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

[Alanus]

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:

[Alanus]

... Naturally the Taefali are last right after the Syri ( : in the Notitia.. Occident and Britania. As for Gallia… What’s your point? Speculating for just another tribe of Alans? Perhaps the Syri was a phamton unit. What exactly is your timeline?

Well, aren't you clever. But not clever enough. :lol: Otherwise you wouldn't have to ask me for a timeline.

Here it is--
AD 100: The Roxolani begin moving through Iron Gate Pass and up onto the Hungarian Steppe. The Taifali follow behind the Roxolani and take Walachia as their pasturage.
AD 150: The Goths move down into S. Ukraine and Moldova, cleaving the Taifali from the major Alannic host in the Crimea and eastward.
AD 200: For trade and mutual peace, the Taifali enter an informal foedus with the Tyrfingi Goths.
AD 248-51: The Taifali are the major horse for Cniva (aka Cannabas). Emperor Decius is defeated and killed at Abritum.
AD 267: The confederation of Tyrfingi and Taifali and "other Germanic peoples" sweep south into Greece and pillage Corinth, Argos, and Athens.
AD 289-90: The Tyrfingi-Taifali drive out the Carpi between the river Prut and the Carpathians.
AD 291-92: The Tyrfingi-Taifali attack and defeat contingents of Gepids and Vandals.

I think you get the picture. So let's move to AD 360 when Eutropius mentions that Dacia was now controlled by the Tryfingi, Taifali, and Victohali. The tight association between the western Goths and Taifals continued until the Hunnic expansion of 376. Emperor Valens admits the Tyrfingi into the Eastern Empire but refuses the Taifali. They move upriver; and in 377 they join the Greutungi led by Farnobius. While raiding the Pannonias and Illyricum they meet the Roman forces of General Frigeridus (a Goth who suffered from gout.) The Romans closed ranks first, got the upper hand, and Farnobius was killed.

This was the situation that would create the Equites Taifali. The Greutungi and Taifals surrendered and Frigerid moved the entire population of Goths and Sarmatians to the Po Valley, precisely to the areas around Mutina, Reggium, and Parma, where they became "laiti" Roman cavalry. This area is now traversed by a modern Autostrada, yet local graves yield many artifacts designed in the "Black Sea style." Our authority for the original tidbit is Ammianus Marcellinus, a former Roman officer who personally knew Frigerid. There can be no questions, no debate, no rebuff to real history.

The unit was moved to Gaul, then split into Iuniores and Seniores, the newer ala sent to Britain. The settlement in northern Gaul was just below the Loire, the town still called Toufages. The last Taifalus of note was mentioned by Gregory of Tours as a famed holy man. As for the Equite Syri, you know as well as I do that they were an actual unit and listed alphbetically. I never said the Taifali were Alans, but called them Sarmatians even though they could have been from the Alanic culture.

[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.

[diegis]

... Naturally the Taefali are last right after the Syri ( : in the Notitia.. Occident and Britania. As for Gallia… What’s your point? Speculating for just another tribe of Alans? Perhaps the Syri was a phamton unit. What exactly is your timeline?

Well, aren't you clever. But not clever enough. :lol: Otherwise you wouldn't have to ask me for a timeline.

Here it is--
AD 100: The Roxolani begin moving through Iron Gate Pass and up onto the Hungarian Steppe. The Taifali follow behind the Roxolani and take Walachia as their pasturage.

