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

[diegis]

Well, first, about the original topic, Getae and Dacians. There are no doubt there is one and the same people, or, as couple "new" historians bring a more critical point of view (thus not too spread) is that they was two regional parts of the same peoples (something as Spartans and Athenians have diferent names, but was both greeks, or Suebii and Marcomanii have diferent names but was both germanics), or Dacians was a a part of Getae who at some point impose their name over all Getae, Getae being the name used by greeks to designed the northern branch of Thracians. They speak the same language, have the same religion, and archeological culture is one and the same on their teritory. Burebista was called by greeks historians "the first and biggest of all thracian kings" and a "getae man", but in the same time romans call his kingdom/empire Dacia, and Caesar mention that Germans are neighbours with Dacians in Hercinic Forest. Probably the most correct view is one of Dio Cassius, who said that "we (Romans) call them Dacians, as they call themselves too, even if i know that some greeks call them Getae, wheter is correct or not". As well, Traian wrote his memoirs (unfortunately lost) about his war with Dacians, called "De bello Dacico", and his personal doctor who joined him in this wars, Criton, wrote his own ones, but called "Getica" (unfortunately lost too, like pretty much almost any writings about those wars). Not sure from which come this Getae name, but greeks also used the term "Keltoi" for Celts, even if i dont think Celts ever call themsleves like that. The only confusion come with Masagetae tribe, who had the Getae name in it, but have iranic elements too (some rulers name, etc.). Most probably this was a mix betwen a Getae/Dacian tribe and a Scythian one. Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix, or Bastarnae (the same).
About Getae and Goths, i think the things are more clear now. Goths was a mix from several diferent peoples, including Germanics, Dacians, Sarmatians, etc., formed in III century AD under an important Roman influence as well. Archeology didnt show any important migration (or even conection) from Scandinavia, related with the culture atributed to Gths (Santana de Mures/Cherneakov) thus is not sure from where the germanic part come from (the only one who mention this migration is Jordanes, probably inspired by roman legend of Eneas who come from a far and legendary place, Troia, since Jordanes wrote another book called "Romana"). As well, because of the presence of Dacians among this conglomerat called Goths, some ancient writers (usualy just Jordanes is mentioned) use the name Getae as well for them, but ofcourse they wasnt 100 % Getae. And, as well more then probably (as even archeology show again), after the Goths leave the Danube area, most of their Dacian part stay (this probably not quite all), as this was their homeland.
About goths writing, from what i know the first writing atributed to them is so called Codex Argenteum, dated in VI AD (so after they leaved Dacians areas), and just presumly a copy of Ulfila bible. From what i read, other writings atributed to them are controversial, and they writed in fact more in latin ( Jordanes, Isidor from Sevilla, etc.). As well, no one related too much the Goths with Germanics in ancient times, not even Jordanes (who never mention goths as being germans in his Getica), and if roman emperors or generals, after fight with tribes as Suebi, Cherusci, Chati, Marcomani, Alemani, etc., always received the title "Germanicus Maximus", when fight against Goths they took the title of "Goticus Maximus", sometimes even "Geticus Maximus", so i think that Goths, even have a clear germanic part, was so mixed with other peoples (Dacians, Sarmatians, etc.) that was considered as something diferent.