middle Ages’ manorialism. The common free people of the Roman cities, meanwhile, began to move out into the countryside in search of food and better protection. Made desperate by economic necessity, many of these former city dwellers, as well as many small farmers, were forced to give up hard-earned basic civil rights in order to receive protection from large land-holders. In doing so, they became a half-free class of Roman citizen known as coloni. They were tied to the land, and in later Imperial law their status was made hereditary. This provided an early model for serfdom, the origins of medieval feudal society and of the medieval peasantry.


5] The ‘Dacian’ Emperors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regalianus > Regalianus (died 260) was a Dacian general [3] who turned against the Roman Empire and became himself emperor.  About his origin, the Tyranni Triginta says he was a Dacian, a kinsman of Decebalus.[4] He probably was of senatorial rank, and had received military promotion from the Emperor Valerian. The local population, facing the threat of theSarmatians, elected Regalianus emperor,[7] who raised his wife, Sulpicia Dryantilla, who was of noble lineage, to the rank of Augustato strengthen his position.[5] Regalianus bravely fought thereafter against the Sarmatians. Short time after his victory, he was killed by a coalition of his own people and of the Roxolani.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureolus > Manius Acilius Aureolus (died 268) was a Roman military commander and would-be usurper. He was one of the so-called Thirty Tyrants who populated the reign of the Emperor Gallienus. Of humble Daco-Roman origins, he was ‘made’ by the Emperor Gallienus and proved himself to be one of the most brilliant and innovative soldiers of the age. However, he later turned against his benefactor, and was destroyed in the political turmoil that surrounded the Emperor’s assassination in a conspiracy orchestrated by his senior officers. Zonaras says that he was a herdsman[5] born in the Roman province of Dacia, north of the Danube. It may be conjectured that, like many Dacians, he enlisted in the Roman Army as a young man and had the good fortune to come to the attention of the Emperor Gallienus. When Gallienus was murdered it is possible Aureolus made his own bid for the Purple if a rather obscure issue of coinage is to be believed. However, as Aureolus had earlier offered his allegiance to Postumus it seems likely that he made this last defiant gesture – if indeed he did make it – only when Postumus failed to take advantage of the turmoil in Italy. Aureolus’s end came when he surrendered to Claudius Gothicus. However, apparently before Claudius could decide what to do with him, Aureolus was murdered by Claudius’s Praetorian Guard, supposedly in revenge for Aureolus’s rebellion against Gallienus.

<formula-as.ro/imparatii-daci-ai-romei> Intrat ca soldat de rand in armata romana, a castigat simpatia imparatului Valerianus si a ajuns ingrijitor al cavaleriei. Dupa ce a castigat si increderea lui Gallienus (succesorul lui Valerian la tron), a fost trimis de imparat in anul 265 sa lupte impotriva unui uzurpator din Galia, Postumus, dar Aureolus s-a aliat cu acesta impotriva imparatului de la Roma. A fost proclamat suveran la Mediolanum de catre armatele sale, in anul 268. Totul se petrecea in plina criza politica a imperiului, celebra criza a secolului al Iii-lea, cand s-au succedat la tronul Romei o multime de imparati, mai toti provinciali, mai adesea sprijiniti de armata. Gallienus a pornit impotriva celui de-al doilea dac autoproclamat imparat, Aureolus, care i-a cerut ajutor lui Postumus. Acesta insa l-a refuzat, tradand prietenia care ii lega. Totusi, cel care a murit in asediul de la Mediolanum a fost Gallienus, iar Aureolus a reusit sa-si pastreze titlul, pana in vremea lui Aurelian, dar a fost tradat si ucis, ca si Regalian, de propriii lui soldati.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerius > Galerius was born in Serdica,[13] though some modern scholars consider the strategic site where he later built his palace named after his mother – Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad) – his birth and funeral place.[10] His father was a Thracian and his mother Romula was a Dacian woman, who left Dacia because of the Carpians‘ attacks. He later campaigned across the Danube against the Carpi, defeating them in 297 and 300. He served with distinction as a soldier under Emperors Aurelian and Probus, and in 293 at the establishment of the Tetrarchy, was designated Caesar along with Constantius Chlorus, receiving in marriage Diocletian‘s daughter Valeria (later known as Galeria Valeria), and at the same time being entrusted with the care of the Illyrian provinces. After a few years campaigning against Sarmatians and Goths on the Danube, he received command of the legions on the eastern Imperial limits.

