The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[diegis]

Actually the column dedicated to the Germans is just up the road: ;-)

Column of Marcus Aurelius

Poor imitation of the original.

If Trajan had survived his Parthian campaign, he would very likely have built a monument to commemorate it more spectacular even that the Dacian war column.

Or maybe not more spectacular.

However, those who invaded Parthia/Persia seldom returned... :neutral:

Maybe because Parthia was so far far away.

Good points

[Nathan Ross]

he used the biggest Roman army ever against a foreign enemy

No source, ancient or modern, claims that Trajan's army was the biggest, or even one of the biggest, ever fielded by Rome. In fact, no ancient source tells us anything about the size of his army at all. I've already suggested evidence for an army of perhaps between fifty and sixty-five thousand. If you have other evidence, what is it?

Tettius took profit and make his raid in autumn, the harvest season when most people was occupied... he met just a little Dacian army made of parts of local garrisons and whatever part time warriors... a simple raid ended with a rather minor clash at Tapae, followed by Romans retreat.

You seem to know a lot about the first battle of Tapae all of a sudden! :-)

As I've already written, Tettius' expedition was probably not intended to conquer Dacia (otherwise the emperor would have led in person). The battle at Tapae was clearly believed (at least by the Romans) to have been a definite victory: the war ended there, and we have inscriptions from soldiers decorated in what was almost certainly the same campaign. Domitian was very popular with the army, as shown after his murder - this would not have been the case if he had been 'humiliated' or 'run away' in Dacia.

Some said that this humiliation was one of the reasons that lead to Domitian assasination later

Who says this? Domitian was murdered eight years after the end of the Dacian war, by a cabal of palace officials, mainly because he had switched from executing senators to executing his own staff. Or do you know different?

Trajan Column was the first and the biggest and most impressive of such Columns

Actually the Column of M Aurelius is a few feet higher (mainly the base, I think) and the same diameter. Whatever you think of its artistic merits, it was obviously intended to be as impressive as Trajan's version.

However, Trajan was a great builder with plenty of time and money to renovate Rome; Marcus Aurelius was not. Trajan's column, forum etc were intended as propaganda, to reflect the glory of the emperor himself, not that of his conquered foes.

none of those statues depict Dacians as prisoner, like chained, fall on the ground or dying

They do actually - or did. Sketches of reliefs from the Great Trajanic Frieze (in T's forum) show Dacian captives being led in chains, and sitting in a cart with chains around their necks. There's also, of course, the depiction on the Adamklissi reliefs of chained captives.

The Dacian figures later reused on the Arch of Constantine and elsewhere all stand with heads bowed and hands clasped before them, probably a gesture of humility and surrender. They may be intended to show the emissaries of a defeated nation, rather than captives taken in war.

There's also, of course, the large heap of Dacian spolia at the base of the column. Either way, these depictions are obviously of a conquered people - since the monuments they adorned were set up to celebrate a victory...

;-)

[diegis]

No source, ancient or modern, claims that Trajan's army was the biggest, or even one of the biggest, ever fielded by Rome. In fact, no ancient source tells us anything about the size of his army at all. I've already suggested evidence for an army of perhaps between fifty and sixty-five thousand. If you have other evidence, what is it?

Well, I remember I already posted few sources, Strobel, Schmitz, even Julian Bennet I think

You seem to know a lot about the first battle of Tapae all of a sudden! :-)

As I've already written, Tettius' expedition was probably not intended to conquer Dacia (otherwise the emperor would have led in person). The battle at Tapae was clearly believed (at least by the Romans) to have been a definite victory: the war ended there, and we have inscriptions from soldiers decorated in what was almost certainly the same campaign. Domitian was very popular with the army, as shown after his murder - this would not have been the case if he had been 'humiliated' or 'run away' in Dacia.

Its just educated guess and common logic. The raid was made at the end of the season, in autumn. So surely not intended to last or to conquer anything, and as you said wasnt comanded by the emperor. Dacian army was made of a smaller proffesional one and a bigger one formed when was needed and made by part-time warriors, who was busy with harvest season and preparation for winter in autumn.
This mean that army was gathering slower. The smaller permanent one was spread all over garrisons.

The route taken by Tettius is the shortest possible one but the hardest one (Tapae is a hard place to pass by), and was taken precisely to surprise the Dacians and dont give them much time to gather a big enough army. In less then 3 days probably Tettius was at Tapae, which means the Dacian army that face him there was formed in a big hurry with local elements and part of garrisons from fortresses around the capital, so was a small one
Romans may win the battle, but was shattered enough to turn around and retreat imediatly after. Hardly an important victory.
Dio Cassius mention it in passing, and all other authors who talk about roman armies lost under Domitian dont mention it at all.
Even the explanation why Tettius didnt push further after he defeated Dacian army is a hilarious one, with Romans being scaried by a wooden army transformed over night by Decebalus.
All this point to the fact it was a raid intented to show to Dacians that Romans can bite back too. The fact that Domitian signed such hard peace for the empire show who had the upper position after all

Who says this? Domitian was murdered eight years after the end of the Dacian war, by a cabal of palace officials, mainly because he had switched from executing senators to executing his own staff. Or do you know different?

Well, Domitian executed people who talk about his rule, and the humiliation from Dacia was surely among those. Roman authors even avoided to talk about the losses in Dacian wars, wonder why?

Actually the Column of M Aurelius is a few feet higher (mainly the base, I think) and the same diameter. Whatever you think of its artistic merits, it was obviously intended to be as impressive as Trajan's version.

However, Trajan was a great builder with plenty of time and money to renovate Rome; Marcus Aurelius was not. Trajan's column, forum etc were intended as propaganda, to reflect the glory of the emperor himself, not that of his conquered foes.

Well, is higher because the pedestal or base is bigger. And obviously is a copy of Trajan one

They do actually - or did. Sketches of reliefs from the Great Trajanic Frieze (in T's forum) show Dacian captives being led in chains, and sitting in a cart with chains around their necks. There's also, of course, the depiction on the Adamklissi reliefs of chained captives.

The Dacian figures later reused on the Arch of Constantine and elsewhere all stand with heads bowed and hands clasped before them, probably a gesture of humility and surrender. They may be intended to show the emissaries of a defeated nation, rather than captives taken in war.

There's also, of course, the large heap of Dacian spolia at the base of the column. Either way, these depictions are obviously of a conquered people - since the monuments they adorned were set up to celebrate a victory...

