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

[Alanus]

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.

Hailog Diegis,

I believe that "later" ancient authors (Crirtias to Jordanes) followed the principles and nomenclature set by Herodotus. When we hear that the Getae were the "most numerous of peoples" other than the Indians, we can see the reasoning. The ambiguity of the term places various Getae within a wide geographical range. The Massagetae and Thyssegetae were branches of the Saka, and the Saka were formed as a culture in the Altai, especailly around the river Yenessy near the Mongolian border. If we encompass all these various "Getic" peoples, from Mongolia to Rumania, we have the group called "most numerous." The Dacians were a part of this larger cultural group; and we see this in various customs such as their use of the dragon wind-sock.

I hope you see what I'm trying to explain. This group, through language and custom, were the Getae to Herodotus but they were simply one of the three branches of Indo-European culture. The other two branches were the Indians (Hindus) and the Europeans (Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc.). Therefore the Dacians were Getae, but not all Getae were Dacians.