According to Lactantius, Galerius affirmed his Dacian identity and avowed himself the enemy of the Roman name once made emperor, even proposing that the empire should be called, not the Roman, but the Dacian Empire, much to the horror of the patricians and senators. He exhibited anti-Roman attitude as soon as he had attained the highest power, treating the Roman citizens with ruthless cruelty, like the conquerors treated the conquered, all in the name of the same treatment that the victorious Trajan had applied to the conquered Dacians, forefathers of Galerius, two centuries before.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licinius > Licinius I (Latin: Gaius Valerius Licinianus Licinius Augustus;[note 1][3][4] c. 263 – 325), was a Roman emperor from 308 to 324. For the majority of his reign he was the colleague and rival of Constantine I, with whom he co-authored the Edict of Milan that granted official toleration to Christians in the Roman Empire. He was finally defeated at the Battle of Chrysopolis, before being executed on the orders of Constantine I. Born to a Dacian peasant family in Moesia Superior, Licinius accompanied his close childhood friend, the future emperor Galerius, on the Persian expedition in 298.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximinus_II > Maximinus II also known as Maximinus Daia or Maximinus Daza, was Roman Emperor from 308 to 313. He became embroiled in the Civil wars of the Tetrarchy between rival claimants for control of the empire, in which he was defeated by Licinius. He was born of Dacian peasant stock to the sister of the emperor Galerius near their family lands around Felix Romuliana, a rural area then in the Danubian region of Moesia, now Eastern Serbia. He rose to high distinction after joining the army.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_dynasty > The Constantinian dynasty is an informal name for the ruling family of the Roman Empire from Constantius Chlorus (†305) to the death of Julian in 363. It is named after its most famous member, Constantine the Great who became the sole ruler of the empire in 324.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great > Constantine the Great was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. The age of Constantine marked a distinct epoch in the history of the Roman Empire.[5] He built a new imperial residence atByzantium and named it New Rome. However, in Constantine’s honor, the Romans called it Constantinople, which would later be the capital of what is now known as the Byzantine Empire for over one thousand years. His father was Flavius Constantius, a native of Dardania province of Moesia (later Dacia Ripensis). Constantine’s mother was Helena, a Thracian woman of low social standing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Constantine > On the top side of the Arch of Constantine, large sculptures representing Dacians can be seen.

