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

[Robert Vermaat]

First, if you read modern scholars as i mentioned before (Kulikowski, Hallsal, etc.), and look at archeology, you will see that this disprouve any strong connections with the supposed migration of the Goths from Scandinavia/Scandza, and that was just the interpretation made by german and other western historians, from the romantic times up to modern ones.

Not at all! This is not what Kulikowski says at all. Nor does Halsall, who is convinced like most experts that the Goths originated in the Baltic area, and most probably arrived in the Chernyakhov area from the Wielbark area.

And is based just on Jordanes "Getica", who is interpretated as correct just on some parts, from political and nationalist reasons, as well as some connections betwen classic Goths and some later legends from Scandinavia area. Because if you believe them, why you think is wrong to believe that Normans had Dacian kings, as in legend of Dudo.

It is correct that Jordanes is the source who first mentions the migration of the Goths.
Is he just correct on the parts where you say he identifies Goths with Daco-Getians? And you reject the migration part? Well, on what grounds? Because it first your theories? You may claim as you did above that scholars reject the migration theory, but it is a fact that they do not reject it, for lack of a better alternative. Maybe they do not believe every word, that the whole group came in one piece from Scandinavia, but a Baltic origin of the main group is never in doubt.

I think that this Dudo legend is more comparable to your belief that the Dacians were the major group in the formation of the Goths.

About Goths, we know for sure that they become visible, as classic Goths, in the area of Cerneakhov/Santana de Mures culture. That culture it was a mix of local cultures, with Dacian one having a major role.

No, we do NOT think that the Dacians had the major role. Only you do so, maybe following John Matthews the storywriter.

It was like a cockteil, formed from diferent peoples, ones already there (Dacians, sarmatians), and ones arrived later (germanic peoples). This culture was as well under a heavy roman influence, from Daco-Romans peoples from dacian teritory transformed in roman province of Dacia. Just after settle of that mixed culture, we can talk about Goths, more like a product of romans frontiers, a product made by several diferent peoples, but still having a dominant local culture (poterry, architecture, burial habits who are predominant dacian) but with heavy roman influences.

There maybe have been Roman political pressure of some sort (Kulikowski argues so), but hardly Roman cultural influence that formed the culture. Christianity surely entered the area, but Gothic has hardly any Latin loanwords, meaning that Latin hardly had any influence.
No Dacians loanwords seem present. Other groups in the cocktail included Sarmatians, Taifali, Carpi and others. But experts are convinced that the Germanic elements started as and remained the most powerful element.

Yes, germanic part (the ones you mentioned if you wish) became at some moment the "political" dominant part (but not at first, when so called "free Dacians" was the leaders of an alliance who attacked the Roman empire).

This is pure speculation on your part. There is no information about ‘Free Dacians’ or whatever being the leaders of the Chernjakov culture.

But they was so mixed at a point that many ancient chronicars stoped to make a difference betwen Dacians/Getians (Carpi, Costobocii, Free Dacians) and Goths (both contemporary to them), and use for later Goths the name Get/Getae.

The Goths did not use the name Gets. They Goths referred to their area as Gutthiunda, not Dacia or Getia or whatever.
Ancient authors never made a distinction between ‘earlier Goths’ and ‘later Goths’. They misidentified the Getae and sometimes ascribed the deeds and kings of these Getae as those of the Goths, leading to silly descriptions of how the ‘Goths’ (not the Gets or the Geats or the Getae) fought the Persians under Cyrus or Darius.

Later, a part of this Goths migrated from the area, but the culture remain, as well as other local "pure" dacian cultures, and "daco-roman" ones, meaning that an alliance of those mixed tribes, lead probably by germanic leaders, moved further inside roman borders. They still had a dacian heritage anyway, if you look at the paintings of St. Apollinare church of Teodoric the Great, where are painted Dacian "tarabostes" as the 3 'kings" from the east who bring gifts to Jesus.

No, the culture did not ‘remain’ after the Goths migrated. It ended in the 5th c. AD, when the Huns overran the area, when part of the Goths were still very much present in the area.
AND THEY NEVER HAD A DACIAN HERITAGE ANYWAY
I’m getting very tired of hearing this, without ANY proof presented, and in the face of every evidence presented to the contrary.