Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cleo

===[TASK]=== Crowd Sourced - Thracians (Faction)

Recommended Posts

Just now, Genava55 said:

Sundiata, these pictures are about Thracian or Dacian settlements?

Good question! I shared those a while back and asked if there's any Russian speakers on the forum to help out. The images come from this paper:

http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/Niculice/Niculice_1987_Severnye.pdf

It's titled:

СЕВЕРНЬІЕ ФРАКИЙЦЬІ or NORTHERN THRACIANS

In hindsight, looking at the maps of the sites being discussed, it's clear that they're almost all located in Romania, with only a few in northern Bulgaria, so yeah, it does seem to be discussing Dacians more than Thracians. I think in some of the East European (Soviet?) traditions they tended to lump Thracians, Getae and Dacians into a single culture group referred to as Traco-Geto-Daci, or in this case, referring to Dacians simply as Northern Thracians...  

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I think in some of the East European (Soviet?) traditions they tended to lump Thracians, Getae and Dacians into a single culture group referred to as Traco-Geto-Daci, or in this case, referring to Dacians simply as Northern Thracians...  

Well, wasn't that kind of the proposal here in this thread? Or do we still want Thracians and Dacians to be separate civs (I do)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Well, wasn't that kind of the proposal here in this thread? Or do we still want Thracians and Dacians to be separate civs (I do)?

Yeah, because of the relatively scant architecture references we were looking at both Thracians and Dacians to get an idea of how they could look like. Dacians are considered a subset of Thracians with a common ancestor people, proto-Thracian, but with non-Thracian influences as well, like Scythian, Sarmatian and Celtic La Tène. I believe their architecture overlaps on a rural level. 

In an ideal world, yes, I'd love to have both factions as well, although we'd need to drop the 500 BC- 1BC dogma to have Dacians in the vanilla game (Domitian's Dacian War, 86–88 AD & Trajan's Dacian Wars, 101–102, 105–106 AD). Then again, we already totally flouted the 500 BC - 1BC rule for the Britons, but we never talk about it, shhhhhhh. Cunobeline, Caratacus and Boudica all three date to the 1st century AD!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Well, wasn't that kind of the proposal here in this thread? Or do we still want Thracians and Dacians to be separate civs (I do)?

I was thinking as well that the Dacians were similar to the Thracians because of the Getae but it seems much more complicated, the Getae are only a small part of the Dacian kingdom and most of the archaeological finds about the Dacians are in the Western regions. I think that it should be normal that there are some similarities in their design, especially for the buildings and the architecture, but they should be two different factions.

59 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

In an ideal world, yes, I'd love to have both factions as well, although we'd need to drop the 500 BC- 1BC dogma to have Dacians in the vanilla game (Domitian's Dacian War, 86–88 AD & Trajan's Dacian Wars, 101–102, 105–106 AD). Then again, we already totally flouted the 500 BC - 1BC rule for the Britons, but we never talk about it, shhhhhhh. Cunobeline, Caratacus and Boudica all three date to the 1st century AD!  

I think that someday, an intermediate step should be started with adding a few factions going slightly after the 0 AD Empire Ascendant time-span. Notably Dacians and Parthians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thracian houses with wooden tiles for the roof and bricks/stones for the walls and foundation. More stones for the barracks and the economic buildings as well. Fortress and other last stage buildings with a lot of Hellenistic stuff.

Dacian houses with wooden tiles for the roof but with wooden planks and wattle-and-daub for the walls. Mixing round and rectangular shapes for the houses. More "barbarians" buildings as a reference for the barracks. Using the Sarmizegetusa finds as a reference (with caution although).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Genava55 said:

I was thinking as well that the Dacians were similar to the Thracians because of the Getae but it seems much more complicated, the Getae are only a small part of the Dacian kingdom and most of the archaeological finds about the Dacians are in the Western regions. I think that it should be normal that there are some similarities in their design, especially for the buildings and the architecture, but they should be two different factions.

 

The thing is also that when talking about Thracians, people are usually referring to either the mythological/archaic Thracians that influenced the Greek pantheon and their myths, the Thracians conquered by Persia and that were part of Xerxes (and Darius?) invasion of Greece, the Thracians of the Odrysian Kingdom or the later Macedonian Thrace, by which time they were becoming thoroughly Hellenized. The northern sections of the Thracians were less influenced by Greeks and Persians, being more influenced by Scythians and Celts, and only start coming in close contact with Mediterranean peoples during Roman times, by which time they were noticeably different from the classical Thracians, and were referred to more specifically as Dacians, recognizing political realities and cultural evolutions. The term Getae just seems to be an earlier Greek term for the Dacians (Northern Thracians, sort of), prior to Roman times, and the terms are often used interchangeably, though there is still much debate about it (they're said to have spoken the same language). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Genava55 said:

and most of the archaeological finds about the Dacians are in the Western regions.

