Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?

[diegis]

Salve, Diegis

Thank you for an honest answer. I can understand your pride in being a Rumanian and championing the opinion that the Goths were Dacians... or as you and some well-intended archaeologists phased it, "a local culture." Of course, you and they are also claiming that the Goths were so stupid that they didn't know where they came from.

Frankly, I don't believe the Gothic migration was "massive," just a group of displaced warriors under two families searching for a new land. This can also be seen in the forays of the early Celtic culture. It took the Goths six or seven generations to build up a power-base, to assimilate disenfranchised local tribes, perhaps the defeated, into their culture. Yet their ethnos remained the dominent one, as seen in the retention of their language. This is a viable indicator that they were the "power" tribe in that region (Moldova, Transylvania, and Walachia).

For more, check out the following post to Recondicon. :lol:

Salve Alanus

I have several things to point, in your opinion. First, if we agree that Jordanes was right, and the Goths was coming from Scandinavia, it means that he is right when he said that Goths was Dacians/Getians too, since he consider the Dacian history as the Goth history. Correct ?
Second, why archeology show that are little to no connection betwen Cherneakhov/Santana de Mures and other cultures from west or north west, but instead is a local culture, Daco-Getians and Sarmatian, and with Dacians having the leading role ? You see, we have material evidences who said that, and Jordanes and a lot of other ancient chronicars who said that Goths was mostly formed by Getae-Dacians, and i dont deny ofcourse other "participants", including a germanic ones for sure. But is mostly a forced view that Goths are in fact the Greutungi or others you mentioned, and there is no evidence for that. I dont said either that Got=Get, as 100%. I just said, backed by both archeology and modern scholars writings and ancient writings that Goths was a mixed people (Dacian, German, Sarmatian), having a culture related more with Dacian one, a culture formed from several influences, but with local Geto-Dacians having the leading role. And thats why they was usualy named Getians in ancient time, more then Goths. And i will be glad if you will show me couple writings from that time when Goths (not Greutungi, Tyrfingi, etc., you consider that are Goths), the "classic" Goths, are related or named as "germanic" peoples. I am quite curious to see if you find one. Instead, as i posted before, there are a lot of ancient historians who call them Getae, before Jordanes, and after him as well, and i dont think they all was stupid either and dont know whats about they write there.