09-04-2009, 12:04 PM
Hi Razvan,
Which is of course impossible. Why does Jordanes think so? Well, because “Dio, the historian and diligent investigator of ancient times, who gave to his work the title "Getica", and the Getae we have proved in a previous passage to be Goths, on the testimony of Orosius Paulus” (IX).
And there we have it. Jordanes is muddling things in a big way.
First of all, the Dio which he mentions is Dio Chrysostom, who wrote a (lost) work called Getica. However, it is the Roman historian Cassius Dio who figures largely in Jordanes’ introduction. He therefore confused the two historians. Casssius Dio never wrote a Getica.
He also relies on Orosius, who thought that the Goths were the people of Gog, mentioned in the Bible.
The totally mistaken of the Goths with the getae of old, puts Jordanes on the wrong foot, and he subsequently makes no difference between any people with a name resembling that of the Getae. he calls them Goths here, and Getae there, making no difference.
Of course the Goths did not exist in the time of Cyrus of Persia. Where is their culture?
Razvan, if you use Jordanes in that way, and other sources as well, you must use all of what they write and not single out parts of their work. If you say that Goths were connected to Dacians in the time of Burebista, you must say that the Goths existed in the time of Darius. And I think that even you don’t think that.
Jordanes, then, cannot be used as would like to, because every time he uses the name ‘Goth’, we must doubt where he got his information and if he was confusing two groups.
‘Our’ Goths, as we have discussed so often before, were of Germanic origin (according to their language and their tradition as written down), and Dacians were NOT their ancestors, nor had any large impact on the formation of their people or their culture.
But hey, best write a book about the earliest Gothic kings fighting the Persians in the 6th century BC, maybe it will sell…
I have read some of these works, and the authors never write that they think that the dacians are the ancestors of the Goth, or even that the Geats are the same as the getae or the dacians/Getae, or even that the Dacians played the main part in the Cherniakhov/Santana de Mures culture. Sorry, but no.
I don’t say that the Goth were a 100% Germanic all along. Like most scholars that I’ve read, I accept that they were formed along the route. Sure, many peoples and cultures lived where they passed through, and no doubt addded to their group and culture.
But their language and written history tell us more about what they thought themselves – and Jordanes may mention Burebista, he NEVER says that the Dacians were the ancestors of the Goths. I mean, read the parts where he describes the pedigrees or the main part of their travels! It is soooo clear that all that stuff about Darius, Philippos and Burebista was added because he included what others had written about the Getae – it stands out from the rest of the work. Jordanes clearly did not understand the implications, implications which are so obvious to us, with a much better grasp of world history, timelines and archaeology.
He is NO historian or archaeologist and not an expert on Gothic history and/or culture.
Like Carol Lundius of Uppsala, he has no influence as a source or a researcher in this discussion.
Quote: Hello ValeriusOf course I read Jordanes, but I don’t think that you read him closely enough. Sure, Jordanes mentions the Goths often enough, and indeed he mentions the Goths in relation to the Dacians in the time of Burebista (XI.67). But in fact he mentions the Goths a bit too often, because he also writes that the Goths fought Philippos of Macedonia (X) And before that, the Goths fight Cyrus and Darius of Persia! (X).
Again, is not about Gaets, but about GET-Getians, who are ofcourse Dacians. I dont think you read Jordanes, but he mention there Burebista, and Deceneus, the Dacian rulers, and thats why i said that Dacians are integrated by Jordanes in Gothic history, as Goths
Which is of course impossible. Why does Jordanes think so? Well, because “Dio, the historian and diligent investigator of ancient times, who gave to his work the title "Getica", and the Getae we have proved in a previous passage to be Goths, on the testimony of Orosius Paulus” (IX).
And there we have it. Jordanes is muddling things in a big way.
First of all, the Dio which he mentions is Dio Chrysostom, who wrote a (lost) work called Getica. However, it is the Roman historian Cassius Dio who figures largely in Jordanes’ introduction. He therefore confused the two historians. Casssius Dio never wrote a Getica.
He also relies on Orosius, who thought that the Goths were the people of Gog, mentioned in the Bible.
