06-15-2009, 04:50 PM
Quote:I am trying to write something about the Dacians, but I don't know if I should distinguish between them and the Getae, or if it's possible to know whether or not I should. I have tried to read everything I can from the ancient historians, and now I'm more confused than I was at the start. This is what I have so far:
Herodotus said they were a Thracian tribe, but I don't know if he meant "Thracian" as in "Thracian ethnicity," or if he means "from the geographical region we call Thrace."
Strabo wrote in the first century A.D.: "... there is another division of the country which has endured since early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae (Geography, 7.3.12)."
But Strabo also indicated that the Dacians and Getae were for the most part a single, united nation, sharing the same god (Zalmoxis), language and foreign policy.
Cassius Dio insisted that the Dacians called themselves Dacians, and that the Greeks mistakenly referred to them as Getae, "whether that is the right form or not (Roman History, 67.6.2)."
To add further confusion, the Roman historian Justin wrote that the Dacians were the successors of the Getae (Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 32.3.16).
It is perhaps worth noting that in the fifth century B.C., Thucydides compared the Getae fighting style to that of the Scythians, "being all mounted archers (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.26.1)." But the Dacians who fought against Trajan a few centuries later fought primarily as infantry, and called upon their Sarmatian allies for cavalry to supplement their own, if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps the Dacians were the Getae described by Thucydides, and their traditional fighting methods changed over the centuries, as leaving the steppes to settle in the rugged lands around the Carpathian Mountains made hunting from horseback unnecessary?
Or perhaps Thucydides' Getae were not Dacians, but a separate people who were assimilated into the Dacian culture over time?
Another concern I have is with recent Romanian scholarship; from what I understand, the communist regime of Nicolae Ceau?escu tried to influence scholars into draw artificial links between modern-day Romanians and the Dacians. I don't know if, or how, this has affected the scholarship, and if so, I don't know which Romanian historians can or cannot be trusted.
I should probably mention that I am not a history student (just a woefully confused but curious amateur), so this is not an assignment and I have no deadline. I am doing this for a web site, and RAT seems to have a pretty good collection of posters who might be able to shed light on this subject for me.
Thank you.
Well, since i am Romanian, i will try to present what i learned here. First, yes, Dacians and Getians are one and the same peoples, for instance Strabo said that "The language of the Daci is the same as that of the Getae" , Dio Cassius that " the Dacians to live on both sides of the Lower Danube, the ones south of the river in Moesia, and are called Moesians, while the ones north of the river are called Dacians" and that the name "Daci" is used by "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and that he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae". As well, the archeology show an unitar culture, as well the names of towns in Geto-Dacian teritory have as ending the word "Dava" as usual ( most notable exception being the name of capitol, Sarmisegetuza ). The religion as you pointed out, is the same one, as well, but, in last years some scholars ( a minority however ) come with the hypothesis that Daci ( Dacians ) to be a regional group of the Geti ( Getae ), something like Spartans and Athenians being both Greeks, but have an another name as well, a regional group who took control over the entire nation at some point. Anyway, Thracians was one of the most numerous peoples of ancient times, and i saw as well the opinion that proto-thracians split at a moment in different groups, as Cimmerians, Phrygians, Getae ( Daci ) and southern Thracians ( mostly know as simple Thracians ), and thats why are some differences as well betwen them, even if they are all related in some parts. About fightning styles, well, from Appian ( if i remmber correct ) who write about 1 day campagne of Alexander the Great in north of Danube to Traian Column, show a aprox. proportion of 1 to 3 of cavalry to infantry, with prevalation of cavalry to ones from field areas where was more suitable the archers cavalry and infantry for one in mountains area where the mountains and thick forrest was more suitable for infantry.
About Ceausescu and "artificial links betwen modern day Romanians and Dacians", well, i think you didnt get all correct. The links exist, and are not artificial, for ex. most of all the folklore is from Dacian origin, folklore songs, some celebration who, even covered by christian "clothes" come from the pre-christian times of Dacians, the motifs and ornamental models from ceramic or textiles are as well from that times, and are more Dacian words in Romanian that are Gallic words in French, for ex. However, some artificial thing was tried, in sense that present Dacians as some hard working and correct peoples who see just their own business( the prototype of a kind of comunist society ) who fight against those Romans greedy imperialist ( see in present days of Ceausescu as any imperialist, from USSR to USA and her allies ), but this "links" was forced at political level, not as ethnic ( or even spiritual ) one.
Razvan A.