formula-as.ro/2007/imparatii-daci-ai-romei > Dar cel mai mare imparat roman de origine dacica este Constantin, primul imparat crestin din istorie. S-a nascut la sud de Dunare, la Naissus, in Serbia de astazi, pe atunci provincia Moesia Superior. Tatal sau, imparatul Constantius Chlorus, era tot din Naissus. In anul 325, in vremea conciliului de la Niceea, la Naissus este atestat un episcop care isi spune “Dacus”. Prezenta dacilor la sudul Dunarii, atat inainte de cucerirea Daciei cat si dupa aceea, este incontestabila. Deci, Constantin era, mai exact, un moeso-dac. Desi nu stim in ce fel dacismul sau i-a influentat actiunile, stim sigur un lucru: el este cel care, la doar doua secole dupa cucerirea Daciei, spoliaza monumentele din splendidul for al lui Traian. Marea friza de piatra a lui Traian, masurand peste 30 de metri (dupa altii mult mai mult) si fiind a treia ca marime din intreaga antichitate, este sparta in bucati de Constantin. Patru bucati sunt incastrate in arcul sau de triumf de la Roma, dupa ce figura lui Traian este stearsa din reprezentarile reliefurilor. Mai mult, opt din grandioasele statui de daci, inalte de trei metri, care impodobeau forul lui Traian, sunt scoase de la locul lor si urcate pe Arcul imparatului Constantin. Ce logica sa aiba dislocarea unor statui colosale de daci si plasarea lor pe un monument al unui imparat roman, daca nu faptul ca acesta era nascut tot in tara dacilor? Cu siguranta, Constantin avea o mare pretuire pentru stramosii sai. Documentele ne spun chiar ca ar fi incercat sa aduca Dacia sub stapanirea sa si a refacut podul de peste Dunare. Totusi, cum de a fost posibila aceasta “profanare” a forului lui Traian? Specialistii spun ca era nevoie de material de constructie si ca, in acelasi timp, nu mai existau artisti talentati ca in vremurile anterioare, arta romana aflandu-se intr-un declin evident. E adevarat, pe langa piesele luate din forul lui Traian, pe Arcul lui Constantin exista si reliefuri atribuite de specialisti epocilor lui Hadrian si Marc Aureliu. Deci, Constantin ar fi luat ce i-a placut de pe monumentele predecesorilor sai. Iulian Apostatul ne povesteste ca, dupa ce a vazut pentru prima data forul lui Traian, Constantin a fost abatut timp de mai multe zile, spunand ca el nu va avea niciodata un for atat de grandios. Dar nu este suficienta aceasta explicatie. Oricat de mare ar fi fost lipsa de materiale si de artisti talentati, nici un imparat nu ar fi indraznit sa distruga monumentele unui predecesor, daca acesta era pretuit, memoria sa era onorata si facea parte din galeria sacra a parintilor Romei. Gestul atat de neobisnuit si de socant al plasarii celor opt statui de daci pe Arcul de triumf al lui Constantin isi gaseste in acest fel o explicatie. Statuile de pe arc simbolizeaza obarsia dacica, mandra si iubitoare de libertate, a imparatului. Din aceasta perspectiva, nu ar fi deloc absurd sa ne gandim ca scrierea de capatai a lui Traian despre cucerirea Daciei a disparut, ca si celelalte scrieri ce relateaza acest eveniment dramatic din istoria dacilor, din ordinul lui Constantin. Daca Galerius nu a contribuit la disparitia acestor scrieri, se poate sa o fi facut Constantin.

Constantin cel Mare este cel care a mutat capitala imperiului la Byzantion, numit dupa moartea sa Constantinopol, iar dupa cucerirea de catre turci, in sec. Xv, Istanbul. Orientul a devenit astfel izvorul spiritual si cultural al intregii Europe. In vreme ce occidentul bajbaia in intunericul in care barbarii migratori l-au aruncat, in orient straluceau luminile Bizantului crestin, Noua Roma. Cat de mult a contribuit dacismul lui Constantin la aceasta transferare a gloriei romane in orient este foarte greu de spus. Dar dacii de pe Arcul lui Constantin vegheaza vechea Roma si astazi, semn al dainuirii spiritului dac peste timp.
Elena, mama lui Constantin, era nascuta, se pare, in Asia Mica, intr-o familie foarte modesta. A avut o legatura neoficiala cu Constantius Chlorus, viitorul imparat, si l-a nascut pe Constantin in teritoriul dacic de la sudul Dunarii. Scrierile vechi spun ca Elena a contribuit foarte mult la intarirea crestinismului ca religie a imperiului. Ea a primit titlul de Augusta. Calatorind la Ierusalim, se spune ca a descoperit resturile crucii lui Isus, pe care le-a adus la Roma. Descoperirea s-a facut in urma unor sapaturi pe care ea insasi le-a comandat si coordonat. De aceea, astazi, Sfanta Elena este patroana arheologilor. Sarcofagul sau din porfir rosu egiptean se afla la Muzeul Vatican, in sala numita “Crucea greceasca”. Este ornamentat, in mod destul de bizar, cu scene de lupta. Intre soldatii reprezentati se disting cu claritate figuri de daci, cu inconfundabilele lor caciuli. Sfintii imparati Constantin si Elena, praznuiti de Biserica Ortodoxa la 21 mai, au schimbat definitiv cursul istoriei.