The totally mistaken of the Goths with the getae of old, puts Jordanes on the wrong foot, and he subsequently makes no difference between any people with a name resembling that of the Getae. he calls them Goths here, and Getae there, making no difference.
Of course the Goths did not exist in the time of Cyrus of Persia. Where is their culture?
Razvan, if you use Jordanes in that way, and other sources as well, you must use all of what they write and not single out parts of their work. If you say that Goths were connected to Dacians in the time of Burebista, you must say that the Goths existed in the time of Darius. And I think that even you don’t think that.
Jordanes, then, cannot be used as would like to, because every time he uses the name ‘Goth’, we must doubt where he got his information and if he was confusing two groups.
‘Our’ Goths, as we have discussed so often before, were of Germanic origin (according to their language and their tradition as written down), and Dacians were NOT their ancestors, nor had any large impact on the formation of their people or their culture.
Quote: other ancient chronicars as Philostorgius (368 - 425), Claudius Claudianus (Panegiric, 395, Against Rufinus, 396 and De bello Gothico, 402), Prudentius, Hieronymus (345 - 420) Eusebiu from Caesarea (260 - 340), Paulo OrosiusOrosius I have, parts of Claudian, Eusebius – none of them is saying that Goths are the same as Getae. The rest I must check, but I doubt that they go as far as Jordanes, or if they do not make the same mistake on the basis of the similarity of the names.
Quote: or medieval as Carol Lundius,in "Zamolxis, primus Getarum legislator", Uppsala, 1687 use the name Getae (the greek name of Dacians) to name the "Goths".Come on Razvan! Pleease do not insult us by mentioning a 17th –c. ‘scholar’ who had to operate without any scientific context. He’s useless as a source and as a researcher alike.
Quote:Yes, he name them Goths, but they are Getae/Dacian ofcourse, there is no doubt.Only in your mind Razvan, only in your mind.
But hey, best write a book about the earliest Gothic kings fighting the Persians in the 6th century BC, maybe it will sell…
Quote:And i am glad to know and very curious why you think that i am the only one who think like that? Or you make a confusion and say that i think that Gaets are the Gets, which i never said that. What i said is that Gaets and Goths are not the same. That is more an assumption, that Goths are a 100% germanic tribe who migrate from Scandinavia.Razvan,
About the Cherniakhov/Santana de Mures culture, yes, is the culture attribute to the Goths, the classic Goths and is the area where they are placed by any historian. And archeology, modern archeology, and scholars as Guy Halsall(2007), "Barbarian migrations and the Roman West", 376-568, Cambridge University Press, Michael Kulikowsky (2007), "Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric", Cambridge University Press
I have read some of these works, and the authors never write that they think that the dacians are the ancestors of the Goth, or even that the Geats are the same as the getae or the dacians/Getae, or even that the Dacians played the main part in the Cherniakhov/Santana de Mures culture. Sorry, but no.
I don’t say that the Goth were a 100% Germanic all along. Like most scholars that I’ve read, I accept that they were formed along the route. Sure, many peoples and cultures lived where they passed through, and no doubt addded to their group and culture.
But their language and written history tell us more about what they thought themselves – and Jordanes may mention Burebista, he NEVER says that the Dacians were the ancestors of the Goths. I mean, read the parts where he describes the pedigrees or the main part of their travels! It is soooo clear that all that stuff about Darius, Philippos and Burebista was added because he included what others had written about the Getae – it stands out from the rest of the work. Jordanes clearly did not understand the implications, implications which are so obvious to us, with a much better grasp of world history, timelines and archaeology.
Quote:or John Matthews from which i quote several things posted on "wikipedia" said that this culture is a mix of a local ones, with Daco-Gets having the leading role. As you can see, none of them are from Romania. Yes, germanic peoples was one of the peoples mixed there, but Dacians was a major component too, for sure.I respect John Matthews, whom I have interviewed, but as a writer/researcher of Arthurian lore.
He is NO historian or archaeologist and not an expert on Gothic history and/or culture.
Like Carol Lundius of Uppsala, he has no influence as a source or a researcher in this discussion.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
