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

[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.