;-)

I was talking about statues, like the ones from Constantine Arch. As far as I know no other foreign enemy have statues of them made by Romans

Some of those statues have the head bowed as they was placed on pedestals in Trajan Forum, so to a higher position, and was intended to look down at the people who entered there.

http://www.euratlas.com/Atlas/rome/constantine_arch.jpg

[img] http://romaniadacia.files.wordpress.com/...omania.jpg[/img]

http://eenymeenyminymo.files.wordpress.c....jpg?w=700

[img] http://data.whicdn.com/images/34805972/d..._large.jpg[/img]

[img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...070614.jpg[/img]

Some was quite big, I read about some as big as 4 meters high.
This is one of those, one found in Vatican museum (just upper half was preserved)

http://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/size/540...G.540x.jpg

Sure, they show Dacians in a non threatening position, but not broken or imprisoned. Its a sign of respect for them.
As well, as far as I know, the Trajan Column and Adamclisi monument are the only imperial propaganda monuments were Roman soldiers are ever depicted as killed, wounded or taken prisoners and tortured.
Which again is a sign of how hard and bloody was those wars, so much that would look silly or embarassing to not show that on those monuments

[Frostwulf]

@diegis
Do you wonder why people don't take you seriously, and why I continue to disengage with you? You are so focused on trying to prove that the Dacians were the baddest, toughest and bravest people the Earth has ever known that you don't bother reading what people are saying. If it's contrary to your belief, then the historians/archaeologist know nothing, yet if there is but one snippet from said historian or author that supports your view then that one piece is heralded as absolute truth and cant be disproved. You seem not to bother reading what has been said, for instance:

So? Those was leftovers after Dacians passed by

The point of I was making was that the Scordisci were not in the Roman territory, they were in the hinterland that was not controlled by the Romans. You say things about the links not showing you anything, but everyone of them mention the Suebi invading Boii territory before the coming of the Dacians. You say this isn't so, but yet you put nothing down, just the usual "I know better" attitude and the majority of the time you are proven wrong.

Then there is the "big cover up"! Everybody is out to down play the greatness of the Dacians! It all started with the classical authors and now modern authors are trying to limit how great the Dacians were. That is of course the exception of Schmidt, though his "Dacian numbers are obviously wrong".

You have no clue what Caesar was doing. According to you he should have immediately on the very second he received Illyria he should have marched right up and attacked Burebista. It doesn't matter that he got married, it doesn't matter that his enemies in the senate were causing him problems, all that matters is he should have immediately left for Dacia. Because he didn't he must have been afraid of the Dacians, he wasn't afraid of the Gauls though, even though he didn't immediately march out against them. He was only afraid of the Dacians. I would love to put in new evidence by Lica, but there is just no point to it, it doesn't fit what you want to believe therefore it will be dismissed without contemplation.

You want to know why very few people(now including myself) don't take you seriously? It's from ignoring/dismissing historians/archaeologist while using your own interpretation, which the vast majority of the time either makes no sense and/or has nothing but wishful thinking/supposition to back it up. Things like this:

And how the heck the Getae outnumbered those 100,000 Macedonians? You should see the propaganda betweent the lines my friend, that was a simple excuse to explain the lose.

You pick and choose what you want so you can say that the Dacians are the mightiest people who ever lived. Of course the 100,000 Macedonians you except as being real, but you refuse to accept the part of Dacians outnumbering the Macedonians(this is common to you). Here is when you were actually using sources and basing things from written authors:

300-292 Lysimachus
In first campaign (around 300 BC), yes, is possible that he underestimated the dacian strenght and he was outnumbered (even if this might be an excuse for losing the battle, not that un-common one indeed). However he faced just a dacian tribal union from today southern Romania and probably northern Bulgaria. In the second campaign, from your previous post (quote from Mircea Musat & Ion Ardeleanu)

<<In 292 B.c., Lysimachus was forced to start a second large-scale war, on the Getic political formation ruled by Dromichaites. Lysimachus’ army was this time much more numerous than the one he had used seven or eight years before. Its effectives mightily impressed the contemporaries, which explains the rather far fetched figure – still, the only one we know – given by Polyaenus: 100,000 men. The Thracian king fell a prisoner during that battle. Pg.25>>

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=375328

Not much more of that type of diegis. The above diegis is the one I enjoyed debating with, not this one:

We have so in Egeea Sea island names as Samos, SamoThrace and Karpatos (Samus is the ancient name of a Dacian river from Transylvania, called Somes today, and the relation between Carpathians and Karpatos is obvious, same the name Thrace with Thracians).
Even Sparta is a Thracian name (see Spartacus and other related Thracian names), and i think at the beginning Spartans was just a Thracian elite established there, and who was completely hellenized later.

If it sounds like it, it must be just doesn't work in these situations. Again wishful thinking/supposition with nothing to back this up with.

But for me what I get tired of is the Goffart/Theophany situations, do you remember them? The Goffart situation I had to explain to you 7 times!What of the Theophany, which in my view is the worst of these. You were not even willing to except this as not supporting your view even in light of the overwhelming evidence showing it was an error!

I also respect your opinion, but I do really wonder if you read all that is involved in the situation. Lets try again.
First the Theophany:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Lee-"Theophany"
Again, from the fragments of this Work hitherto brought to our notice, (see the places referred to above,) it seems sufficiently certain, that this is the work of Eusebius so described by Jerome. I would add, let the reader also examine in the following pages, the very many places marked as corresponding word for word, with several in the undoubted productions of our author. In our Second Book, for example, a very considerable number of the Sections or Paragraphs, are found to be identically the same with many |6 occurring in the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini:" ....
He compares the two(again the Oratio was taken directly from the Greek) and then has this later on:
Quote:
6. 1 My reason for this opinion is grounded on the fact, that many of the proper names found in this MS. are so deformed by the mistakes of the Copyists, as to make it extremely probable that many Copies had been made from the Translator's Autograph, before our Copy was written: e.g. p. 71, we have [Syriac] for [Syriac] or the like: p. 131, [Syriac] for probably; a corruption so great as to bid utter defiance to critical conjecture, had we indeed had nothing else to rely upon: p. 148, [Syriac], Herododus, for Herostratus: to which many others might be added. There are also some other errors, such as [Syriac], for [Syriac]see pp. 187, 223, 302, 276, &c.,--all of which, as far as they have occurred to me, I have corrected in the notes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jmzC2VE...on&f=false
read pg.278
You do understand what is being said here, there are mistakes by the Copyists, deformed, corruption and other such errors. If you look through the Theophany you will see parenthesizes in places, these are the corrections or errors. The Goths are in the parenthesizes, as are the other "errors" and deformities.

So once again:
1. You have a direct comparison with the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini" and it is clearly Getae.
2. In Lee's translation(which Lee says so himself) you have admitted mistakes by copyists which the Getae-(Goths) is in Parenthesizes, as are the other errors.
3. Nowhere else does he mention the Goths as Getae, but always referring to the Goths as Scythians prior and after the Theophany.
If I brought to you this obvious mistake, would you take it seriously? It is clear that with the (Goths) being in parenthesizes that it is an error, there is just no other way about it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthrea...st10009291

This is when I realized where you have drifted to. This was at least the 3rd time I explained it to you but you refused to accept it, offering nothing for evidence to the contrary. You just wanted to believe so badly that you ignore the obvious.

I'm sure we will end up debating again and hopefully you will produce some interesting material. But you have again just retreaded the same supposition with nothing but wishful thinking to back it up. So this time, I really mean it(I think)that I will not participate in this discussion further.

[Nathan Ross]

I remember I already posted few sources, Strobel, Schmitz, even Julian Bennet I think

I meant ancient sources, actually. As we've discussed before, Bennett says nothing of the sort (he claims that the Parthian force was one of the largest, IIRC), and Strobel and Schmitz's hugely inflated estimates are not supported by evidence. If you know of any such evidence, I'd be interested to hear of it.

The raid was made at the end of the season... The route taken by Tettius is the shortest possible one but the hardest one... In less then 3 days probably Tettius was at Tapae... but was shattered enough to turn around and retreat imediatly after. Hardly an important victory.

Why is it a 'raid' now? It appears to have been a sizeable expedition. The campaigning season in northern europe began in July (cf Caesar) - nothing implies that Tettius left it any later. The route is the same taken by Trajan in AD101 (based on the sole fragment of his own account of the campaign). It's unlikely a large army could move that distance in three days. Tettius' forward reconaissance towards Sarmi does not imply that his army was 'shattered' or that it 'retreated'. I've already given my opinion on what probably happened. We don't know any more about it, and have no further information upon which to speculate - but the Romans believed it was a victory and no further fighting was required for over a decade.

Domitian executed people who talk about his rule, and the humiliation from Dacia was surely among those. Roman authors even avoided to talk about the losses in Dacian wars, wonder why?

If this 'humiliation' was at all upon the minds of the plotters then the very anti-Domitianic historical record would surely have mentioned it. No such mention is made anywhere.

Roman authors played up the losses under Domitian to further blacken his name. They likewise avoided mention of heavy losses under Trajan (if any such existed) to increase the contrast. Roman histories are not known for their objectivity!

Some of those statues have the head bowed as they was placed on pedestals in Trajan Forum, so to a higher position, and was intended to look down at the people who entered there... Its a sign of respect for them.

The iconography of Roman victory monuments is a wider subject. But I think it unlikely that the Dacian statues were intended to loom over the heads of the Roman populace! The whole point was to emphasise the conquest of the Dacian people - it was in Trajan's interest to make the Dacians look powerful, so his own prestige in overcoming them was greater. But I doubt it went any further than that - Trajan's Column is not a pro-Dacian monument!

The point about the depiction of Roman casualties (wounded men, and tortured prisoners) on the Column is interesting too. The comparable column of Aurelius shows only enemy dead - notably civilians. One could argue that this is because the losses during the Marcomannic war were well known to be great: Roman armies were defeated in the field, Roman provinces devastated, Roman cities sacked and besieged. The Roman public, therefore, needed no reminder of the violence of the fighting, and the builders wanted to play down this aspect of the campaign. In this respect, the injured men shown on Trajan's column might suggest that the Romans felt no such grievance in connection with the Dacian war: it was a splendid imperial victory, difficult but decisive.

Which again is a sign of how hard and bloody was those wars

Yes, nobody disputes that the Dacian war was hard and bloody, or that the Dacians were a formidable enemy in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries. But I still don't believe that we can call the Dacians the greatest enemy that Rome ever faced. Far from it.

I'm sure we will end up debating again (but)... I will not participate in this discussion further.

I tend to agree. We've been over this ground many times, and unless anyone can offer new evidence or fresh supportable hypotheses, I think we'll have to agree to differ on our interpretations.

:-|

[Robert Vermaat]

[quote] [quote="Robert Vermaat" post=329713]Sorry, but that's incorrect, as has been shown here so many times already. This 'denetification' only rests on the names used by ancient authors, who often used older names for later peoples: The Huns were named 'Scythians', and medieval armies from Western Europe were still styled 'Celts'. Should we take those identifications literally too? Of course not. Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).
Alaric styled himself 'Rex Gothorum', not 'Rex Getae'.
The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.[/quote]
[quote] No, it rest on archaeology too. The majority of artefacts found in Santana de Mures/Cerneahov culture (the Goths culture) is of Dacian origin. [/quote] That's not what the majority of archaeologists agrees upon.
[quote] Getae and Dacians are the same (is like Alemani and Franks, they are both Germans)[/quote] Boldly stated, but very wrong. The dacians may have belonged to a much larger group labelled Getae, but that does not mean that every Geta is a Dacian. Therefore, even IF the Goths had been the same as the Getae, they could have been but one member of that group, but different.
Likewise, The Alamanni and Franks are both part of the Germanic group, but Franks are not Alamanii, they are not 'the same'. Similarli, Dacians and Getae are not 'the same'. But that does not matter, because they used a different language:
[quote] The so called Gothic language is know mostly from Codex Argenteus, but I doubt that Codex is a Gothic one, but probably it belonged to Longobards, so there is Longobard language. Goths back then was already Romanized and used Latin.[/quote] What ARE you taliking about? The 'so-called' Gothic language? Soory Diegies, but that the conclusion of eminent linguists, not some amateur. The Goths were Romanised and used latin? What, as their prime language? And you have proof of that? We know the differences between Lombard and Gothic, and the Gothic Bible is not a mislabelled Lombard manuscript, even if that would suit your theories of 'Goths=Dacians=Rumanians' much better.
[quote] Either way Goths wasnt for sure a homogenous people, but a mix of people. And more then sure they didnt migrated from Scandza either, nor wandered some 2 mileniums until arrived at Danube. Majority of modern historians reject now that tale of Jordanes[/quote]Well, no-one is claiming that, so please set up your straw men somewhere else. The Goths were indeed not homogenous, and nobody still believes they trotted from Scandinavia all the way to Rome. Time for you to stop claiming that 'the Goths were Dacians', too.

[trajan]

Goths = Getae = Dacians = Not Germanic.

Sorry, but that's incorrect, as has been shown here so many times already. This 'denetification' only rests on the names used by ancient authors, who often used older names for later peoples: The Huns were named 'Scythians', and medieval armies from Western Europe were still styled 'Celts'. Should we take those identifications literally too? Of course not. Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).
Alaric styled himself 'Rex Gothorum', not 'Rex Getae'.
The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.

LOL. No its not incorrect. what is incorrect is claiming that goths = germanic. Why is that incorrect? Let me enlighten you.

All the "goths = germanic" party have in their favour is the so called "Wulfila Bible" and copies from it. From that they claim that Goths = Germanic. LOL. Let me blow that up to pieces.

The "Wulfila Bible" was "discovered" by German monks. And what a surprise, its written in German. that is clear, and I didnt contest that. What I constest is the atribution to "Wulfila".
For me its clear that the German monks who "discovered" it actually wrote it. That is why its written in german, because it was written by german monks of 15 or 16th century.
A pious fraud, not the first and certainly not the last. The german monks of 15th or 16th century made the translation and they attributed it to "Wulfila". And now all the modern ignorant "authorities" claim that goths=germanic, dismissing all the ancient authorities who wrote that Goths= Getae.
"wulfila bible" was supposedly "discovered" by german monks in the 15th century, but is not mentioned for the first time until 1569.

I see that Frostwolf is ignorantly attributing the Annalls to Tacitus, in common with all modern "authorities". LOL. The so called "Annals of Tacitus" were forged by an italian named Poggio Bracciolini in the 15th century. English author John Wilson Ross proved that in his "Tacitus and Bracciolini The Annals Forged in the XVth Century" available for free on Gutenberg.org

Let me quote John Wilson Ross about the 15th century. "it was an age of imposture; of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, or on slight evidence, or no evidence at all, whatever was foisted upon them; when, too, the love of lucre was such that for money men willingly forewent the reputation that is the accompaniment of the grandest achievements of the intellect" And then Ross gives examples of printing press before Gutenberg. And that would shatter another germanic claim, that Gutenberg invented printing press, but I dont want to go into that.

Ross again about that period 15-16th century, when the "wulfila bible" suddenly appeared for the first time. "The temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors. Manuscripts turned up, as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as well as famous; from the most out-of-the-way places,— the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails, as the History of Velleius Paterculus; or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs and dust, as the Poems of Catullus. So long as the work had an appearance of high antiquity, it passed muster as an old classic; and no doubt could be entertained of its genuineness, if, in addition to its ancient look, it was brought in a fragmentary form."
Fragmentary form, and what a surprise, the "Wulfila bible" also appeared on fragmentary form. But no, we shouldnt be allowed to think that the "wulfila bible" is also a forgery. It was supposedly dated by carbon to 6th century, by germans probably, so I dont care at all about that date.

If "wulfila bible" is genuinly a book of 6th century, it means no doubt that goths = germanic, they spoke germanic. But then how could all the ancient scholars fail to see that? How could Isidor of Seville, the most learned scholar of his age, "the last scholar of the ancient world", who had a Vizigotic mother, claim that Vizigots = Dacians ?
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Ro...re/9*.html
Daci autem Gothorum soboles fuerunt, et dictos putant Dacos, quasi Dagos, quia de Gothorum stirpe creati sunt.
In this work, Etymologiarum sive Originum, about the origins of people, Isidor, who was a vizigotic bishop of Seville, claims that his contrymen's ancestors were Dacians (Dacos).

How could Isidor fail to see that his mother spoke German? :-D
Did his germanic :-D mother tell him lies about the origins of his people? :-D :-D
How could Isidor fail to see that Goths all around him spoke germanic? :-D
And Isidor knew about Germans, for he writes about them right after that quote of Dacos.
But hey, whatever suits the "goths=germanic" forgers and liars.

Isidor writing about Dacians/Getae
Gothi a Magog filio Iaphet nominati putantur, de similitudine ultimae syllabae, quos veteres magis Getas quam Gothos vocaverunt; gens fortis et potentissima, corporum mole ardua, armorum genere terribilis
armorum genere terribilis, that were the Getae/Dacians, they had terrible weapons, they were certainly not spearchukers like the Germans.

the Dacian Falx. The germans didnt had anything close to it to damage the Romans.
Trajan engaged the war with hardened soldiers, who despised the Parthians, our enemy, and who didn't care of their arrow blows, after the terrible wounds inflicted by the curved swords of the Dacians."
Fronto, Principia Historiae, II
the Dacians were great metallurgists, while the Germans were not. The Dacians/Getae had the terrible weapons to destroy the romans, the germans did not.


Tacitus writing about Germans http://elfinspell.com/OggCh1.html
Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Only a few make use of swords or long lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a framea)

Tacitus(the real Tacitus not the forger Bracciolini) writing about Germans (In his well-known and original book Germania, not in the forged book Annals)
http://elfinspell.com/OggCh1.html
Heat and thirst they cannot withstand at all,

Uh-oh, hispanic peninsula has plenty of heat, plenty.


How could St Jerome claim that Getae, not germanic tribes, were threatening Rome in his time?
http://www.umilta.net/jerome.html
'The Getae,(2) ruddy and yellow-haired, carry tent-churches about with their armies: and perhaps their success in fighting against us may be due to the fact that they believe in the same religion.
Gee Jerome, dont you recognize German language when you hear it? Why dont you write the Germans success in fighting against us? :-D Oh, because the Getae were threatening Rome, not a German speaking tribe.

Why did Claudian, contemporary with Jerome and the gothic invasion of Rome, titled his work "De bello getico" and not " de bello germanico" when he wrote about the gothic invasion of Rome?
Claudian was a very respected Roman writer.
http://www.haverford.edu/classics/facult...ption.html
In 400 CE, the Senate and emperors erected a bronze statue in the Forum of Trajan in honor of Claudian, an honor Claudian himself mentions in the preface to his De Bello Getico 8)


--------------------------------------------------------------

Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).

Isidor, Jerome and Claudian just called and said that you should stop spreading false info around. You and the other "goths=germanic" party.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian

You should had written The language of the "Wulfila bible" is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.
Than your statement would have been true. As it is, is just false info.
The language of the "wulfila bible" is not the language of the Goths, it is the language of the german monks who forged the "wulfila bible", who translated the bible into their language and then falsely they attributed it to "wulfila".

[Lyceum]

Well then God bless those German monks who were able to accurately predict East Germanic forms like triggws and laisjan before we had the benefit of inscriptions! I mean they even knew that Gothic alone of all Germanic kept a proper passive mood! I mean I am in awe of these monks whose predicative linguistics makes modern computers look sluggish.

God too bless those Italian monks who clearly had access to so much interesting stuff they were able to forge the Annales, the fact that they could write good Latin aside, I am once more impressed that they anticipated/propagated ideas we're only just being able to corroborate ourselves with Archaeology.

I'm going to say it, Robert will ban me but I don't care: I really feel sorry for you protochronic fools. There's nothing sadder than having to invent and steal history in order to make yourselves feel better about your poor present. Right up there with FYROM and Macedonia. But please, if it helps you sleep, keep your asinine mental acrobatics whilst the rest of us happily learn about and work with the past.

[Vindex]

There have been two interventions by Moderators on this thread already and it will remain locked. It will remain on the Board, however, as a source of reference.

The other thread has been removed - RAT Members were invited to voice their concerns through me and NOT to try and ignore the rules by starting the thread again.

This is the final post on this thread.

[diegis]

@diegis
Do you wonder why people don't take you seriously, and why I continue to disengage with you? You are so focused on trying to prove that the Dacians were the baddest, toughest and bravest people the Earth has ever known that you don't bother reading what people are saying. If it's contrary to your belief, then the historians/archaeologist know nothing, yet if there is but one snippet from said historian or author that supports your view then that one piece is heralded as absolute truth and cant be disproved. You seem not to bother reading what has been said, for instance:

The point of I was making was that the Scordisci were not in the Roman territory, they were in the hinterland that was not controlled by the Romans. You say things about the links not showing you anything, but everyone of them mention the Suebi invading Boii territory before the coming of the Dacians. You say this isn't so, but yet you put nothing down, just the usual "I know better" attitude and the majority of the time you are proven wrong.

I am not bend to prove Dacians was the baddest ever, I just point out few things that are not always taken in consideration or promoted much, the reasons being that western historians, with few notable exceptions, was not too interested in Dacian history, and majority of Romanian historians are at least slightly Romanophiles, if not plain and simple Romanophiles.
Thats why my opinion may sound sometime as exaggerated, but even if there are sometimes, other times is just the fact Dacians are less known so for many seem unbelievable what i say, even if is logical or backed by sources.
Lets not forget as well about other "maniacs" as with Celtomania, Galomania, Pan-Germanism, Germanomania, Grecomania, Turcomania, Pan-Slavism, Slavomania and so on.
I know at least in west those are not too influencial anymore, even if maybe still present, but traces of them are present as well

Then there is the "big cover up"! Everybody is out to down play the greatness of the Dacians! It all started with the classical authors and now modern authors are trying to limit how great the Dacians were. That is of course the exception of Schmidt, though his "Dacian numbers are obviously wrong".

The cover up is mentioned by Orosius, is not invented by me. And is clearly visible when you look at the ancient sources talking about Domitian wars with Dacians.
Why do you think for example nobody except Dio Cassius talk about Tettius expedition? Then why when Cassius mentioned Fuscus he said just he was send with a large force, but when he mentioned Tettius he give the exact number of troops (4 legions and whatever auxiliars)?

You have no clue what Caesar was doing. According to you he should have immediately on the very second he received Illyria he should have marched right up and attacked Burebista. It doesn't matter that he got married, it doesn't matter that his enemies in the senate were causing him problems, all that matters is he should have immediately left for Dacia. Because he didn't he must have been afraid of the Dacians, he wasn't afraid of the Gauls though, even though he didn't immediately march out against them. He was only afraid of the Dacians. I would love to put in new evidence by Lica, but there is just no point to it, it doesn't fit what you want to believe therefore it will be dismissed without contemplation.

No, not according to me, but with Paulus Orosius. You just dismiss him because doesnt fit with your views. Orosius who surely had good sources at his time, as he write that "Alexander publicly said that Getae must be shunned". This must remain mentioned somewhere, in a source lost today, and I believe it was the same for sources regarding Caesar

You want to know why very few people(now including myself) don't take you seriously? It's from ignoring/dismissing historians/archaeologist while using your own interpretation, which the vast majority of the time either makes no sense and/or has nothing but wishful thinking/supposition to back it up. Things like this:

And how the heck the Getae outnumbered those 100,000 Macedonians? You should see the propaganda betweent the lines my friend, that was a simple excuse to explain the lose.

You pick and choose what you want so you can say that the Dacians are the mightiest people who ever lived. Of course the 100,000 Macedonians you except as being real, but you refuse to accept the part of Dacians outnumbering the Macedonians(this is common to you). Here is when you were actually using sources and basing things from written authors:

300-292 Lysimachus
In first campaign (around 300 BC), yes, is possible that he underestimated the dacian strenght and he was outnumbered (even if this might be an excuse for losing the battle, not that un-common one indeed). However he faced just a dacian tribal union from today southern Romania and probably northern Bulgaria. In the second campaign, from your previous post (quote from Mircea Musat & Ion Ardeleanu)

<<In 292 B.c., Lysimachus was forced to start a second large-scale war, on the Getic political formation ruled by Dromichaites. Lysimachus’ army was this time much more numerous than the one he had used seven or eight years before. Its effectives mightily impressed the contemporaries, which explains the rather far fetched figure – still, the only one we know – given by Polyaenus: 100,000 men. The Thracian king fell a prisoner during that battle. Pg.25>>

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=375328

[/quote]

I am sorry if I will hurt your feelings my friend, and I will not be bothered if you take me seriously. For me this is an entertaining way to use some free time, and even to learn new things, I am not doing it especially to gain someone praise or attention

Not much more of that type of diegis. The above diegis is the one I enjoyed debating with, not this one:

We have so in Egeea Sea island names as Samos, SamoThrace and Karpatos (Samus is the ancient name of a Dacian river from Transylvania, called Somes today, and the relation between Carpathians and Karpatos is obvious, same the name Thrace with Thracians).
Even Sparta is a Thracian name (see Spartacus and other related Thracian names), and i think at the beginning Spartans was just a Thracian elite established there, and who was completely hellenized later.

If it sounds like it, it must be just doesn't work in these situations. Again wishful thinking/supposition with nothing to back this up with.

[/quote]

Hmm, not sure why you bring this up, probably you tried a sneaky attack inspired by the ambushes we talked about :-P
Anyway, I will show you few things (this is The Cambridge Ancient History)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXljf8Jq...ia&f=false

<<pag. 64 - More then fifty years ago Vasile Parvan wrote about "the Dacians at Troy" on the strenght of similar ceramic types found at Troy and in the Carpathian area; the only amendament we can make is to replace Dacians by Thracians, because the various groups of Thracian population had not separated out in the twelfth century.

Pressure from the west and south west, which began in north-eastern Yugoslavia, south-eastern Hungary and the south-western most part of Romania, gave rise to great migrations.......displaced the Dorians........caused the invasion of the "Sea People">>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples...hypothesis

<< Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[60]

according to Finley:[61] A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. It appears to have been pushing in different directions at different times.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_...ronworking

<<The Bronze Age collapse may be seen in the context of a technological history that saw the slow, comparatively continuous spread of iron-working technology in the region, beginning with precocious iron-working in what is now Bulgaria and Romania in the 13th and 12th centuries BC.[10] Leonard R. Palmer suggested that iron, while inferior to bronze weapons, was in more plentiful supply and so allowed larger armies of iron users to overwhelm the smaller armies of bronze-using maryannu chariotry.[11]>>

Sources mentioned are:

-See A. Stoia and the other essays in M.L. Stig Sørensen and R. Thomas, eds., The Bronze Age—Iron Age Transition in Europe (Oxford) 1989, and T.H. Wertime and J.D. Muhly, The Coming of the Age of Iron (New Haven) 1980.
-Palmer, Leonard R (1962) Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B Tablets. (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1962)>>

As you can see it was a movement of people, Dacians for Parvan, still Thracians for those from Cambridge, that are present at least at Troy. Sure, they was the center of that big disturbance and movement of people, and they pushed others around to move, but Dacians/Thracians are present for sure at Troy, at the end of Bronze Age, begining of Iron Age. And if you find ceramic (I have somewhere about some swords too) from Carpathians at Troy, you think some nearby island from Egeea called Karpatos is that far fetched to be named after their original place?

But for me what I get tired of is the Goffart/Theophany situations, do you remember them? The Goffart situation I had to explain to you 7 times!What of the Theophany, which in my view is the worst of these. You were not even willing to except this as not supporting your view even in light of the overwhelming evidence showing it was an error!

I also respect your opinion, but I do really wonder if you read all that is involved in the situation. Lets try again.
First the Theophany:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Lee-"Theophany"
Again, from the fragments of this Work hitherto brought to our notice, (see the places referred to above,) it seems sufficiently certain, that this is the work of Eusebius so described by Jerome. I would add, let the reader also examine in the following pages, the very many places marked as corresponding word for word, with several in the undoubted productions of our author. In our Second Book, for example, a very considerable number of the Sections or Paragraphs, are found to be identically the same with many |6 occurring in the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini:" ....
He compares the two(again the Oratio was taken directly from the Greek) and then has this later on:
Quote:
6. 1 My reason for this opinion is grounded on the fact, that many of the proper names found in this MS. are so deformed by the mistakes of the Copyists, as to make it extremely probable that many Copies had been made from the Translator's Autograph, before our Copy was written: e.g. p. 71, we have [Syriac] for [Syriac] or the like: p. 131, [Syriac] for probably; a corruption so great as to bid utter defiance to critical conjecture, had we indeed had nothing else to rely upon: p. 148, [Syriac], Herododus, for Herostratus: to which many others might be added. There are also some other errors, such as [Syriac], for [Syriac]see pp. 187, 223, 302, 276, &c.,--all of which, as far as they have occurred to me, I have corrected in the notes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jmzC2VE...on&f=false
read pg.278
You do understand what is being said here, there are mistakes by the Copyists, deformed, corruption and other such errors. If you look through the Theophany you will see parenthesizes in places, these are the corrections or errors. The Goths are in the parenthesizes, as are the other "errors" and deformities.

So once again:
1. You have a direct comparison with the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini" and it is clearly Getae.
2. In Lee's translation(which Lee says so himself) you have admitted mistakes by copyists which the Getae-(Goths) is in Parenthesizes, as are the other errors.
3. Nowhere else does he mention the Goths as Getae, but always referring to the Goths as Scythians prior and after the Theophany.
If I brought to you this obvious mistake, would you take it seriously? It is clear that with the (Goths) being in parenthesizes that it is an error, there is just no other way about it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthrea...st10009291

This is when I realized where you have drifted to. This was at least the 3rd time I explained it to you but you refused to accept it, offering nothing for evidence to the contrary. You just wanted to believe so badly that you ignore the obvious.

[/quote]

You seem to conveniently forgot the big case you made that all the Getae=Goth thing started with Jerome/Ieroniums. You even asked me if I remember correct, to come with a proof that is not like that. And I remember I show you that before Jerome it was Ausonius who equate them, so no, the Getae=Goths is not Jerome invention and probably was considered (true or not, this can be discussed) a common knowledge back then.
Or now you will accuse a conspiracy of ancient authors to call them like that and cover the fact they was Germanic?

I'm sure we will end up debating again and hopefully you will produce some interesting material. But you have again just retreaded the same supposition with nothing but wishful thinking to back it up. So this time, I really mean it(I think)that I will not participate in this discussion further.

It is your choice, I am not force anyone to debate or discuss anything

[diegis]

I meant ancient sources, actually. As we've discussed before, Bennett says nothing of the sort (he claims that the Parthian force was one of the largest, IIRC), and Strobel and Schmitz's hugely inflated estimates are not supported by evidence. If you know of any such evidence, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Well, I dont know, so thats why I go with those professional historians who seem to know

Why is it a 'raid' now? It appears to have been a sizeable expedition. The campaigning season in northern europe began in July (cf Caesar) - nothing implies that Tettius left it any later. The route is the same taken by Trajan in AD101 (based on the sole fragment of his own account of the campaign). It's unlikely a large army could move that distance in three days. Tettius' forward reconaissance towards Sarmi does not imply that his army was 'shattered' or that it 'retreated'. I've already given my opinion on what probably happened. We don't know any more about it, and have no further information upon which to speculate - but the Romans believed it was a victory and no further fighting was required for over a decade.

Hmm, so Tettius made his expedition (if you dont like raid) in July, and Domitian celebrated the victory in October? Thats implausible, not to mention that he would have lots of time to push for Sarmi if so. The route was the shortest and the hardest one, even Trajan didnt obtained there more then an inconclusive victory.
Sure, Roman considered Tettius raid a victory (even if nobody except Dio mention it) but it was far from something serious, as Domitian agree with a hard peace imposed in Dacian terms

If this 'humiliation' was at all upon the minds of the plotters then the very anti-Domitianic historical record would surely have mentioned it. No such mention is made anywhere.

Roman authors played up the losses under Domitian to further blacken his name. They likewise avoided mention of heavy losses under Trajan (if any such existed) to increase the contrast. Roman histories are not known for their objectivity!

Because it was a humiliation for the empire too, not just for Domitian. Lost standards still in Dacian hands, as well many prisoners, lots of money paid to Decebalus who followed his own politics anyway, Romans engineers working for Dacians and so on

The iconography of Roman victory monuments is a wider subject. But I think it unlikely that the Dacian statues were intended to loom over the heads of the Roman populace! The whole point was to emphasise the conquest of the Dacian people - it was in Trajan's interest to make the Dacians look powerful, so his own prestige in overcoming them was greater. But I doubt it went any further than that - Trajan's Column is not a pro-Dacian monument!

The point about the depiction of Roman casualties (wounded men, and tortured prisoners) on the Column is interesting too. The comparable column of Aurelius shows only enemy dead - notably civilians. One could argue that this is because the losses during the Marcomannic war were well known to be great: Roman armies were defeated in the field, Roman provinces devastated, Roman cities sacked and besieged. The Roman public, therefore, needed no reminder of the violence of the fighting, and the builders wanted to play down this aspect of the campaign. In this respect, the injured men shown on Trajan's column might suggest that the Romans felt no such grievance in connection with the Dacian war: it was a splendid imperial victory, difficult but decisive.

It is an interpretation. Doesnt change the fact only statues belonged to Dacians, and not all of them have the head bowed or so.
The Roman losses during Marcomanic wars (wasnt just Marcomani fighting there however) was big because of that epidemic mostly. Roman army was decimated by that plague, same for many civilian population, thats why those wars was that complicated

Yes, nobody disputes that the Dacian war was hard and bloody, or that the Dacians were a formidable enemy in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries. But I still don't believe that we can call the Dacians the greatest enemy that Rome ever faced. Far from it.

They was the greatest during the I century BC to early II century AD, which I consider was the peak period of Rome, from Caesar to "the five good emperors", Trajan being the best of them. Again, this is my interpretation

[diegis]

Sorry, but that's incorrect, as has been shown here so many times already. This 'denetification' only rests on the names used by ancient authors, who often used older names for later peoples: The Huns were named 'Scythians', and medieval armies from Western Europe were still styled 'Celts'. Should we take those identifications literally too? Of course not. Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).
Alaric styled himself 'Rex Gothorum', not 'Rex Getae'.
The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.

No, it rest on archaeology too. The majority of artefacts found in Santana de Mures/Cerneahov culture (the Goths culture) is of Dacian origin.

That's not what the majority of archaeologists agrees upon.

Getae and Dacians are the same (is like Alemani and Franks, they are both Germans)

Boldly stated, but very wrong. The dacians may have belonged to a much larger group labelled Getae, but that does not mean that every Geta is a Dacian. Therefore, even IF the Goths had been the same as the Getae, they could have been but one member of that group, but different.
Likewise, The Alamanni and Franks are both part of the Germanic group, but Franks are not Alamanii, they are not 'the same'. Similarli, Dacians and Getae are not 'the same'. But that does not matter, because they used a different language:

The so called Gothic language is know mostly from Codex Argenteus, but I doubt that Codex is a Gothic one, but probably it belonged to Longobards, so there is Longobard language. Goths back then was already Romanized and used Latin.

What ARE you taliking about? The 'so-called' Gothic language? Soory Diegies, but that the conclusion of eminent linguists, not some amateur. The Goths were Romanised and used latin? What, as their prime language? And you have proof of that? We know the differences between Lombard and Gothic, and the Gothic Bible is not a mislabelled Lombard manuscript, even if that would suit your theories of 'Goths=Dacians=Rumanians' much better.

Either way Goths wasnt for sure a homogenous people, but a mix of people. And more then sure they didnt migrated from Scandza either, nor wandered some 2 mileniums until arrived at Danube. Majority of modern historians reject now that tale of Jordanes

Well, no-one is claiming that, so please set up your straw men somewhere else. The Goths were indeed not homogenous, and nobody still believes they trotted from Scandinavia all the way to Rome. Time for you to stop claiming that 'the Goths were Dacians', too.

Well, I will reply here as the quotes are messed up

About Goths, Jordanes and archaeology (I found this randomly and surprisingly on an interesting discussion page on wikipedia)

Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the history of the Goths: studies in a migration myth (2002)
<<Christensen 2002, p. 343: This study has shown that neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any original knowledge whatsoever of a people called the Goths. They might possibly have been mentioned in some geographical and ethnographical works dating from the first century AD, but the similarity in the names is not significant, and no antique author later considers them to be the forefathers of the Goths. No one tells of how the Γούτωνες (Strabo), Gutones (Pliny), Gotones (Tacitus), or Γύτωνες (Ptolemy) wandered southwards and became the fearsome Gothi. No one sees this connection, even during the Great Migration. [...] The Goths surface in the Graeco-Roman historiography in various unrelated notes from the middle of the third century, in the area around the lower reaches of the Danube. Before this time we cannot say with any certainty that a people existed whom we routinely refer to as Goths.>>

<<Christensen 2002, p. 349: When confronting a text such as the Getica, and when we are able to conclude that it is not what it purports to be - namely a history of the Goths - we naturally find our options reduced to a single logical course of action: we must reject the text as a source of Gothic history. [...] Today we are able to conclude that this narrative is fictitious, a fabrication in which the omnipotent author himself has created both the framework and the context of the story.>>

Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 (2007)
<<Halsall 2007, pp. 132-3: The Černjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It has been argued that it evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Černjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths’ migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes’ Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Černjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Černjachov is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Černjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. Although it is often claimed that Černjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark analogues. Migration from the Wielbark territories is also proposed from the supposedly distinctive mix of cremation and inhumation. However, burial customs are rarely static and more than one area of barbaricum employed, at various times, a mixture of rites. The fourth century, in particular, saw widespread change in such practices. This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration.>>

<<Halsall 2006, p. 279: In his excellent Goths and Romans, Peter Heather demolished the idea that the Getica's picture of Gothic history could be projected further back than about 376 for the late Visigoths, or beyond the break-up of the Hunnic Empire for the Ostrogoths. However, Heather seems to have retreated slightly from his earlier position. Partly this is because he wishes to show that archaeology might indeed prove that Jordanes was right to trace Gothic origins to the Baltic. [...] His analyses irreparably damaged the Geticas value for Gothic 'prehistory' yet, to reinstate the Gothic migration from the Baltic, he has to accept the value of at least a kernel of Jordanes' account; he accepts this on the basis of a reading of archaeological data which is itself driven by the uncritical 'pre-Heatherian' interpretation of Jordanes. The problem, as with many readings of late antique Origines Gentium is the 'pick and mix' approach. The Getica contains all sorts of nonsense about Amazones, Goths at Troy, borrowings and manipulations of classical sources about the earlier Getae and so on. It is illogical to weed out these episodes for rejection, while accepting other clearly mythical elements, many similarly deriving from classical ethnography, as Heather acknowlegdes.>>

<<Halsall 2006, p. 281: The movement of artefacts is interpreted in line with apriori notions drawn from Jordanes (for which see above). Thus the spread of artefacts up the Vistula (i.e. in the 'right' direction) is used as proof of migration, the movement of Černjachov artefacts from the Ukraine to the Baltic (i.e. in the 'wrong' direction) is presented as evidence of trade or exchange. [...] Rightly, Heather queries previous attempts to make 'precise ethnic attributions on the basis of individual artefacts'. Yet that is exactly his own approach. Grave 36 at Leţcani is 'presumably Gothic' because of a pot with a runic inscription in spite of the presence of other artefacts of quite different, Danubian origin. Why one pot with runes outweighs four Danubian wheel-turned pots is unclear. This is, though, an example of precise ethnic ascription being made on the basis of an individual artefact.>>

Michael Kulikowski, Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric (2007)
<<Kulikowski 2007, p. 63 sqq: The argument has been made most explicitly by Volker Bierbrauer: the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov archaeological culture is Gothic; some of its characteristics – particular brooch and ceramic types, a tendency not to place weapons in graves – are similar to those of the Wielbark culture, which was centred on the Vistula river and lasted from the first to the fourth century A.D.; the Wielbark culture must therefore also be Gothic. [...] The Wielbark elements in the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov culture are no more numerous than other elements, so there is no archaeological reason to privilege them over others. [...] More importantly still, the closeness of the artefactual connections between the two cultures is not as great as is usually asserted. Indeed, their chief point of intersection is not particular artefacts, but the fact that weapon burials are absent from the Wielbark and rare in the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov zones. In purely logical terms, a negative characteristic is less convincing proof of similarity than a positive one, and the fact that weapon burials are commonest where archaeological investigation has been most intensive suggests that our evidentiary base is anything but representative. Given this, why should the Wielbark–Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov connection seem so self-evident to so many scholars? One answer is an old methodology that seeks to explain changes in material culture by reference to migration. The other is Jordanes. [...] If we did not have Jordanes, that connection would not seem self evident. Taken on purely archaeological grounds, without reference to our one piece of textual evidence, there is no reason to interpret the Wielbark and the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov cultures as close cousins. [...] How are we to interpret the origins of the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov culture and the Gothic hegemony with which it coincides chronologically? Is there such a thing as Gothic history before the third century? The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries – everything except the sixth-century Jordanes. [...] The rise to prominence of a few strong leaders created a stable political zone in which a single material culture came into being, synthesized from a variety of disparate traditions. None was more important than the others – as the material evidence clearly shows – and there is no need to look for ‘original’ Goths coming from elsewhere to impose their leadership and their identity on others. There were, of course, immigrants into the region where the Sântana-de-Mureş/Černjachov culture arose, from elsewhere in northern and central Europe and from the steppe lands to the east as well. But none of them need themselves have been Goths, because there is no good evidence that Goths existed before the third century.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture

<< The culture probably corresponds to the Gothic kingdom of Oium as described by Jordanes in his work Getica, but it is nonetheless the result of a poly-ethnic cultural mélange of the Gothic, Getae-Dacian (including Romanised Daco-Romans), Sarmatian and Slavic populations of the area.[4][5]>>

<<Today, scholars recognize the Chernyakov zone as representing a cultural interaction of a diversity of peoples, but predominantly those who already existed in the region,[13] whether it be the Sarmatians,[14] or the Getae-Dacians (some authors espouse the view that the Getae-Dacians played the leading role in the creation of the Culture).[15] >>

So when we talk about Goths we can say that a large part of them was indeed Getae/Dacians, even if we can't equate Goths=Getae 100%

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

[So when we talk about Goths we can say that a large part of them was indeed Getae/Dacians, even if we can't equate Goths=Getae 100%

Well, it has always been my position that the Goths were a mixed bunch that probably formed up when the reached the edge of the Roman empire.

I can agree that the Dacians belonged to the 'Getae', but I have also always opposed the use of the name 'Getae' for any group, because:
a) it's not specific enough a description for a single group 9similarly you can't discuss 'the Germans' when discussing 1st c. BC Chatti and 5th c. AD Vandals - too many differences).
b) it's a name that was not used specific enough in our primary sources. Similarly, when Goths are named 'Scythians' we also do not suppose that there are real connections between these two groups, and there are many, many similar examples.

At least I can take you up on this, that Goths are not Dacians, but Dacians are a part of the Goths! How large a part we can discuss, as long as such a discussion does not rest on claims that 'the Gothic language is a forgery'(as recently claimed on this forum).

[Dan Howard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_...ronworking

<<The Bronze Age collapse may be seen in the context of a technological history that saw the slow, comparatively continuous spread of iron-working technology in the region, beginning with precocious iron-working in what is now Bulgaria and Romania in the 13th and 12th centuries BC.[10] Leonard R. Palmer suggested that iron, while inferior to bronze weapons, was in more plentiful supply and so allowed larger armies of iron users to overwhelm the smaller armies of bronze-using maryannu chariotry.

This theory is no longer valid. The earliest evidence of iron working now comes from Anatolia, not Bulgaria and Romania. By the time of the Bronze Age collapse, the Hittites had been smelting iron and making iron blades for around a thousand years. The predominance of iron weapons over bronze weapons occurred around the time of the Bronze Age collapse but it didn't originate from the Balkans. It was "home grown".

As you can see it was a movement of people, Dacians for Parvan, still Thracians for those from Cambridge, that are present at least at Troy. Sure, they was the center of that big disturbance and movement of people, and they pushed others around to move, but Dacians/Thracians are present for sure at Troy, at the end of Bronze Age, begining of Iron Age. And if you find ceramic (I have somewhere about some swords too) from Carpathians at Troy, you think some nearby island from Egeea called Karpatos is that far fetched to be named after their original place?

Not "for sure" at all. It is more likely that Trojan ceramics were simply traded with the Balkans or vice versa. It is a more reasonable explaination for why there are similar ceramics at both places.

[Frostwulf]

@diegis this is more like it.

As you can see it was a movement of people, Dacians for Parvan, still Thracians for those from Cambridge, that are present at least at Troy. Sure, they was the center of that big disturbance and movement of people, and they pushed others around to move, but Dacians/Thracians are present for sure at Troy, at the end of Bronze Age, begining of Iron Age. And if you find ceramic (I have somewhere about some swords too) from Carpathians at Troy, you think some nearby island from Egeea called Karpatos is that far fetched to be named after their original place?

According to Cambridge the Western part of Romania (pg.63) belonged to Hallstatt groups, in which certain urnfield influences are also found. Do you see on pg.64 of the same book where the movement began? It says pressure from west and south west which began in south-eastern Hungary, north-east Yugoslavia and south-west Romania. This very book said western Romania had Hallstatt culture, and from other sources does Hungary. Then the quote you posted:

Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[60]

according to Finley:[61] A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. It appears to have been pushing in different directions at different times.>>

This seems to me to be Hallstatt/Urnfield movements. If I am wrong on this, please correct me and show me how I was wrong.

ou seem to conveniently forgot the big case you made that all the Getae=Goth thing started with Jerome/Ieroniums. You even asked me if I remember correct, to come with a proof that is not like that. And I remember I show you that before Jerome it was Ausonius who equate them, so no, the Getae=Goths is not Jerome invention and probably was considered (true or not, this can be discussed) a common knowledge back then.

Problem is it wasn't common knowledge prior to Jerome. Ausonius "might" have written prior to Jerome but he would be the only one. I haven't checked into it, but remember what Jerome said "all" earlier scholars had called the Goths Getae rather than Gog and Magog". Now with perhaps the exception of Ausonius, no one called the Goths anything but Scythian s. But again until I or someone else researches Ausonius I'm not willing to agree with you, especially since Jerome says "all", which is proven incorrect. I don't wish to pursue this unless you have proof of dates of his writings, and even then I would have to research it as I did the Theophany.

One last thing you might be interested in, do you know who Julian called "the most warlike and high-spirited of all nations"? This is the same kind of thing you put down:

Therefore do not be surprised if I now feel towards you as I do, for I am more uncivilised than he, and more fierce and headstrong in proportion as the Celts are more so than the Romans. He was born in Rome and was nurtured among the Roman citizens till he was on the threshold of old age. But as for me, I had to do with Celts and Germans and the Hercynian forest from the moment that I was reckoned a grown man, and I have by now spent a long time there, like some huntsman who associates with and is entangled among wild beasts. There I met with temperaments that know not how to pay court or flatter, but only how to behave simply and frankly to all men alike. Then after my nurture in childhood, my path as a boy took me through the discourses of Plato and Aristotle, which are not at all suited for the reading of communities who think that on account of their luxury they are the happiest of men. Then I had to work hard myself among the most warlike and high-spirited of all nations, where men have knowledge of Aphrodite, goddess of Wedlock, only for the purpose of marrying and having children, and know Dionysus the Drink-Giver, only for the sake of just so much wine as each can drink at a draught. And in their theatres no licentiousness or insolence exists, nor does any man dance the cordax on their stage. (359)

http://www.attalus.org/translate/misopogon.html#359

Or course even though this is written as satire, these words are coming out of his mouth as opposed to making things up for Alexander, Caesar, Trajan and etc. The Caesars satire is one completely out of boastfulness, the Misopogon is not.