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

[Rumo]

To you, the Goths were not based upon any discernable Germanic ethnos, even though:
a. The Goths spoke a East Germanic language.
b. The books of the Goths were in written in a Germanic tongue.
c. The names of the two highest Gothic families were Germanic.
d. The personal nomen of every noble and influential Goth was Germanic.

A crash course in Sociology would more than hint that the dominent factor in Gothic society was Germanic, regardless of what type of wheel-thrown cup they drank from.

You say "Germanic ethnos" but you only adduce linguistic evidence (and I don't understand why is sociology relevant at this point). Are modern Americans (speakers of American English, a Germanic language) a "Germanic ethnos"? Are Magyars an "Ugric ethnos"? Are Angolans a "Romance ethnos"? hock:

Also:
- we only know that some of the Goths spoke Gothic, an East Germanic language.
- we only know few texts and glosses in Gothic (while some "books of the Goths" were written in Latin like the histories of Cassiodorus and Jordanes).
- and certainly not "every noble and influential Goth" had a Germanic name. Many of them had Roman names, but not only. From Otto Mänchen-Helfen's World of the Huns (1973), chapter IX:

• Tutizar was a Goth and Ragnaris a Hun, but Tutizar is not a Gothic name and Ragnaris is Germanic. The Byzantine generals who in 493 fought against the Isaurians were Apsikal, a Goth, and Sigizan and Zolban, commanders of the Hun auxiliaries. Apsikal is not a Gothic but a Hunnic name; Sigizan might be Germanic. Mundius, a man of Attilanic descent, had a son by the name of Mauricius; his grandson Theudimundus bore a Germanic name. Patricius, Ardabur, and Herminiricus were not a Roman, an Alan, and a German as the names would indicate, but brothers, the sons of Aspar and his Gothic wife. There are many such cases in the fifth and sixth centuries. Sometimes a man is known under two names, belonging to two different tongues. Or he has a name compounded of elements of two languages. There are instances of what seem to be double names; actually one is the personal name, the other a title.

I'll add here two other Gothic names which might be non-Germanic: Saphrax (a Gothic commander in late 4th century) and Andag (a 5th century Goth mentioned by Jordanes, allegedly having an Amal lineage).

As for the later histories of Visigoths and Ostrogoths and their Germanic names (at least some of them are not convincingly East Germanic), we don't know how much they continue the traditions of the Gothic society and culture from 3rd-4th centuries. There was a considerable number of Germanic speakers in the Western and Central Europe and we can rightfully suspect some of them became Goths (as many others became Romans). Ethnic identity is fluid, relative, sometimes even opportunistic and transactional.

Where do you think the Huns originated? I'll bet my last teeth, they arrived from the steppes; and if the steppes have not moved appreciably in their geographical location, I would say the Huns originated upon the Eurasian steppes. This is confirmed by the Russians, who have followed the Hunnic archaeological trail, east to west.

As many scholars would agree today, the Huns were a mixture of different people speaking different languages. So there's no single origin, no single mass migration.
I found a persuasive reinterpretation of the "Hunnic shock" in Guy Halsall's Barbarian MIgrations and the Roman West, 376-568 (2007), chapter 6, "The Gothic crisis". Here the Huns are no longer the deux ex machina as we find them to be in most historical narratives, but some opportunistic invaders in the context of a severe Gothic crisis, invaders who eventually merged with the indigenous elements to become the so-called European Huns.

As for archaeology, I wouldn't trust too much interpretations relying on Gustaf Kossinna's principles :wink:

You balk at the idea of "mass migrations." That's the way the Irish came to New York. It's the way the Scots landed in New England and Virginia. It's the way the Huns followed a leader-class into Europe, and it's the same way a similar leader-class consolidated disenfranchised tribes and people into a society that became known as the Goths.

Instead of Irishmen in New York, I'd rather look at Bulgarians preserving the name brought by some steppe invaders which were eventually linguistically assimilated by their subjects. The Bulgar leaders shifted from steppe nomads to post-Byzantine (paraphrasing Byzance après Byzance) tsars (< caesar). Magyars are also an interesting case, preserving both their language and name, but transforming fast into a powerful Catholic kingdom.

Mass migration has many problematic aspects. While archaeology and written sources can prove a substantial colonization of North America by waves of European settlers and African slaves, they don't prove it for Goths and Huns.
Eastern Europe had indigenous societies which weren't exterminated nor chased away. What happened to them?
Also can we really have swarms of "Germans" (Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Burgunds, Vandals, etc. - for most of them there were postulated groups of tens or hundreds of thousands) flooding from some plentiful spring somewhere in Central or Northern Europe? Can we imagine hordes of Xiongnu (as some scholars assume) following their leaders some 5000 km west, just to find a new home near some Pannonian swamps? How many of the medieval European crusaders didn't reach their much closer destination, with all the apparent enthusiasm and having definite targets?

As for Peter Heather? Watch his goofy actions and scenarios on the "History" Channel, and then tell me that the man has a cranial capacity higher than a chimpanzee. :twisted:

The Goths in the Fourth Century already has its detractors; and when the bell rings at the end of the last round, portions of that book will be considered rubbish. On a happy note , I'm glad you ressurrected this thread. It's entertaining.

I'd like to see also some arguments, not only mudslinging.