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

[Robert Vermaat]

As you can see, Dacians and their history is considered by Jordanes as part of Goths history, and kings of them are both Filimer and Zalmoxis.

Who gave you that idea? Jordanes mentions only a few bits of the no doubt very long Dacian history. If he really had incorporated Dacian history into Gothic history, which he would have done if the Dacians were really the most dominant influence on the proto-Goths as you claim, he would have mentioned more than this tiny bit.
Where are the dozens of Dacian kings that ruled Dacia before and after the Dacian Wars? Nowhere to be seen, contrary to the relatively great attention to Gothic kings and legend.

The fact that Goths writed in a germanic language, doesnt mean too much. Probably they adopted the for writing the language of the germanic part of that mix, since Dacians didnt use their language in writing (or is not known) And we dont know for sure if there is or not Dacian words in Gothic language, since there are many common indo-european related words at ancient peoples.

I really think this discussion is becoming too silly for words.
Should I really seriously consider that the Goths were for a large part Dacians but for some dark reason decided to write in German?
Of course it has meaning - it's proof that Dacian had no major influence on the Germanic group. And since Dacian was related to Thracian, we would have surely recognised such words if they had been present. But they are not, which makes a strong case about the Dacian influence.

Come on Razvan! Do you want to continue this discussion at some scientific level or do you want to continue with this useless speculation that warrants no proof at all?
The Goths were a Germanic group, had kings with Germanic names, and wrote in a Germanic language. No Dacian influence in known from the Goths – to speculate that there was a hidden Dacian influence just because you want the Dacians to be some superior group is nonsense.
Like this, you could say that the Dacians were really the main group behind the Huns, or the Vandals, or even the Sassanid Persians.

Read your books! There is no claim (that I know of) that the Goths did write Germanic but did not speak it. Halsall, Kulikowski, every linguist, all are convinced that the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language. Their personal names are Germanic and their runes are known from the Chernyakhov area.

About archeology, i think i was clear, foreign scholars, based on modern archeology (there is on wikipedia an article where they opinions are presented at Chernyakhov culture) said that is little to no evidences that Wielbark culture have anything to do with Cherneakhov/Santana de Mures culture,

You did not read the Wiki article, did you? Or maybe the Rumanian article differs from the English article?
It says: “Wielbark elements are prominent in the Chernakhov zone”.
Indeed, the Wielbark is no longer seen as the direct predecessor to the Chernyakhov culture. I find that Halsall (2007, 132-4) puts it very well when he argues that although the Wielbark culture as a direct predecessor needs not be rejected but modified. The Wielbark period overlaps the Chernyakhov period, and the claim that Wielbark metalwork precedes Chernyakhov metalwork is no longer entirely the case. But Halsall is also clear that the germanic core of the Goths migrated into the area, and has no other alternative for the origins of that group other than 'probably from the Wielbark territory'.

and yes, the local Daco-Getians had the leading role. Dacians doesnt dissapear after Roman conquest, what you saying there. Yes, they didnt have anymore a powerful kingdom, but they didnt dissaper,

They did of course not disappear, but as a leading culture they did lose their influence.
There was no major Daco-Getian influence on the Goths. Period. What archaeologist claims that and how is that case proven?
Daco-Getian was just one of many influences - such as the Scytho-Sarmatian influence from the Zarubinec culture, or the proto-Slav influence from the Przeworsk culture. How these cultures influenced the Goths can in part be deduced from the loanwords – Slavic and Iranian languages may have received loanwords from each other in the Chernyakhov culture, and Slavic may have received Germanic loanwords there. But Gothic received few Slavic loanwords and no Dacian loanwords at all.

To suppose that despite that, Daco-Getians were still the major group and heavily influenced Gothic culture is to defy all proof. I understand that it is John Matthews who argues for that – but as I said earlier, John Matthews is no historian and no linguist, and his work is the Arthurian legend. I consider him no expert of any weight in this matter.

and yes, according with both ancient writers (Strabo, Dio Cassius, Trogus Pompeius, Criton-the doctor of Traian, Julian the Apostate) or modern historians and archeology, Dacians and Getae was the same, as you can't say that Spartans and Athenians arent greeks.

Dacians and Getae may be the same or not, I have no opinion on that because I do not know enough about that period. I have said nothing about Spartans and Greeks.

But To identify Goths with Dacians JUST BECAUSE the names of Goths and Getae looked so similar was a mistake that some ancient authors made, and some copied later. But they could not know better, without the wealth of studies that we have accumulated today, and the historical methodology that we have developed since. I do not blame them.

Alas, you choose to ignore 2000 years of historical science, and to repeat the mistakes of the ancients, but insisting that when one name resembles another, the two must be identical, no matter the mountain of differences between them.