This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Getae article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Herodotes the Gatae where the second most populous nation after the Hindi, therefore their representation in the map (small red area) is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.101.146.196 ( talk) 08:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Criztu wrote:
This needs a proper citation. The reason it is not guaranteed, despite superficial appearances, is that there were apparently non-Thracic tribes with the -getae element in their ethnonyms: Thyssagetae, Massagetae, and perhaps more. Alexander 007 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I found three sites that list the Tyragetae as a Daco-Getic tribe, so I will restore mention of them in a newly phrased sentence; v. [ http://www.unrv.com/provinces/dacia.php , [ http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/dacian-tribes.htm , [ http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/article6.htm . Alexander 007 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea of merging the article with Dacians, as it is clear from Lucian Boia's points I reported that important Romanian historians disagree on the idea of a single people. The merge appears mostly wanted to awnser a Romanian nationalistic pov.-- Aldux 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I too agree with the fact that the Getae and the Daci are two different names, and that to a point they designate different populations (different, not by ethnie, language nor history, but by pottery, influences, etc). However, a distinction between the two causes clear disambiguation. Just one example (one which comes from common sense, so not one which is based on the tens of ancient sources which unanimoulsy speak of the Getae-Dacian equality): following the Dacian wars, Trajan wrote his "Dacics", while Stratilius Crito`s works on the wars are called the "Getics"... Even the name of the Dacian capital Sarmisegetusa says it all...
Daci or daos is just a name, taken for unknown reasons by the Getae (probably because they consider themselves "wolf-warriors"; daos=wolf)... Tomaschek sayd that "Les daces et les Thraces bessiens sont des emigrants aryaques, qui de trcs bonne heure, plusieurs siccles avant les Scolates du Pont et les Sarmates encore plus situe a l'est, quittcrent la patrie premicre des Ariaques, se fixcrent dans les Carpathes (a savoir, les Balcans dans la langue des Turcs). L'habitat s'appelait lui-meme Dak: le K est sans doute de nature suffixale de manicre qu'il semble qu'on puisse rattacher a la racine Da; le nom Dakos porte en general par les esclaves du pays des Gctes. Celui qui douterait encore de l'etroite affinite du peuple besso-thrace avec les Daces et de la parente originaire des deux peuples avec les Iraniens se laissera sans doute convaincre par la nomenclature topographique"
And saying that the Getae lived primarily in Bulgaria is plain gros 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: when you use your own comments on sources to draw conclusions about a reference, you are engaged in original research. Dahn
there is a historic text translated in english that reads ”getae experts of bow and arrows while on horseback”, but i cant find it pff Criztu 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that apparently we reached on consensus on how to regard Boia's contribution, I have another thing I don't agree. The argument given by Boia (I don't have this book so I even don't know if it is properly quoted) on Strabo. I've already provided in the lengthy debate on Boia's scholarship this link: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-01-25.html to justify my opposition to the rushy dismissal of Strabo as a source. On the other hand I don't think this is the right place to question Strabo's reliability, even in a match between scholars. But keeping only Boia's opinion (again, if it is properly quoted) in the page seems POV to me. So I want either a) add opinions crediting Strabo as a source or at least specifying it is not necessary for Strabo (whatever ancient writer) to visit places himself to take him as a source b) remove Boia's argument and reference #3 and leaving him as a reference only for the first part of the paragraph. Daizus 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have answered above (only to those very few things in the above two posts that I can consider relevant to the debate). Dahn 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In a debate on the identities and differences between Getae and Dacians I've quoted also Cassius Dio. The current version in the main article now says: << But also Cassius Dio in his Roman history argues the Dacians are "either Getae or Thracians of Dacian race" (51.22)[2] but also details he calls the Dacians with the name used "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not". (67.6)[3]. >>. The references point to the relevant paragraphs from this site: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html
When I added first time this information the user Dahn removed it on sight (as OR), later he attempted to argue on it (see above Cassius Dio section) but eventually he couldn't justify what is the OR in it. Now he keeps boycotting the mainpage by keeping {content} tag (which was added after I told him I won't concede with his removal so he should watch for 3RR policy) for the same reason - OR.