8)

Salve again Alanus

I dont know from where you took that information, but is quite away from reality. AD 100 is one year before the first war betwen Dacian kingdom of Decebal and Roman empire of Traian. There are no such things as Roxolani passing to Iron Gate Pass in hungarian steppe, and for sure not any Taifali taking Walachia as their pasturage. There was Dacian kingdom back then, Roxolani was allies of Dacians, fighting as auxiliars for them and was based in north east of their kingdom, and Taifali was no near around, and really impossible to establish themselves in a quite big part of Dacian kingdom (the major power of Europe back then, outside the Roman empire), and took that as their pasturage. I think you make some confusions, with both time periods and peoples since yes, a Sarmatian peoples, not Roxolani, but Iazigi was based in hungarian steppes, brought by Romans as a buffer peoples and allied against Dacians, but not passing thru Dacians kingdom, but from north of it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Just an observation:

There was Dacian kingdom back then, Roxolani was allies of Dacians, fighting as auxiliars for them and was based in north east of their kingdom

If they were inside the Dacian kingdom, how could they have been allies? They would have been subjects, right?

Another:

.. and Taifali was no near around, and really impossible to establish themselves in a quite big part of Dacian kingdom (the major power of Europe back then, outside the Roman empire), and took that as their pasturage.

Where do you find your information that the dacian kingdom was "the major power of Europe back then, outside the Roman empire"? How far are you assuming that the dacian kingdom stretched? When i read this i have visions of a kingdom from the Black Sea to the Elbe river or something?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hello Razvan,

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 ?

Absolutely not. Jorganes names Gaets as ancestors, but it is only you who identifies these Gaets with the Dacians. Jordanes does not make such a claim at all.

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.

First, it is only assumption that connects the Santana de Mures culture to the Goths. But let's assume that this is correct, I have seen nothing in any report that subsequently claims that "the Dacians had the leading role" in that culture. That is fantasy.
You then go on to claim again that Jordanes and a lot of other ancient chroniclers - WHO ? - say that the Goths were "mostly formed by the Getae-dacians". Jordanes does not, and no other sources do. That's more fantasy.

But is mostly a forced view that Goths are in fact the Greutungi or others you mentioned, and there is no evidence for that.

No, it's the Gothic sources and others who make that claim, the Greuthungi and Tervingi being the two leading groups of the Goths.

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 I say that that last part exists only in your imagination, you have no proof for that claim. It's based only on your interpretation that that the 'Gaets' of Jordanes 'must' be the dacians. You are not backed up on that by either archaeologists or modern scholars (outside Rumania).

[diegis]

Hi Razvan,

Just an observation:

There was Dacian kingdom back then, Roxolani was allies of Dacians, fighting as auxiliars for them and was based in north east of their kingdom

If they were inside the Dacian kingdom, how could they have been allies? They would have been subjects, right?

Another:

.. and Taifali was no near around, and really impossible to establish themselves in a quite big part of Dacian kingdom (the major power of Europe back then, outside the Roman empire), and took that as their pasturage.

Where do you find your information that the dacian kingdom was "the major power of Europe back then, outside the Roman empire"? How far are you assuming that the dacian kingdom stretched? When i read this i have visions of a kingdom from the Black Sea to the Elbe river or something?

Hello Valerius

OK, i know my english is not that good, so maybe some things wasnt said too clear, but i see that you pass over some other as well, and prefer to not observe them. First, Roxolani was based in north west area outside Dacian kingdom, most probably, since we dont know exactly the borders back then.
About Dacian kingdom as the major power in Europe, outside ofcourse the Roman empire, "The Dacian Threat" by Michael Schmitz is a good book to read, as well the fact that romans used the biggest army ever deployed against an foreign enemy, and this at the peak of the empire power, leaving practicly unprotected the provinces as Germania and Britania, after take the troops from there to assemble that army, without to worry of any big danger from there.
Anyway, in Burebista times, Dacian kingdom (even empire we can say) was streched from near Crimeea in east (Olbia was conquered by them) to close to the Danube springs in west (archeology show their presence in today Slovakia for ex., and Jordanes said that they "burned" too the germans lands where in his time lived Franks (probably today Bavaria).

[diegis]

Hello Razvan,

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 ?

Absolutely not. Jorganes names Gaets as ancestors, but it is only you who identifies these Gaets with the Dacians. Jordanes does not make such a claim at all.

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.