Most of the sites discussed in that Russian paper are in the Southern and Eastern region of Romania though, right up to the Danube and Black Sea, which was also part of historical Thrace. So maybe it really is discussing the earlier northern range of the Thracians? As opposed to the later Western range of the Dacians? Or perhaps even the "Free Dacians" of the AD period? Really, my Russian is horrible :P I'm not even sure if the paper is really in Russian...   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

 I'm not even sure if the paper is really in Russian...   

Probably Bulgarian, anyway difficult to read :1eye:

Quote

Thenorthern sections of the Thracians were less influenced by Greeks and Persians, being more influenced by Scythians and Celts, and only start coming in closecontact with Mediterranean peoples during Roman times, by which time they were noticeably different from the classical Thracians, and were referred to more specifically as Dacians, recognizing political realities and cultural evolutions. 

The Getae are indeed less hellenized but they are still close to the Black Sea with multiple Greek colonies. Sboryanovo looks quite Hellenized or very inspired from the Greeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Genava55 said:

The Getae are indeed less hellenized but they are still close to the Black Sea with multiple Greek colonies. Sboryanovo looks quite Hellenized or very inspired from the Greeks.

Ah, the plot thickens. I assume you're referring to the Thracian tombs of Sboryanovo, like the Tomb of Sveshtari? Those are 3rd century BC, and described as Thracian as well as Getic. They're located in Bulgaria, south of the Danube. They date to the time of the Odrysian Kingdom, which included southern Getic territory, but not all of their northern territory. When I wrote Northern Thracians, I was referring to the Thracians north of the Danube (Northern Getae that were much less influenced by Greeks and Persians).

Basically, "Thracian" is a broad ethnic designation for the people living north of Macedonia, primarily in Bulgaria and Romania. The Odrysians were a specific Thracian tribe that came to dominate their neighbouring tribes by the the 5th century BC. The Odrysian Kingdom was a union of "40 Thracian tribes and 22 kingdoms", lead by the Odrysian tribe. The Getae were a subset of Thracian tribes inhabiting the northern side of Thrace, on both sides of the Danube, and were heavily influenced by the Scythians (and later by the Sarmatians and Celts). The Getae were mostly ruled by the Odrysians until the weakening and disintegration of their Kingdom. The Dacians seem to be yet another distinct Thracian tribe living in close proximity to the Getae north of the Danube, but otherwise relatively isolated in the mountains of Romania. Early Dacians (4th - 1st century BC) were influenced by Celtic invaders like the Boii and Dacians were also similar to the Getae and warred with them. By the time of King Burebista in the 1st century BC, the Getae were absorbed by the Dacians and the Celts were defeated. At this point, the two terms, Getae and Dacian, are used interchangeably (Geto-Dacian).

So basically they're all Thracians. Odrysians, Getae and Dacians are distinct tribes or tribal groups within this Thracian designation. The Odrysian Kingdom, and Dacian Kingdom were political entities, absorbing many Thracian tribes beyond their immediate sphere of influence. The Getae are mentioned in the histories because they were powerful in their own right, founding principalities, or small kingdoms of their own, until the conquest of Burebista unified them with the Dacians.   

So perhaps we should just stick to "Odrysians" and "Dacians" as two distinct "Thracian civs", which both have access to Getic units in their roster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Those are 3rd century BC, and described as Thracian as well as Getic. They're located in Bulgaria, south of the Danube. They date to the time of the Odrysian Kingdom, which included southern Getic territory, but not all of their northern territory.

The Odrysian kingdom mostly shattered during the end of the 4th century BC and the beginning of the 3rd century BC, because of Macedonians and Gauls. The extent of the remaining kingdom is much smaller. The Sboryanovo site and Sveshtari tomb are associated with Dromichaetes and the city Helis.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Basically, "Thracian" is a broad ethnic designation for the people living north of Macedonia, primarily in Bulgaria and Romania.

Right. Like the designation of "Celt" for every barbarians (even the Cimbri were called Celts before Julius Caesar). Herodotos said that the Thracians were basically everything north of Hellas, which is very vague. The question is not the linguistics link and their common ancestry in my point. 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

So perhaps we should just stick to "Odrysians" and "Dacians" as two distinct "Thracian civs", which both have access to Getic units in their roster.

Agree. Like the Celtic civs are the Britons and the Gauls (and maybe one day the Celtiberians).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Basically, "Thracian" is a broad ethnic designation for the people living north of Macedonia, primarily in Bulgaria and Romania.

East. To the north of Macedonia lived the Paonians and it's unclear whether those tribes were Thracians, Illyrians, or something else. Also, don't forget the Bithyni, a Thracian tribe who crossed the (Thracian) Bosporus and founded the kingdom of Bithynia there, with its capital at Nicomedia (modern İzmit).

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

So basically they're all Thracians.

Possibly though not necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nescio said:

East

North-east :) 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Bithyni, a Thracian tribe who crossed the (Thracian) Bosporus and founded the kingdom of Bithynia there, with its capital at Nicomedia (modern İzmit).

Yes, very interesting stuff... Reminds a bit of the Galatian migration into Anatolia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...