Falsificarea istoriei. Se impune o intrebare: de ce manualele de istorie nu pomenesc nimic despre rolul dacilor in istoria imperiului roman? A existat si continua sa existe o adevarata conspiratie in jurul acestui subiect. Istoricii nostri, dar si unii straini, in special maghiari, au facut tot posibilul pentru a “demonta” originea dacica a unor personaje ajunse pe tronul imparatiei romane. Despre mama lui Galeriu s-a spus ca era o barbara, ba roxolana, ba ilira, ba, in cazul cel mai bun, daca romanizata, desi sursele ne spun raspicat ca era daca de la nordul Dunarii, chiar daca avea nume latin. Despre informatiile pe care ni le da Lactantiu cu privire la Galeriu s-a spus ca nu merita sa fie luate de bune. Despre cele din “Historia Augusta”, care ne atesta originea dacica a lui Regalian, la fel, ca ar fi vorba de niste nascociri. De ce toate acestea? Din doua motive diferite, dar cu un unic scop. Unii istorici maghiari, in frunte cu A. Alfldi (1940), au vrut sa demonstreze ca, dupa abandonarea provinciei, in Dacia nu a mai ramas nici un dac si ca nu a existat nici un fel de continuitate de-a lungul mileniului “intunecat”, pana la venirea maghiarilor in Transilvania. Aparitia unor personaje istorice importante, de obarsie dacica, le incurca socotelile, si au recurs la contestarea surselor documentare, pentru a demonstra ca nu este vorba de daci autentici. Istoricii romani, in schimb, au cautat sa demonstreze ca, dupa abandonarea Daciei, toata populatia ramasa in provincie era deja complet romanizata. Prin urmare, si imparatii de origine dacica trebuiau sa fie tot romani. La acea vreme, “nu trebuiau” sa mai existe decat romani, eventual proveniti din stramosi daci romanizati. Dar faptul ca scrierile la care ne-am referit insista asupra originii dacice a acestor imparati ne arata cu claritate ca ei nu erau daci integral si definitiv romanizati, ci originea lor etnica era foarte importanta. Cunosteau, desigur, limba latina, erau integrati in societatea romana provinciala, dar obarsia lor era dacica. Daca ar fi fost daci complet romanizati, fara sa mai poarte vreo mostenire dacica, li s-ar fi spus romani, pur si simplu, fara prea multa insistenta pe originea etnica. Probabil din acest motiv, istorici precum Constantin Daicoviciu, Radu Vulpe si altii au contestat dacismul lui Regalian ori al lui Galerius (despre Constantin nici nu se discuta, dat fiind ca s-a nascut la sudul Dunarii). Radu Vulpe chiar a insistat asupra faptului ca mama lui Galeriu, Romula, nu era daca, ci provenea dintr-o familie de colonisti iliri stabiliti in Dacia, desi nici un document nu sugera asa ceva. Dupa trei decenii, intr-o alta lucrare a aceluiasi istoric, Romula “devenea” o daca romanizata. In schimb, Dimitrie Cantemir nu se sfia sa-l numeasca pe Aureolus “hatmanul calarimii Avreulus Dacul”. Deci, atat pe istoricii maghiari, cat si pe cei romani, ii deranja existenta unor daci dupa retragerea romanilor din Dacia. Si intr-un caz, si in celalalt, s-a dorit inlaturarea dacilor din istorie, prin incalcarea adevarului stiintific furnizat de izvoarele scrise. Aceasta falsificare persista pana astazi, iar istoria oficiala nu recunoaste originea dacica a acestor imparati. Stergerea dacilor din istorie pare sa fie urmarea unui blestem ce s-a nascut demult, dar continua si astazi. Istoricii nostri desavarsesc opera celor ce au ars scrierile despre daci si i-au lasat intr-un intuneric ce pare sa nu se mai sfarseasca.