First, it is only assumption that connects the Santana de Mures culture to the Goths. But let's assume that this is correct, I have seen nothing in any report that subsequently claims that "the Dacians had the leading role" in that culture. That is fantasy.
You then go on to claim again that Jordanes and a lot of other ancient chroniclers - WHO ? - say that the Goths were "mostly formed by the Getae-dacians". Jordanes does not, and no other sources do. That's more fantasy.

But is mostly a forced view that Goths are in fact the Greutungi or others you mentioned, and there is no evidence for that.

No, it's the Gothic sources and others who make that claim, the Greuthungi and Tervingi being the two leading groups of the Goths.

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 I say that that last part exists only in your imagination, you have no proof for that claim. It's based only on your interpretation that that the 'Gaets' of Jordanes 'must' be the dacians. You are not backed up on that by either archaeologists or modern scholars (outside Rumania).

Hello Valerius

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, and 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 Orosius 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". Yes, he name them Goths, but they are Getae/Dacian ofcourse, there is no doubt. 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.
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 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.

[Alanus]

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.

Hello, Diegis

Yes, by the third century the Goths increasingly became a mixture of various peoples-- mostly East Germans, Dacians, and Sarmatians (even some Cappadocians). BUT in the beginning, they were a Germanic people. Here's some historic confirmation that comes from two of the oldest and reliable Roman historians, Pliny the Elder and Tacitus who refer to even older writers such as the Greeks, Hecataeus and Pytheus:

"To the north is the ocean [Baltic Sea]; beyond the river Parapanisus where it washes the coast of Scythia. Hecataeus calls it the Amalchian Sea... Xenophon of Lampsacus reports that three day's sail from the Scythian coast there is an island of enormous size called Balcia; Pytheas gives its name as Basilia." Pliny, Book IV. xiii, 94

Here Pliny records info taken from Pytheus and Xenophon at a time when the Goths had yet to begin their migration. "Amalchian" and "Balcia" record the two leading families or gens of the Goths, the Amals and the Balths. In paragraph 100, Pliny says, "There are five German races," the fist being, "the Vandals, who include the Burgodones, Varinnae, Charini and Gutones." So in Pliny's time, the Goths (Gutones) were probably subjects of the Vandals. In Book XXXVII, we find them further north in Pytheas's time (300 BC) and their name misspelled, "Pytheas speaks of an estuary of the Ocean (Baltic)... extending for 750 miles, the shores of which are inhabited by a German tribe, the Guiones [a scribal error, mistaking a "t" for an "i"]."

Writing a century later, Tacitus mentions both Gothic tribes in his Germania, c. 43: The western branch (Tyrfingi) are now in Silesia and northern Hungary, "The Gothini and Osi prove themselves not to be Germans; the first, by their use of the Gallic." Here we see a Celtic cultural infusion, and the Gothini are less "Germanic" than they were earlier. "At an even earlier stage the Goths were affected by a strong Celtic influence, which left its mark above all in their political life. There are Celticisms in the important military and political vocabulary which appear among the Germanic languages only in Gothic." (Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths, p. 112)

The other gens (Greutungi) are further north and east in Poland, "Beyond the Lygii are the Gothones, who live under a monarchy, somewhat more strict than that of the other Geman nations, yet not to a degree incompatible with libery." Here we see exactly what Jordanes describes, actual kingships of the royal Amals yet at a much earlier date. This is in contrast to the Gothini/Tyrfingi who were ruled by a Balth magistracy/judgeship until the time of Alaric.

So in the early period, 300 BC to 150 AD, the Goths were a Germanic people who increasingly become influenced by other cultures, first the Celts, then the Sarmatians, then the Dacians, and so forth. In the oldest historical sources, going back to 300 BC, they were referred to as Gutones and Gothini, and not Getae.

