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

[Alanus]

Hello Paullus,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm not intentionally singling out Peter Heather, but all historians (especially revisionists) who write expressly to a pop culture and fill their commentaries with pop phrases, which in another fifty years will sound fairly goofy. (You know what I mean, Bro? Last decade, it was Vern.) A careful annalysis of his The Fall of the Roman Empire shows a simplistic rehash of Gibbon. Quite frankly, I like Gibbon. He carried a brain; and one of my favorite lines is "(Whomever) was conspicuous by his absence." Heather-- in a flash of near genius (but not quite)-- made a statement (damning the Victorians) suitable to his IQ, "More recent accounts have posited large numbers of indigenous British turning themselves into Anglo-Saxons in the same way that they had earlier become Romans. However you see it, characteristic Roman mores and lifestyles quickly disappeared from southern Britain after its ties with the rest of the Roman word were severed."

First off, he uses the pontifical phrase "indigenous British." As opposed to what? Imported British? Foreign British?

Secondly, how does Heather account for the cultural foundations of Wales and Scotland?

In the context of the Goths, we know that the Cappadocians within Gothic culture continued their previous lifestyle and religion for two more centuries (Christianity, and Catholic I believe). I don't think the Saxons ever "conquered" the Britons; the two cultures wrestling over geographical locales yet finally sharing common ground. But to state that the Britons "turned themselves into" something else is sheer unlogic. (Charles Darwin would find a chuckle in that one.) And to say that the Romano-Brit's lifestyles "quickly disappeared" is nonsense. We know it continued for two more centuries, which I don't equate with "quickly."
If Heather's views on the very nature of a bow is misguided, and his assessment of the Britons is simplistic, then what else is faulty in his modes of deduction?
Or to phrase it another way, "What is it about Heather that's conspicuous by its absence?"