6] The ‘Goth’ Federations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths >> The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238. Several such raids followed in subsequent decades,[48] in particular the Battle of Abrittus in 251, led by Cniva, in which the Roman Emperor Decius was killed. At the time, there were at least two groups of Goths: the Thervingi and the Greuthungi. Goths were subsequently heavily recruited into the Roman Army to fight in the Roman-Persian Wars, notably participating at the Battle of Misiche in 242. The first seaborne raids took place in three subsequent years, probably 255-257. An unsuccessful attack on Pityus was followed in the second year by another which sacked by Pityus and Trapezus and ravaged large area in the Pontus. In the third year a much larger force devastated large areas of Bithynia and the Propontis, including the cities of Chalcedon, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Apamea, Cius and Prusa. After a 10-year gap, the Goths, along with the Heruli, another Germanic tribe from Scandinavia, raiding on 500 ships,[49]sacked Heraclea Pontica, Cyzicus and Byzantium. They were defeated by the Roman navy but managed to escape into the Aegean Sea, where they ravaged the islands of Lemnos and Scyros, broke through Thermopylae and sacked several cities of southern Greece (province of Achaea) including Athens, Corinth, Argos, Olympia and Sparta. Then an Athenian militia, led by the historian Dexippus, pushed the invaders to the north where they were intercepted by the Roman army under Gallienus.[50] He won an important victory near the Nessos (Nestos) river, on the boundary between Macedonia and Thrace, the Dalmatian cavalry of the Roman army earning a reputation as good fighters. Reported barbarian casualties were 3,000 men.[51] Subsequently, the Heruli leader Naulobatus came to terms with the Romans.[49] The second and larger sea-borne invasion was an enormous coalition consisting of Goths (Greuthungi and Thervingi), Gepids and Peucini, led again by the Heruli, assembled at the mouth of river Tyras (Dniester).[53] The Augustan History and Zosimus claim a total number of 2,000–6,000 ships and 325,000 men.[54] This is probably a gross exaggeration but remains indicative of the scale of the invasion. They ravaged down to the Aegean islands as far as Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus. The fleet probably also sacked Troy and Ephesus, destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. While their main force had constructed siege works and was close to taking the cities of Thessalonica and Cassandreia, they heard the news that the emperor was advancing. The Goths first attempted to directly invade Italy than they retreated to the Balkan interior. They are engaged near Naissus by a Roman army led by emperor Claudius advancing from the north. The battle most likely took place in 269, and was fiercely contested. Large numbers on both sides were killed but, at the critical point, the Romans tricked the Goths into an ambush by pretended flight. Some 50,000 Goths were allegedly killed or taken captive and their base at Thessalonika destroyed.[51] It seems that Aurelian who was in charge of all Roman cavalry during Claudius’ reign, led the decisive attack in the battle. Some survivors were resettled within the empire, while others were incorporated into the Roman army. The battle ensured the survival of the Roman Empire for another two centuries. In 270, after the death of Claudius, Goths under the leadership of Cannabaudes again launch an invasion on the Roman Empire, but were defeated by Aurelian, who however surrendered Dacia beyond the Danube.

In the late 4th century, the Huns came from the east and invaded the region controlled by the Goths. Although the Huns successfully subdued many of the Goths, who joined their ranks, a group of Goths led by Fritigern fled across the Danube. They then revolted against the Roman Empire, winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Adrianople. By this time the Gothic missionary Wulfila, who devised the Gothic alphabet to translate the Bible, had converted many of the Goths from paganism toArian Christianity. In the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries the Goths separated into two main branches, the Visigoths, who becamefederates of the Romans, and the Ostrogoths, who joined the Huns.