Pytheas, Hecates, Zenophon, Pliny, and Tacitus confirm this historic "Gut-Got" structure long before Jordanes was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. The Goths started out "small" and ended up rather "large" and powerful... yet first, and foremost, they were Germans who retained their Germanic language until the end.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Hello Valerius
OK, i know my english is not that good, so maybe some things wasnt said too clear, but i see that you pass over some other as well, and prefer to not observe them. First, Roxolani was based in north west area outside Dacian kingdom, most probably, since we dont know exactly the borders back then.
About Dacian kingdom as the major power in Europe, outside ofcourse the Roman empire, "The Dacian Threat" by Michael Schmitz is a good book to read, as well the fact that romans used the biggest army ever deployed against an foreign enemy, and this at the peak of the empire power, leaving practicly unprotected the provinces as Germania and Britania, after take the troops from there to assemble that army, without to worry of any big danger from there.
Anyway, in Burebista times, Dacian kingdom (even empire we can say) was streched from near Crimeea in east (Olbia was conquered by them) to close to the Danube springs in west (archeology show their presence in today Slovakia for ex., and Jordanes said that they "burned" too the germans lands where in his time lived Franks (probably today Bavaria).

It was just a general question, I'm glad you also agree that the Roxolani were base outside the Dacian kingdom.

As to the second, we may be confusing influence and territory here. I agree that the Dacian kingdom was probably the major power outside the Empire in Eastern Europe, but I had my doubts about statements regarding the actual geographical borders.
the statements of Schmitz regarding the Germanic and British provinces being virtually unprotected during the Dacian Wars are nonsense and not to be taken seriously.
The springs of the danube are in SW Germany. I don't think for one second that Dacian power reached that far. Even Slovakia seems very far to the West for a continued presence - sources for that?

Jordanes is muddling all and everything, but more about that in the next reply. Suffice to say that the Franks occupied west and mid-Germany in Jordanes' day, not yet Bavaria. Maybe he included Goths accompanying Attila in his statement, and he is constantly muddling Getae and Dacians and Goths (more later).

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Hello Valerius

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

Of 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).

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.

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 Orosius

Orosius 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.

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.

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…

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.
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

Razvan,
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.

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.

[diegis]

Hello Robert

Well, i agreee that is a lot of confusions regarding Got/Goths and Get/Getians. So, for the first, let stick to what is know for sure (which is not always too enlightning either). We have Goths having germanic names for some of their kings we know, and have a writing (just few examples exist) considered germanic. And we have the archeology of Cherneakov/Santana de Mures culture, who is considered the culture of the classic Goths, but who is in fact mostly a mix of different local cultures, with Daco-Getians one playing the leading role as some scholars i mentioned before said (and i dont use romanians scholars, to not look as i am biased or so, even if a part of that culture is on Romania teritory). As well, they say that is not any 100% sure thing that cultures from west or northwest of the area are related with this culture, so from archeological point of view, is very hard to prouve any migration of Goths as an all from Scandinavia, but more likely they are formed in that area, from diferent peoples, so yes, Dacians palyed a major role in their formation.
Then we have the ancient chronicars (yes, Lundius might write more fantasy, agree, but he inspire from previous works). The ones i mentioned pretty much write Gets instead of Gots when they mentioned what we know later as Goths, and what i want to point is that those peoples had a "getic" appearence (enforced by what we know from archeology), and thats why they call them like that. I am glad to hear from you anyway that if any of ancient writers related the Goths (the classic ones we know starting with III century AD) with germanic peoples, since i never heard about that. Not even Jordanes.
About Jordanes saying that Goths fight against Darius, well, Goths as we know no, but Gets/Dacians yes, fight against Darius the First as Herodotus said, and the Masagetae against Cyrus. And this Getae formed a major part of Goths. Thats why some of his writings are correct even if i agree, some are fantasies to make a great and fantastic begining of his peoples, as many others do in those times (see romans connection with Troy or Jordanes saying that Goths come with 3 ships from Scandza), as well in medieval ones (fantastic or noble origin for some kings or nobles). So, Jordanes is not the first who mix Goths with Getae(Dacians), and this mix might come indeed from the fact that a germanic tribe arrive in the area, during several generations, and mix with local peoples, dacians and sarmatians. Dacians being the superior culture in the area, they become very visible in that mix, so their history is take by this peoples called now Gots and integrated in their own one, as well with germanic culture who was still keep by some of their leaders who finnaly will migrate from that area.

