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

[diegis]

Well, about that names, just see another comparation. Germans are called by most of the peoples "Germans", but they call themselves "Deutsch".

I see where you are heading, but your example is wrong. 'German' is the English word, but the Dutch use 'Duits' and Italians use 'tedesco'.
On the other hand, the French use 'Allemand', Spanish use 'alemán', Portugese use 'alemão', and so on.

Well, wasnt Romans who call them "German" first ? Anyway, my point is that first authors who write about them, from Greek origin, call them Getae, the same as Romans call the Deutsch "German", and later the name Daci prevaled, being used by both Dacians and Romans, even if the name Getae doesnt totally dissapear. Its not sure from where this name show up, but for sure Getae and Dacians was the same peoples, even if some said that regional groups of one and the same peoples.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Its not sure from where this name show up, but for sure Getae and Dacians was the same peoples, even if some said that regional groups of one and the same peoples.

And that is precisely what bothers me. We have an idea where the term 'Daci' came from, but not Getae, and there also happens to be two other ancient peoples with similar ethnonyms, the Thyssagetae and Massagetae.
But it appears that no historians, modern or ancient, know where the term 'Getae' originated, as far as I know.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly an analogy with the Goths....Ostrogoths, Visigoths etc? Were these people not different groupings of a similar people?

[Alanus]

Possibly an analogy with the Goths....Ostrogoths, Visigoths etc? Were these people not different groupings of a similar people?

They were similar in culture and origin, along with the Gepids (and maybe the Heruli) who broke from them at an early stage. Yet Ostrogoth and Visigoth are Roman terms given to them at a later date, by Cassiodorus I think. The original name used by the Visigoths was Tyrfingi ('people of the sword Tyrfing"), while the Ostrogoths called themselves the Greutungi ("people of the pebbled shores").

As I recall, the names (and to some extent the tribal relationships) changed sometime after 400. Like many steppe cultures, the Goths were not an ethnic group related by blood, but rather by affinity and a willingness to fight for the "gens." Therefore the Goths included various Alans, Taifals, Capadocians, Dacians, Greeks, even Romans and perhaps the Sclaveni. Their language carried many Celticisms, especially military and magisterial, and it was similar to the East German variant spoken by the Vandals. Yet the Goths appeared as a cultural phenomenon, outlasting the Huns, the Vandals, and the Western Empire. :roll:

[diegis]

Possibly an analogy with the Goths....Ostrogoths, Visigoths etc? Were these people not different groupings of a similar people?

They were similar in culture and origin, along with the Gepids (and maybe the Heruli) who broke from them at an early stage. Yet Ostrogoth and Visigoth are Roman terms given to them at a later date, by Cassiodorus I think. The original name used by the Visigoths was Tyrfingi ('people of the sword Tyrfing"), while the Ostrogoths called themselves the Greutungi ("people of the pebbled shores").

As I recall, the names (and to some extent the tribal relationships) changed sometime after 400. Like many steppe cultures, the Goths were not an ethnic group related by blood, but rather by affinity and a willingness to fight for the "gens." Therefore the Goths included various Alans, Taifals, Capadocians, Dacians, Greeks, even Romans and perhaps the Sclaveni. Their language carried many Celticisms, especially military and magisterial, and it was similar to the East German variant spoken by the Vandals. Yet the Goths appeared as a cultural phenomenon, outlasting the Huns, the Vandals, and the Western Empire. :roll:

Well, a little offtopic, but, yes, Goths was a mix of different peoples, their archeological culture ( called Santana de Mures in Romania and Cherneachov in Ukraine ) is mostly Dacian and Roman as appearence, with some Sarmatians influences, and Goths identified themselves as ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ), see what Cassiodorus wrote at Teodoric the Great request, and after him Jordanes, and independent of him Issidor from Sevilla. Anyway, before them mostly all the ancient writers ( i have somewhere a list ) name them either Goths either Gets ( Getae ), and i never heard any of them make any connection betwen them and Germanic peoples. Just much later this image was promoted, mostly in romantic times era, but in ancient times they wasnt see as Germanic people, but as a kind of Getae ones.

[Alanus]

Goths identified themselves as ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ), see what Cassiodorus wrote at Teodoric the Great request, and after him Jordanes, and independent of him Issidor from Sevilla. Anyway, before them mostly all the ancient writers ( i have somewhere a list ) name them either Goths either Gets ( Getae ), and i never heard any of them make any connection betwen them and Germanic peoples. Just much later this image was promoted, mostly in romantic times era, but in ancient times they wasnt see as Germanic people, but as a kind of Getae ones.

