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

[diegis]

In my opinion, Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, maybe Sarmatian or even Celtic one, but who adopted much of the Dacian heritage, possible because of a big Dacian component, or Dacian bigger prestige.

That's an opinion I share, I mean that the Goths were the rusult of several groups coalescing. But the part of the Dacian heritage I do not share.
One, the Goths seem to have become a more defined group well to the north of Dacia.
Two, we can't be sure that much of it was left after the Roman conquest and occupation.
Three, the Goths did not stay that long in 'Dacia' to absorp much of anything.
Four, the whole region was in uproar when the Goths arrived in the Dacian area, and it's very possible that the Dacian groups were scattered themselves.
we know that the Goths had well-defined leading families, as well as traditions. The Dacian language was not related to the Germanic language of the Goths, and therefore I have a poroblem accepting that 'Dacian heritage' had much influence on the Goths, let alone through bigger prestige.

Mistakes can be made: 'names for peoples' and 'names of peoples' can be decieving. The word 'Geat is reminiscent of 'Goth'' and maybe (probably) the Goths did not know these earlier peoples. It's easy to see how the two could have been mistaken.
I've said it before, the Byzantines named the Western kingdoms both 'Celts' and 'Franks' when they werer neither.

Of course Goths know about Dacians, they raided togheter the Roman borders, and as i sad, Constantin the Great even take the title Dacicus Maximus, so yes, for sure they lived in the same era, they was contemporans. And as i said, the strongest example that Dacian prestige and heritage ( as well as a "physical" Dacian component of Goths ) influenced the Goths is the fact that they afirm that they are the ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ).