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

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Aha, i get it now. Well, it is a kind of little double standars at you, from my point of view. You said that is correct what they said, that they came from Scandinavia ( even if there is not too much archeological prouves from what i know ), but they lie about being related with Gets ( Getae/Dacians ).

No Razvan, I did not say that the Goths lied. I hope you just misunderstood me, I do not like to be accused of keeping double standards.
I never said the Goths lied. I said that the Goths meant a different tribe. The Goths claimed that the Gaets were (among) their ancestors. But I dispute that the Goths meant the Getae/Dacians. That is a modern interpretation which I do not share.

I dont said either that Goths ( as classical ones we know much about ) are in fact 100 % Dacians/Getae. What i said is that Goths was not a people with a clear ancestors, and just that. [..] As well, i wanted to point the influence of Dacians/Getae in this mix of people, both as prestige and as physical presence, and the fact that they was considered the ancestors of Goths, by the Goths themselves, and by previous ancient writers too.

I agree fully that the Goths were formed by a mix of peoples, and I have no doubt that people from the Dacian tribes also became part of the Gothic enthnogenesis.

I just dispute that the Goths were influenced by either Dacian culture or Dacian 'prestige'. There is no evidence for that whatsoever.