Of course we no longer have a copy of Cassiodorus, only that of Jordanes and Issidore. Jordanes states that they came from "Scandia," which is still occupied by Germanic people. The earliest writer to mention them was Pliny, who called them the "Gutones," living on the shores of the "Amalcian Sea" (the eastern Baltic) and he locates the isle of "Balcia." The terms can be conneted to the two royal Gothic families, the Amals and Balths, and Pliny got his info from Pythias of Massillia. (see Pliny, IV, xiii, 95; and XXXVII, xi, 35 to 37).

Then Tacitus mentions the Tyrfingi as living in what is now Poland. He called the western Goths the "Gothini" and speaking Gallic, "They are inferior by their submitting to pay tribute; which is levied on them, as aliens, partly by the Sarmatians, partly by the Quadi. The Gothini, to their additional disgrace, work iron mines" (Germania, c.43, Oxford Edition). He called the Greutungi the "Gothones, who live under a monarchy, somewhat more strict than that of the other Germanic nations." This statement reflects the early ascention of the royal Amals, the family of Theodoric the Great. Tacitus continues, "All of them live in filth and laziness. The intermarriage of their chiefs with the Sarmatians have debased them by a mixture of the manners of that people... yet even these (eastern Goths) are to be referred to as Germans, since they build houses, carry shields, and travel with speed on foot; in which particulars they differ from the Sarmatians, who pass their time in wagons and on horseback." (Germania, c.43 to c.46)

Shortly after the works of Pliny and Tacitus, the Goths migrated south along the Vistula, the culture followed by archaological evidence, and entered Moldova and Ukraine, then moving west into Rumania where they "ruined" Roman Dacia. From these earlier historians, we know that they were a Germanic culture, not Dacian. Around 350, the Gothic language was written down by Bishop Ulfilas as the Gothic Bible. It is Germanic and records such words as "hailog" (hello), "hwaiteis" (wheat), "saian" (flax), and "thriskan" (threshing yard). In this light, early and long before either Jordanes or Issidore were writing-- and almost an entire millenium before a "romantic times era"-- the Goths can be identified as Germanic people influenced by the Celts and Sarmatians (basically the Iazyges and Roxolani).

Remember the words of Sun Tzu, "There is no history. Only stories."

[diegis]

Well, Jordanes said they came from Scandia, but he write that in the begining, as made a fantastic origin for Goths and isnt established too sure from where they really originated. And as i sad, their archeological culture is made mostly by Dacian and roman elements, with Sarmatian influences. The fact that traces of them can be found in today Poland too doesnt change anything, Strabo and i think Ptolemey too put the northern Dacian borders durring Burebista up to Baltic Sea. As well, when the supposed gothic writings show up ? Not from which time was dated, when was dicovered ? Until then, this are several ancient writers, who said about Goths/Gets ( Getae ). Philostorgius (368 - 425), in "Historia Eclesiastica"- Scythians from beyond the Danube ( Ister ) who was named before Getae, and now are named Gothes", Claudius Claudianus (Panegiric, 395, Against Rufinus, 396 ?i De bello Gothico, 402) write over 50 times about Getae, Dacians, the blonde Dacians, and just one time use the word Goths, in title. Ausonius, who is ask the emperor Gratian (367 - 383) to stop the Getic Mars, and write too about Getae, instead of Goths, Prudentius (348 - c?tre 405), in "Divinity of Christ" write as well Getae instead of Goths, and name the Alaric as "the Getae tiran", Hieronymus (345 - 420) write "Et certe Gothos omnes retro eruditi magis Getas quam Gog et Magog appellare consueverunt", meaning that in the past for Goths was used the name Getas, instead of Gog and Magog, as well medieval writers use the same names. In the same times, we know that classical Dacians was still know, for ex. Constantin the Great use the title Dacicus Maximus after defeating some Dacian invasion at Danube, and as well Belisarius took the title Geticus Maximus after he defeat the Ostrogoths. Goths themselves said that Getae are their ancestors, and their "official" history writed by Cassiodorus at Teodoric request was named "De origine actibusque Getarum", not Gothorum, and in Jordanes writings as well he didnt name at all the Goths as being related with Germanic peoples. In my opinion, Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, maybe Sarmatian or even Celtic one, but who adopted much of the Dacian heritage, possible because of a big Dacian component, or Dacian bigger prestige.

[Robert Vermaat]

In my opinion, Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, maybe Sarmatian or even Celtic one, but who adopted much of the Dacian heritage, possible because of a big Dacian component, or Dacian bigger prestige.

That's an opinion I share, I mean that the Goths were the rusult of several groups coalescing. But the part of the Dacian heritage I do not share.
One, the Goths seem to have become a more defined group well to the north of Dacia.
Two, we can't be sure that much of it was left after the Roman conquest and occupation.
Three, the Goths did not stay that long in 'Dacia' to absorp much of anything.
Four, the whole region was in uproar when the Goths arrived in the Dacian area, and it's very possible that the Dacian groups were scattered themselves.
we know that the Goths had well-defined leading families, as well as traditions. The Dacian language was not related to the Germanic language of the Goths, and therefore I have a poroblem accepting that 'Dacian heritage' had much influence on the Goths, let alone through bigger prestige.