The Visigoths under Alaric I sacked Rome in 410, defeated Attila at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451, and founded a kingdom in Aquitaine. The Visigoths were pushed to Hispania by the Franks following the Battle of Vouillé in 507. By the late 6th century, the Visigoths had converted to Catholicism. They were conquered in the early 8th century by the Muslim Moors, but began to regain control under the leadership of the Visigothic nobleman Pelagius, whose victory at the Battle of Covadonga began the centuries-long Reconquista. The Visigoths founded the Kingdom of Asturias, which eventually evolved into modern Spain and Portugal.[7]

After the Ostrogoths successfully revolted against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454, their leader Theodoric the Great settled his people in Italy, founding a kingdom which eventually gained control of the whole peninsula. Shortly after Theodoric’s death in 526, the country was captured by the Byzantine Empire, in a war that devastated and depopulated the peninsula.[6]After their able leader Totila was killed at the Battle of Taginae, effective Ostrogothic resistance ended, and the remaining Goths were assimilated by the Lombards, another Germanic tribe, who invaded Italy and founded a kingdom in the northern part of the country in 567 AD.


7] The ‘Slav’ Federations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague > The first plague

pandemic from 541 to ~750, spreaded from Egypt to the Mediterranean and to the northwestern Europe, started with the Plague of Justinian.  At its peak the Plague of Justinian (AD 541–542) was killing 10,000 people in Constantinople every day and ultimately destroyed perhaps 40% of the city’s inhabitants. It went on to destroy up to a quarter of the human population of the eastern Mediterranean. In AD 588 a second major wave of plague spread through the Mediterranean into what is now France. It is estimated that the Plague of Justinian killed as many as 100 million people across the world.[23][24] It caused Europe’s population to drop by around 50% between 541 and 700. It contributed to the success of the Arab conquests and to the slavization of the Balkans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Slavs>  The Byzantines broadly grouped the numerous Slav tribes into two groups: the Sclaveni and Antes.[8] They are both first encountered in the lower Danube region. From the Danube, they commenced raiding the Byzantine Empire from the 520s, on an annual basis. Large scale Slavic settlement in the Balkans begins in the late 570s and early 580s.[11] Menander, a late 6th-century historian speaks of 100,000 Slavs pouring into Thrace (though likely with some exaggeration)[12] and Illyricum, taking cities and settling down. Most scholars consider the period of 581-584 as the beginning of large scale Slavic settlement in the Balkans. The Avars arrived in Europe in the late 550s.[11] Although their identity would not last, the Avars greatly impacted the events of the Balkans. They settled the Carpathian plain, west of the main Slavic settlements.[13] They crushed the Gepid Kingdom (a Germanic tribe) and pushed the Lombards into Italy, essentially opening up the western Balkans. They asserted their authority over many Slavs, who were divided into numerous petty tribes.[13] Many Slavs were relocated to the Avar base in the Carpathian basin and were galvanized into an effective infantry force. Other Slavic tribes continued to raid independently, sometime coordinating attacks as allies of the Avars. Others still spilled into Imperial lands as they fled from the Avars.[13] The Avars and their Slavic allies tended to focus on the western Balkans, whilst independent Slavic tribes predominated in the east. Following the unsuccessful siege of Constantinople in 626, the Avars’ reputation diminished, and the confederacy was troubled by civil wars between the Avars and their Bulgar and Slav clients.[16] Their rule contracted to the region of the Carpathian basin. Archaeological evidence show that there was intermixing of Slavic, Avar and even Gepid cultures, suggesting that the later Avars were an amalgamation of different peoples. The Avar Khanate finally collapsed after ongoing defeats at the hands of Franks, Bulgars and Slavs (c. 810), and the Avars ceased to exist. What remained of the Avars was absorbed by the Slavs and Bulgars.