[diegis]

http://mujweb.atlas.cz/veda/archaeology/celts_03.htm

This is a site who say something about Dacians presence in today Slovakia. And Jordanes said that Dacians just plundered so far, as reaching the germanic teritories, not that they establish there ( at Danube springs in Bavaria) a permanent domination. It was just a show of force, to tell to germans to not migrate thru east.
About Traian taking most of the troops from Germania and Britania, this is a fact too, and the defence of Germania (this is who count much) was really weakened, so this prouve that a significant attack from germans wasnt took in consideration, and Germans was a smaller danger then Dacians back then, who haved a better army, better organization, better equiped and trained (they used even war machines) even in roman style, lots of fortresess (with a special designed wall against siege weapons) and an agressive attitude against empire so a much bigger treath (especialy if somehow they allied with Parthians, which Decebalus intended at a point, and rally too other minor powers as Sarmatians against Romans) .

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Well, i agree that is a lot of confusions regarding Got/Goths and Get/Getians. So, for the first, let stick to what is know for sure (which is not always too enlightning either). We have Goths having germanic names for some of their kings we know, and have a writing (just few examples exist) considered germanic.

I disagree.

What Gothic kings have no Germanic names? And have you found ANY Dacian name among the Goths?
I maintain (with the mainstream experts) that the Goths spoke a Germanic language (without any Dacian words) and were not influenced by Dacian language.

Just a few examples of Gothic writing? Are you trying to make fun here? It’s in fact the only eastern Germanic language that has come down to us with a fair amount of written examples.
And.. nothing Dacian in there. So maybe the Dacians were a Germanic people instead? If not, it’s impossible to maintain a scientific argument that the Dacians had a major impact on the formation of the Gothic group.
There is nothing Dacian in there!

And we have the archeology of Cherneakov/Santana de Mures culture, who is considered the culture of the classic Goths, but who is in fact mostly a mix of different local cultures, with Daco-Getians one playing the leading role as some scholars i mentioned before said (and i dont use romanians scholars, to not look as i am biased or so, even if a part of that culture is on Romania teritory). As well, they say that is not any 100% sure thing that cultures from west or northwest of the area are related with this culture, so from archeological point of view, is very hard to prouve any migration of Goths as an all from Scandinavia, but more likely they are formed in that area, from diferent peoples, so yes, Dacians palyed a major role in their formation.

Razvan, we agree that the Santana de Mures/Cherneakov culture was a mix. True enough.
We disagree that the Dacians played the major role in that culture. This I cannot find in books of the non-Rumanian scholars which you have cited. In fact it is artefacts from the Wielbark culture that dominate in the Santana de Mures/Cherneakov culture. And the Wielbark culture originated in the Prussian/Polish area, and is considered to have been the area where the ‘proto-Goths’ originated.
So yes, Dacian elements were present in the Santana de Mures/Cherneakov culture.
But no, the did NOT play a major role in the formation of the Goths.

Give it up Razvan. There are no scientific arguments that support your ‘Dacia Rules!’ theory.

(yes, Lundius might write more fantasy, agree, but he inspire from previous works).

We agree that he wrote fantasy. What previous works inspired him? Can we even prove what these works looked like, how original they were, and what Lundius did with it?
No we can’t, and therefore he is useless as a source. No scholar will touch ‘sources’ like that.

Then we have the ancient chronicars The ones i mentioned pretty much write Gets instead of Gots when they mentioned what we know later as Goths, and what i want to point is that those peoples had a "getic" appearence (enforced by what we know from archeology), and thats why they call them like that.

