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

[diegis]

All of the above social groups were large, and they were not placed in the position of "survive or fall to the wayside." In my grandparents situation, they settled into a totally English-speaking population. There was no "little Italy." Everything was done in English (at the workplace, or just purchasing groceries), so it was either "fit in" or "stand aside." The same situation held for those "outsiders" who fell in with the Goths, but even more so. Because the Gothic gens was primarily a military one, and it extended into a migratory one until the 5th century. You either learned the prevailing language or you went nowhere in that military society. A case of not NEED TO, but HAVE TO.



I would say he knew a lot about them, just in the fact they lived along a well-trodden trade route. Trade and its exchange of commodoties gave all people (no matter where they lived) "news" of happenings and populations hundreds of miles away. It was slower than it is today, but the same principle. Eusebious,Ulfilas, and the Catholics, extended Christianity right into the Crimea, well beyond the Dnieper. Don't be so hard on the ancient authors. They knew populations and river names thousands of kilometers away from where they lived. Enough that Stabo correctly identified and geographically-placed the Sacae who lived beyond Sogdiana.



Oh? I never realized that the Thracians and Dacians were 100 % literate, and I don't suppose the Romans ever called them "barbarians" either, eh? hock:

These legends were written down in the Middle Ages. They certainly rely on some local traditions, too, but they were not formed outside Graeco-Roman influence, as by this time many works in Latin, including Getica, were available.

Oh, I'm sure that all the families in Iceland sat around the fire reading Jordanes and Tacitus. Especially since it was dark outside for 6 months. Give me and the readers of this thread a break, Rumo. If the Roman classics were so popular in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, why weren't those stories incorporated into their sagas. Certainly, they weren't written down until the middle ages, but they described tales that occurred in the old homeland, even though they didn't reach Iceland until after 870. The sagas-- including the Hervar Saga-- were sung since man first opened his mouth to stick his foot in it! :lol:
)

Salut Alanus

I might disagree with gothic linguistic influence in north of Danube, since clearly the superior civilization was dacians, both cultural and material, even after the kingdom of Decebalus was distroyed and a part of Dacia was transformed in roman province. Even prior roman ocupation dacians had towns, build fortreses with original walls (called "murus dacicus" by romans) special designed to resist to siege weapons, had water pipes and paved roards, etc., and acording with both archeology and Jordanes (who said they had written laws too, called "belagines") they had a very advanced astronomy for that times. Neither germanic or sarmatian parts of later formed goths wasnt near this. Ofcourse, at the moment of formation of goths, dacians didnt had all this anymore, but they still keep their traditions and religion, and part of this can be see even today, when some of their believes or traditions was preserved in popular culture (in fact form the base of folklore) and even integrated in christian religion here. As well, if you look at Santana/Cernyakov culture, you will see that on a part exist biritualic cemeteries, with the incineration part most probably belonging to dacians, and as well it cant be traced a link betwen Scandinavia culture and Cernyakov/Santana one, meaning that even if agree that goths (meaning the germanic part of them) migrated from there (which is not impossible after all), probably in small groups during a longer period, they adopted mostly the superior material culture of locals (Dacians, and even Sarmatians). So, its hard to believe that they was able to impose their language as the main one in this conglomerat of peoples. Dont forget the roman influence, who was coming thru links betwen dacians from roman province and the free dacians, and "affected" all the peoples from the borders.
As well, goths themselves had dacians and their history in high regards, Jordanes mention the kings of goths from their second period, this being infact dacians kings of even gods (as Zalmoxes), and Issidor from Sevilla and his visigoths did the same, independent of Jordanes, and their nobles believed, or affirm, that they had as ancestors Dicineus, Buruista, even the same Zalmoxes and so on, all former dacian kings.
And, as an interesting comparition, there is a kind of reversed "Getica", the "Gesta Normanorum", where this time a small group of dacian warriors migrate from Dacia to the north under leadership of Rollo (remaind me the names of some dacian kings as Roles and Oroles), where they put the bases of normans. Because of this fact (or legend) Denmark was called for a period Dacia, and Carol Lundius, from Uppsalla university write somewhere in XVII century if i remember corect, a book about Zalmoxes, the first legislator of Getae, making the same conection of getae/dacians and Sweden/Gotland areas. Should we believe this tradition as well then?
Dont get me wrong, i fully agree that goths had a germanic part, which pretty much keep many of its traditions, but they was very mixed with other peoples, who as well keep their traditions, and as well is hard to see what is real and what is not in Jordanes writing, who, as Justin and Rumo said (and me previous) is very possible to inspire from roman legend of Eneas, to write something similar (goths coming from a far and exotic place) to impress the roman audience. So, at least for me, is hard to say anything as 100 % sure.