Prior to the advent of Roman rule, a number of native or autochthonous populations had lived in the Balkans since ancient times. South of the Jireček line were the Greeks.[22] To the north, there were Illyrians in the western portion (Illyricum), Thracians in Thrace (modern Bulgaria and eastern Macedonia), and Dacians in Moesia (northern Bulgaria and northeastern Serbia) and Dacia (modern Romania).[23] They were mainly tribalistic and generally lacked awareness of any greater ethno-political affiliations. Over the classical ages, they were at times invaded, conquered and influenced by Celts, Greeks and Romans. Roman influence, however, was initially limited to cities later concentrated along the Dalmatian coast, later spreading to a few scattered cities inside the Balkan interior particularly along the river Danube (Sirmium, Belgrade, Niš).[24] Roman citizens from throughout the empire settled in these cities and in the adjacent countryside.[24] The vast hinterland was still populated by indigenous peoples who likely retained their own tribalistic character.

Only certain areas tended to be affected by the raids of the migrants (e.g. lands around major land routes, such as the Morava corridor).[18] The pre-Slavic inhabitants sought refuge inside fortified cities and islands, whilst others fled to remote mountains and forests,[18] joining their non-Romanized kin and adopting a transhumant pastoral lifestyle. The larger cities were able to persevere, even flourish, through the hard times. Archaeological evidence suggests that the culture in the cities changed whereby Roman-style forums and large public buildings were abandoned and cities were modified (i.e. built on top of hills or cliff-tops and fortified by walls). The centerpiece of such cities was the church. This transformation from a Roman culture to a Byzantine culture was paralleled by a rise of a new ruling class: the old land-owning aristocracy gave way to rule by military elites and the clergy. In addition to the autochthons, there were remnants of previous invaders such as “Huns” and various Germanic peoples when the Slavs arrived. Sarmatian tribes (such as theIazyges) are recorded to have still lived in the Banat region of the Danube.[26]

As the Slavs spread south into the Balkans, they interacted with the numerous peoples and cultures already there. Since their lifestyle revolved around agriculture, they preferentially settled rural lands along the major highway networks which they moved along. Whilst they could not take the larger fortified towns, they looted the countryside and captured many prisoners. In his Strategikon, Pseudo-Maurice noted that it was commonplace for Slavs to accept newly acquired prisoners into their ranks.[27] Despite Byzantine accounts of “pillaging” and “looting”, it is possible that many indigenous peoples voluntarily assimilated with the Slavs. The Slavs lacked an organised, centrally ruled organisation which actually hastened the process of willful Slavicisation. The strongest evidence for such a co-existence is from archaeological remains along the Danube and Dacia known as the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture. Here, the villages dating back to the 6th century represent a continuity with the earlier Slavic Pen’kovka culture; modified by admixture with DacoGetic, Daco-Roman and/or Byzantine elements within the same village. Such interactions awarded the pre-Slavic populace protection within the ranks of a dominant, new tribe. In return, they contributed to the genetic and cultural development the South Slavs. This phenomenon ultimately led to an exchange of various loan-words.

Over time, due to the larger number of Slavs, the descendants most of the indigenous populations of the Balkans were Slavicized, an exception being Greece, where the smaller number Slavs scattered there came to be Hellenized over succeeding centuries (aided in time by more Greeks returning to Greece in the 9th century and the role of the church and administration).[28] The Romance speakers within the fortified Dalmatian cities managed to retain their culture and language for a long time,[29] as Dalmatian Romance was spoken until the high Middle Ages. However, they too were eventually assimilated into the body of Slavs. In contrast, the Romano-Dacians in Wallachia managed to maintain their Latin-based language, despite much Slavic influence. After centuries of peaceful co-existence, the groups fused to form the Romanians.

istorieveche.ro/2014/06/25/dovezi-despre-continuitate-dacica-257-1000/

About Alex Imreh

http://www.aleximreh.ro http://www.facebook.com/alex.imreh 0742-669918
This entry was posted in AIS, Aryans, Dacia, ethnogenesis, Etnogeneza Rumânilor and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to 166-180:The Antonine Plague >Marcomannic Wars. 250-270:The Plague of Cyprian >First Gothic Wars >>The Liberation of Dacia and the end of Rome. 540~750:the Plague of Justinian, 50% population drop >The Slavization of the Balkans. 535–536: Extreme weather events. The continuity of ‘Magna Dacia’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s