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

[Alanus]

The -alani in Roxolani derive from the "Arya" a superethnonime used by many iranian peuple also the Medes and the Persians. The lambdacisme of -ry in -l is common in many iranian languages, so Roxolan will be translated as Lighty Arians not Lighty Alans. The same choice of name Alans probably indicate a ethnogenesis from many different tribes, choicing to indicates the new formation a onorific and super-tribe name The Aryans. The Roxolani appears in the european steppes more than a century before the name Alans appears in the sources, in the middle sarmatian period, so also if we imagine a common basis in the origin, at the time of arrive of alans in european steppes the two group are culturally different like the Iaziges respect the Alans.

The Roxolans migrated in Ungarian plains only late, probably under the gothic pressures, before they lived in souther carpatian area, Anyway in IV century the Iaziges and Roxolan name disappers from the source substuted by Limigantes and Argaragantes, probably in the first IV century start a change in the tribal structures, after the coming of Roxolans in Ungary.

Very good points, Mitra

According to Harmatta (and grave finds), the Roxolani first began appearing on the Hungarian Plain just before the end of the 2nd century; and yes this could have been due to Gothic pressure, but it was not "late." I still believe that the Roxolani were more culturally related to the Alans than to the Iazyges.

You are correct in your interpretation of their name, "the light Aryans," but the term also transposes to "light Alans."
Whomever wrote the book "The Sarmatians" for Osprey Publishing got it wrong. They stated that Roxolani meant "western-most Alans." Where they got this idea, I do not know. hock:

The old spelling was "Rohks," and it can be seen in the name of Alexander's wife, Rohkshan "the light one" or "fair one." It has nothing to do with "east" or "west." :roll:

If we were to fill in the blanks between what was written by western historians, we would find that the Massagetae were related to, perhaps even were, the Alans. So claimed Dio and Ammianus. It would appear that this building of a "super-tribe" (your term, and a good one) began in the time of Tomyris and lasted until the advent of the Black Huns. The related physical remains (Asiatic facial structure) and weapons (the akinakae and longer swords) found in both Fillipovka and Issyk Kul show this relationship. It differs from the Iazyges and other tribes once connected to the western group formerly known as the "Sauromatae."

I base this association from Herodotus who stated that the Sauromatae "never learned to speak Scythian properly." He gives a legendary scenario: Amazons overcome their Greek captors and arrive in Scythia. The Scythians then send a contingent of young men to camp near the Amazons. And naturally we arrive at the formation of the "Sauromatae." But who were the Amazons? hock: My belief is they were Alanic women, obviously different in culture to the Scythians, and that the Iazyges (plus one or two other western tribes) descended from this union. Then the same thing happened again on the Hungarian Plain when the Roxolani intermarried with the Iazyges at a later date.