Mistakes can be made: 'names for peoples' and 'names of peoples' can be decieving. The word 'Geat is reminiscent of 'Goth'' and maybe (probably) the Goths did not know these earlier peoples. It's easy to see how the two could have been mistaken.
I've said it before, the Byzantines named the Western kingdoms both 'Celts' and 'Franks' when they werer neither.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think all I was trying to say was perhaps these terms for different Getae/Dacian tribes have similar meanings of distinction as the terms which were used to diferentiate the Gothic peoples......I was not infering they were the same.

[Alanus]

It seems then, that the term Dacian was correct in describing a "person from Dacia" or "a person from the Dacian tribe." But the term Getae lumbered off into ambiguity. We don't know when this nebulosity occurred, but it arrived before Jordanes, perhaps before Cassiodorus, where we see the mistaken conclusion that the Goths were related to (or offshoots of) the Massagetae... originally a northeast Iranian tribe. :roll:

Following up on the observation of Vortigern Studies: The relationship between the Geats and Goths might be an old one, perhaps continuing. This can be seen in the Legend of Hervar, where she raises the sword Tyrfing from the grave of her father Argantyr. Then, she has a granddaughter (also called Hervar) who commands a fort against the Huns. This tale is a direct extension of Gothic tradition, even though it was finally written down in Icelandic. To me (and Wolfram), it's a link to a continued Geatic-Gothic interchange between these originally Scandian tribes. And I don't see much that is Dacian involved here. :wink:

[diegis]

Well, Getae and Dacian are one and the same peoples, as the name Getae being the first time used, by greek writers ( Herodotus ). Wehn Romans meet the same peoples they usualy call them Daci, as they name themselves too ( Dio Cassius said that ). Dacians can be at least a regional group of Getae, something like Romans being a group of Latins who took control over all Latins ( Sabinii, Samnites, etc. ), if you wish. About the Goths and how much they related with Getae ( Dacians ), well, there is sometimes a confusion betwen Dacia of Decebal and all teritories inhabited by Dacians ( Getae ), as was the Dacian empire of Burebista ( there is a map on wikipedia, but that cover just the teritory where was found arheological evidences, in the ancient times the teritory considered as belong to Dacians was bigger ). Dacia of Decebal was smaller ( quite several times ) then one of Burebista, and was some Dacians outside the Decebal kingdom ( who wasnt either conquered all, just a part of it ). So, Dacians ( Getae ) was spread until the Baltic Sea ( dont forget that Herodotus said that Thracians, and Getae was the northern branch of Thracians are the most numerous peoples on Earth, after Indians ), and is very possible to interact and mix there with some Germanic tribes and become know later as Goths. The Goths origins from the begining of Getica of Jordanes is full of fiction too, from the origin from Scandza ( unprouved archeologicaly ) to Huns who are originated from the Goths witches and desert demons.
About the Dacian language, there is no 100 % sure theory of how it was exactly, but for sure Getae ( Dacians ) have a huge impact on Goths, if Goths themselves afirmed that Getae ( Dacians ) are their ancestors ( and not just Jordanes, but independent of him Issidor from Sevilla too, who said that in Spain the Gothic nobels need to prouve, or at least afirm their origin from Getae, and names as Dicineus, Buruista or Zalmoxis was used ). Even later, in medieval times, Carolus Lundius, the president of the University of Upssala write a book called "Zamolxis, primus Getarum legislator",( 1687 ), where he wrote that "Nemp unam eandemque Gentem Getas et Gothas fuisse" - " No doubt that Getae and Goths was one and the same nation", so yes, i think the Getae ( Dacian ) prestige and even heritage was quite big for Goths, and even later for some nordic peoples.

[diegis]

In my opinion, Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, maybe Sarmatian or even Celtic one, but who adopted much of the Dacian heritage, possible because of a big Dacian component, or Dacian bigger prestige.

That's an opinion I share, I mean that the Goths were the rusult of several groups coalescing. But the part of the Dacian heritage I do not share.
One, the Goths seem to have become a more defined group well to the north of Dacia.
Two, we can't be sure that much of it was left after the Roman conquest and occupation.
Three, the Goths did not stay that long in 'Dacia' to absorp much of anything.
Four, the whole region was in uproar when the Goths arrived in the Dacian area, and it's very possible that the Dacian groups were scattered themselves.
we know that the Goths had well-defined leading families, as well as traditions. The Dacian language was not related to the Germanic language of the Goths, and therefore I have a poroblem accepting that 'Dacian heritage' had much influence on the Goths, let alone through bigger prestige.