Which ancient source writes ‘Gets’? Never read that word.
What in the name of heaven is a “getic appearance”? And how would some 6th-c. writer know about the appearance of a group living c. 500BC? What are you talking about?
How do you mean, ‘enforced by archaeology’? What archaeologist has made any connections between 5th c. BC and 1st c. AD or even 3rd c. AD groups on the basis of appearance?

I am glad to hear from you anyway that if any of ancient writers related the Goths (the classic ones we know starting with III century AD) with germanic peoples, since i never heard about that. Not even Jordanes.

Once more you misread Jordanes. Of course Jordanes knew that the Goths were a Germanic group, he belonged to that group remember? And when Jordanes, on the basis of happily misunderstanding names (how could he not, there was no history as we know it today), misidentifies the Goths with 800 year-older groups whom he did know nothing about, apart from their names, how would he have known anything about Dacian or Scythian culture? Nothing.

And if ancient sources never literally said ‘Goths are Germans’, that’s because they did not make distinctions like we make today. To them they were all barbarians.

About Jordanes saying that Goths fight against Darius, well, Goths as we know no, but Gets/Dacians yes, fight against Darius the First as Herodotus said, and the Masagetae against Cyrus. And this Getae formed a major part of Goths.

Oh come on Razvan!
We know who fought Darius and Cyrus, and we indeed know it was not the group we know as Goths.
So why not admit that Jordanes was mistaken? Please drop that idea that it was all one big happy Geta-Daca-Goto group which existed a thousand years?
And NO, the Getae did NOT form a major part of the Goths. There is NO evidence for anything like that, I wil say it again and again and again and again. There’s only that mistake with the names.

If Fritigern the Goth was really Vortigern the Briton, does that then mean that the Anglo-Saxons were invited into Britain by a Dacian?
Of course not. Fritigern was a Goth, and his Gothic name only resembles the Brythonic name of Vortigern – different people, different meanings. Yet some people will only see the resemblance and insist on making far-flung but untenable conclusions.
As you are doing here.

Jordanes is not the first who mix Goths with Getae(Dacians), and this mix might come indeed from the fact that a germanic tribe arrive in the area, during several generations, and mix with local peoples, dacians and sarmatians.

Yes, the Goths arrived and mixed with other groups, or rather, a Germanic group arrived and out of the mix came the Goths.
No, that was not why Jordanes made that mistake. He really thought that the Getae of writers before him were the same as the Goths, and hence identified all those groups known to him as ‘his’ Goths, which of course they were not.

So, Dacians being the superior culture in the area, they become very visible in that mix

No, Dacians were NO LONGER the superior culture in that area (not after the Romans exterminated most of them, and scattered the remainder.
No, Dacians did NOT become very visible in the mix, in fact I challenge you to find even one trace of them in names of Goths or, Gothic language.

, so their history is take by this peoples called now Gots and integrated in their own one, as well with germanic culture who was still keep by some of their leaders who finnaly will migrate from that area.

No, Dacian history was NEVER integrated into their own history. Find me ONE ancient author who has integrated Dacian history (and by that I mean more than naming one or two kings) into Gothic history.

Razvan, as I see it you build your whole house of cards on a misidentification of names, something which was done long before you, in fact. Getae in your opinion ‘are’ Dacians, whereas experts are not so sure that they can be compared 100%.
Next, you find the mistake made by a number of chroniclers and ancient historians between Getae and Goths.
You then make the comparison Getae are Dacians, Goth are Getae, Goths are Dacians.

But no proof can be found. It's ahouse of cards, nothing more.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

About Traian taking most of the troops from Germania and Britania, this is a fact too, and the defence of Germania (this is who count much) was really weakened

Ah, but that is different from your earlier statement, "leaving practicly unprotected the provinces as Germania and Britania". Taking a lot of troops is not quite the same as leaving a province virtually unprotected. :wink:
Of course the Romans did not do that. We know what troops went, and what troops remained.