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

[diegis]

Well, dont have too much time now, i will reply just to few questions. First, Roxolani was around Dacia before Daco-Roman wars, they was used by king Decebal as auxiliar heavy cavalry in first war with Traian, but in the second they lose the will to fight. And when Gots ( in my opinion a combination of several peoples including Dacians ) start to attack Roman borders, they do that along Dacians attacks ( the so called Free Dacians, and Dacians tribes as Costobocii and Carpii - the ones with the name related with Carpatian mountains name ), as i said in time of Constantin the Great he even take the name "Dacicus Maximus" after repeled a Dacian attack in south of Danube. As well, Dacians was not quite a small tribe ( remember what said Herodotus about the numbers of Thracians ), but they was the only one "barbarians" who make an empire in Europe ( under Burebista)... This empire was powerful enough to defeat Romans ( Caius Hybrida ), to ocupy all the greek cities from Black Sea, to practicly take out from area any significant Celtic presence, and plunder at will Macedonia. More then that, they interfere in Rome internal affairs, negociating with Pompeius against Caesar, in the time when Vercingetorix for ex. was executed at Tullianum prison. As well, to defeat Decebal, Traian used, at the peak of the Empire power, the biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy, during 2 wars, each of them of around 1 year... Even the fact that Traian took the troops from Germania and Britania, leaving those borders practicly unprotected, show who was the greatest menance for the Roman Empire.

Hello, Diegis
Yes, the Roxolani (aka "light Alans") arrived at the lower Danube in the early to mid first century (possibly before). Your considerable knowledge upon Dacian deeds arrives in the same early period, from Caesar up to Trajan. But Jordanes was not a particularly great historian.

In later times, I would imagine the only reason that Constantine the Great called himself "Dacius Maximus" was his attempt to compare himself to Trajan. I applaude your studies, very thorough, but after the Dacian Wars (early 2nd century), the Dacians slip several notches-- and as I said (I think I said) they were no longer a major influence or great threat to the Roman Empire. 8)

About Dacian culture beeing "destroyed", well, this is wrong too, most of all folklore and mythology of today Romanians is considered by ethnologist as coming from Dacians.
As well, the name Getians, used by ancient greeks, refer first time to Dacians, and most all the scholars consider they was one and the same peoples. However, the fact is that at a point, some other peoples was called like that, probably based on vague similarities ( archer cavalry for ex. ), but when we refer strictly as europeans area, the term Get/Getae is used for the same peoples also know as Dacians.

I did not say their culture was destroyed. I said Dacia was destroyed. I agree with you (the BIG Point I have been making all along) that other people were called Getae in one form or another, but I disagree that the term held a different meaning in Europe than it did in Asia. Getae is Getae is Getae in its great ambiguity.

Well, yes, after Traian wars, Dacians wasnt at the same level as before, of course, but they didnt disapear, and still "make troubels" to the Romans, but they ceased to be a rival of Romans, agree.
About Getians and Dacians, we know when Get term was used for Dacians, making some corelations, as the names was Dacian ( ex. Burebista, Deceneu ), the god was Zalmoxes, the archeology show that, etc., so when Traian doctor, Critias, write a book about Traian wars, called "Getica", we know for sure those Getae was the same peoples with Daci, for ex., but when Jordanes mention the MasaGetae we are not that sure anymore.