[79] Dion Cassius (Cocceianus), the Roman historian, was born 155 a.d. at Nicæa in Bithynia, where he also probably died in retirement after a long and eventful political life; the date of his death is unknown. He was governor of Pannonia under Severus, and had opportunities of learning about Trajan's expeditions into Dacia. He wrote a history of Rome, including one of Trajan, but of the latter there is only an abridgment by Xiphilinus made in the eleventh century; our extracts are from the French version referred to in the Appendix.
[80] See initial letter, and vignette at the end of this chapter.
[81] Bohn's Tacitus, vol. ii. p. 164. This occurred 70 a.d. under Vespasian. Mœsia had been formally constituted a Roman province 9 a.d. (or 2 b.c., Merivale).
[82] According to Merivale, vol. vii. p. 103 note (Longmans, 1862), it was a title: 'interpreted by some writers "The Strength of the Dacians," by others "Dakhi-Valhus," the Scythian for the Day Falcon.' Smith (Biography, article 'Decebalus') says it was probably a title of honour amongst the Dacians equivalent to chief or king, since we find that it was borne by more than one of their rulers, and that the individual best known to history as the Decebalus of Dion Cassius is named Diurpanus by Orosius, and Dorphaneus by Jornandes. Roesler and Dierauer expend a large amount of research and learning upon the name. The former (p. 35) believes that 'the Dierpaneus of Jordanes' is a king Duras from whom Decebalus received his crown, and he leaves the question an open one. Dierauer says (p. 67) that Decebalus was his name, and quotes an inscription in which he is spoken of as 'Regem Decebalum.'
[83] Bohn's Agricola, p. 382.
[84] See historical map.
[85] The fullest account of the probable number and constitution of his army, his generals, &c., is to be found in Dierauer, pp. 76 et seq. and the numerous notes appended.
[86] See map.
[87] Erected after the final subjugation of Dacia, probably upon the designs of Apollodorus, who also designed the bridge across the Danube.
[88] This is by no means the unanimous view as to the course which was taken by the army, although most are agreed that it was divided into two sections.