Mistakes can be made: 'names for peoples' and 'names of peoples' can be decieving. The word 'Geat is reminiscent of 'Goth'' and maybe (probably) the Goths did not know these earlier peoples. It's easy to see how the two could have been mistaken.
I've said it before, the Byzantines named the Western kingdoms both 'Celts' and 'Franks' when they werer neither.

Of course Goths know about Dacians, they raided togheter the Roman borders, and as i sad, Constantin the Great even take the title Dacicus Maximus, so yes, for sure they lived in the same era, they was contemporans. And as i said, the strongest example that Dacian prestige and heritage ( as well as a "physical" Dacian component of Goths ) influenced the Goths is the fact that they afirm that they are the ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ).

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi 'diegis',

Please write your first name in your signature, forum rule.

Of course Goths know about Dacians, they raided togheter the Roman borders, and as i sad, Constantin the Great even take the title Dacicus Maximus, so yes, for sure they lived in the same era, they was contemporans. And as i said, the strongest example that Dacian prestige and heritage ( as well as a "physical" Dacian component of Goths ) influenced the Goths is the fact that they afirm that they are the ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ).

So that is all? The superficial lijkeness between 'Gaet' and 'Getae'? We also have Veneti on the North gallic coast as well as south of the Alps - the same people? We have Domnonii in Scotland as well as Dumnonia in Cornwall - 'surely' a migration? I think you are stretching the evidence too far. Names of tribes in Europe can sound alike and yet be totally different.

So far I have seen no evidence of a Dacian tribe, comparable to that of Trajan's wars, still being present in the mid-4th century, strong enough to influence the Goths. Also tell us, what was the 'Dacian' culture in the 4th century AD like? And in what way were the dacians still powerful raider, strong enough to influence Gothic heritage no less (which you claim). Prestige? What prestige?
What you forget to mention is that Gothic heritage also made strong claims of their original homeland, namely Scandinavia, which is altogether different from the Dacian area! And as far as I know, nothing remotely 'Dacian' is present in Gothic folklore, Gothic legends, Gothic language or Gothic leadership.

As to the title of Constantine, 'Dacicus Maximus', I would not take that too literally. In his day, 'Dacia' consisted of two Roman provinces south of the Danube. Other emperors claimed titles without even beiong victorious: Justinian claimed a victory over the Franks upon accession!

[Alanus]

And as i said, the strongest example that Dacian prestige and heritage ( as well as a "physical" Dacian component of Goths ) influenced the Goths is the fact that they afirm that they are the ofsprings of Getae ( Dacians ).

If the Goths "affirmed" they were "Getae," then they did not affirm they were Dacians. The original Greek term Getae is so ambiguous and old, that it is practically useless in any historical context.

What exactly was the "physical Dacian component of Goths?" Were these physical features so different from any other Indo-European group? Such as what? Yellow hair? Ruddy skin? Blue eyes? Heavy-boned bodies? Large noses? Maybe the Goths were Celts. :roll: Maybe they were Scythians. :roll:

As far as I know, the greatest distinguishing feature of any group is their language. And while the Goths had many borrowed Sarmatian words (and practices), they still spoke Germanic. Even the Taifals, a Sarmatian tribe allied with the Goths for generations, spoke Gothic and had Gothic nomens.

I'm sorry but I don't see a significant (or minor) Dacian influence in Gothic culture. We do know that the Goths "destroyed Dacia" in the 2nd century. And I would not be surprised that they also destroyed what was left of Dacian culture after the Romans dealt with it. By the time we reached the late 4th century, when the Goths (aka "Getae") are fleshed-out by historians, the Dacians were a vague memory.

It's not my intention to come down on you hard, but a Dacian "prestiege" appears to be fictional.

[diegis]

Well, lets see again, probably my not that well english doesnt help me too much. When i said Dacian culture related to Goths, i reffer mostly at ceramic and so on, archeological findings. When i said that Goths reffer to them as being the ofsprings of Getae, the Getae is the same with Dacians ( see what Issidor from Sevilla said about the names existing in Spain, Dicineo, Buruista, Zalmoxis, all Geto-Dacian names, and important ones, as well what Jordanes write, inspired by Cassiodorus and many others ), there is not too much to debate that Getae and Dacians wasnt the same peoples, and the fact that Goths themsleves consider that Getae ( Dacians ) are their ancestors show the prestige of the Dacians among the Goths, even an at least partial Dacian heritage, what prouve you need more ? And when i said "physical" Dacian presence among the Goths, i reffer to the fact that Goths was a mix of several peoples, including here Dacians ( Getae ). And Goths, as specific group of peoples named like that, was allways considered as Getae too, in ancient times, and even in medieval ones. I will be glad that someone present when and where appear first time Gothic texts and legends, not from which period of time are supposed to be, but when was discovered exactly, and by who ?