06-03-2009, 11:27 PM
I am trying to write something about the Dacians, but I don't know if I should distinguish between them and the Getae, or if it's possible to know whether or not I should. I have tried to read everything I can from the ancient historians, and now I'm more confused than I was at the start. This is what I have so far:
Herodotus said they were a Thracian tribe, but I don't know if he meant "Thracian" as in "Thracian ethnicity," or if he means "from the geographical region we call Thrace."
Strabo wrote in the first century A.D.: "... there is another division of the country which has endured since early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae (Geography, 7.3.12)."
But Strabo also indicated that the Dacians and Getae were for the most part a single, united nation, sharing the same god (Zalmoxis), language and foreign policy.
Cassius Dio insisted that the Dacians called themselves Dacians, and that the Greeks mistakenly referred to them as Getae, "whether that is the right form or not (Roman History, 67.6.2)."
To add further confusion, the Roman historian Justin wrote that the Dacians were the successors of the Getae (Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 32.3.16).
It is perhaps worth noting that in the fifth century B.C., Thucydides compared the Getae fighting style to that of the Scythians, "being all mounted archers (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.26.1)." But the Dacians who fought against Trajan a few centuries later fought primarily as infantry, and called upon their Sarmatian allies for cavalry to supplement their own, if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps the Dacians were the Getae described by Thucydides, and their traditional fighting methods changed over the centuries, as leaving the steppes to settle in the rugged lands around the Carpathian Mountains made hunting from horseback unnecessary?
Or perhaps Thucydides' Getae were not Dacians, but a separate people who were assimilated into the Dacian culture over time?
Another concern I have is with recent Romanian scholarship; from what I understand, the communist regime of Nicolae Ceau?escu tried to influence scholars into draw artificial links between modern-day Romanians and the Dacians. I don't know if, or how, this has affected the scholarship, and if so, I don't know which Romanian historians can or cannot be trusted.
I should probably mention that I am not a history student (just a woefully confused but curious amateur), so this is not an assignment and I have no deadline. I am doing this for a web site, and RAT seems to have a pretty good collection of posters who might be able to shed light on this subject for me.
Thank you.
Herodotus said they were a Thracian tribe, but I don't know if he meant "Thracian" as in "Thracian ethnicity," or if he means "from the geographical region we call Thrace."
Strabo wrote in the first century A.D.: "... there is another division of the country which has endured since early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae (Geography, 7.3.12)."
But Strabo also indicated that the Dacians and Getae were for the most part a single, united nation, sharing the same god (Zalmoxis), language and foreign policy.
Cassius Dio insisted that the Dacians called themselves Dacians, and that the Greeks mistakenly referred to them as Getae, "whether that is the right form or not (Roman History, 67.6.2)."
To add further confusion, the Roman historian Justin wrote that the Dacians were the successors of the Getae (Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 32.3.16).
It is perhaps worth noting that in the fifth century B.C., Thucydides compared the Getae fighting style to that of the Scythians, "being all mounted archers (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.26.1)." But the Dacians who fought against Trajan a few centuries later fought primarily as infantry, and called upon their Sarmatian allies for cavalry to supplement their own, if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps the Dacians were the Getae described by Thucydides, and their traditional fighting methods changed over the centuries, as leaving the steppes to settle in the rugged lands around the Carpathian Mountains made hunting from horseback unnecessary?
Or perhaps Thucydides' Getae were not Dacians, but a separate people who were assimilated into the Dacian culture over time?
Another concern I have is with recent Romanian scholarship; from what I understand, the communist regime of Nicolae Ceau?escu tried to influence scholars into draw artificial links between modern-day Romanians and the Dacians. I don't know if, or how, this has affected the scholarship, and if so, I don't know which Romanian historians can or cannot be trusted.
I should probably mention that I am not a history student (just a woefully confused but curious amateur), so this is not an assignment and I have no deadline. I am doing this for a web site, and RAT seems to have a pretty good collection of posters who might be able to shed light on this subject for me.
Thank you.