I believe his reason unjustified because all along that quote simply mentioned CD's testimony. I have not commented on it, therefore his accusations (also in the comments he made while editing, also here) are not supported. Daizus 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: I note that the request here makes a false claim about me not having discussed the issue on the talk page. I will demand from Daizus that he withdraw that comment. Dahn 13:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This somewhat unending dialogue has obscured the core of the dispute, as far as I could understand it. This case is about how sources should be treated. The most basic academic common sense and practice teaches us, that there is a hierarchy among sources: most important sources are primary sources (those closest to the object), than sources commenting primary sources, that is, secondary sources, than those building upon secondary sources, etc. The most modest chrestomathy, accessible in the secondary school, is structured according to this principle. In the case of Getae, ancient authors like Cassius Dio or Strabo enjoy undoubtedly the most auctorial authority. Citing and/or invoking such sources represent the ultima ratio in any argumentative discourse. We don’t have better than primary sources. It is therefore beyond any hesitation that primary sources should have the primacy in any demonstration. So far the principles. As for the actual article under debate, I don’t think that Daizus had a good idea in contrasting Cassius Dio to …Boia. With all due respect, it seems to me quite ridiculous to oppose a monumentally primary source like Cassius Dio to a contemporary historian with no credentials in ancient history, like Boia. This is not a democracy. You cannot equiponderate opinions like in a survey or a talk-show. Cassius Dio and Strabo have not the same weight as …Boia. It is already a chance that an issue of ancient history can be backed by primary sources: this article should be founded essentially on those sources. Than, secondary and tertiary sources should be used, weighting them as complementary and secondary comments, anyway it would be preferable to find some more qualified voices than Boia.-- Vintila Barbu 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, Aldux, don't you think you have to motivate your revert actions? Daizus 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I consider this RfC closed. The issues were resolved. Daizus 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I cite from the introduction of the Romanian version of "Romania: borderline of Europe", ISBN 973-50-0392-9. The last 3 lines of the introduction, in page 11, are:
Dpotop 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: We are not here to promote Boia's work and deconstruct Romanian founding myths. We are here to report existing positions in Romanian and other historiography according to their weight. Dahn, your edits are POV. Dpotop 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the following fragment is POV:
Is this expression unique to Romanians? Or we have to trust Boia on this, too? In any event, I think that this is the POV of Boia, and should be presented as such. Dpotop 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying I have no inclination to enter into the pros and cons of this debate, having no idea who Lucian Boia is, and what his qualifications are, and also having no clear idea after reading this article what the relation between the Getae and the Dacians really was. But just on a purely grammatical level, I am having problems with the following fragment from the article:
Lucian Boia states that "At a certain point, the pharse Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians" [1]
Is this an ad-literam quote from that book (written in English, I assume)? If so, I hesitate to correct it, because I don't want to distort the original. But let me point out that "pharse" should be "phrase", from what I gather. Also, one would normally say "in Romanian historiography" instead of "in the Romanian historiography". Moreover, one would probably set in quotes "Geto-Dacian" in such a sentence, but that's a bit more optional. Finally, beyond the grammatical aspects, I wonder what that "certain point" refers to. Could one make the temporal reference more precise, at least within plus/minus a decade or so (or at the very least, place it within a given century)? For otherwise, it seems just too vague to me, leaving the novice reader wondering what this "certain point" refers to. Turgidson 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the perpetrator of that deformed citation. My only excuse is working under pressure (out of reasons you may know) and don’t even having the original text in front of me at that moment. Anyway, as it is now, the article is but a mess: in the heat of the editing war, information got lost, text was massacred. I am however optimistic that material loss will go along with some learning. After restoring the lost stuff, I suggest keeping in the article two structural gains: 1. the sections; 2. the order of presentation, which should begin with the primary sources, mention modern main stream interpretations and end with voices which dissociate. I dare to believe, that these suggestions are basic common sense. -- Vintila Barbu 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert in ancient languages, but from "Getae" (nominative plural) and from "Getarum" (see Jordanes - for genitive plural), it looks this is a 1st declension noun. There also was the Greek form "Getai". I suspect the nominative singular in Greek would have been "Getis" (I found a parallel in "Persis" - persian). Warning - this is my OR. Daizus 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Byrebista is an attested form (Byrebistas, Boirebistas, etc). AFAIK there's no Burebista (though Jordanes called him "Burvista") - this is a modern scholar (co/i)nvention. If the scholar consulted for this material used Byrebista, I think it ok to use it as such. Also, as you can see from Burebista's article, though virtually unreferenced, it has a note that his name in Greek sources was Byrebistas. Daizus 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Are Getae, Geats and Goths distinct people, maybe a short distinction about what they are , and they not shoul be put the three mentioned articles. because here in the article is mentioned that: several writers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs). For instance, in the third book of the History of the Wars Procopius details: "There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic. Still in the Geats article there is a mention like this: "Geats should not be confused with the Thracian Getae." But the article mention Jornanes and mention that the Geats are in Jordanes Gautigoths and Ostrogoths. To be more confusing the Goths article states that: According to Jordanes' Getica, written in retrospect in the mid-6th century, under their 5th king, Filimer, son of Gadaric, the Goths entered Oium, a land of bogs, part of Scythia,[27] defeated the Spali and moved to the vicinity of the Black Sea.[28] There they became divided into the Visigoths ruled by the Balthi family and the Ostrogoths ruled by the Amali family.[29] Ostrogoths means "eastern Goths" and Visigoths means "Goths of the western country."[30] Can someone put some order in the above mentioned articles, the things are not very clear and I think that jordanes create a lot of confusion regarding the Geats:) 193.230.195.1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
Jordanes is known to have created that confusion quite purposefully - at least this is the wide spread modern point of view. Being a Roman of Gothic ethny, he wrote a history in which he tried to add to the contemporary glory in arms of his folks a more renowned ancestry, and he did that by using the related phonems Get - Got. It is seems that the confusion was purported until the early Renaissance in Scandinavia. PredaMi ( talk) 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You people are complete morons.Getae-dacian people have nothing to do with Goths.The Goths arrived in Dacia after the Roman conquest.And it is known that they spoke a Germanic language and what is also known is Dacians did not speak a Germanic language nor the getae.Just because both of the peoples names start with a "g" doesn't mean they have direct corellation to each other.For fucks sake this is the worst article on wikipedia.
Might help me with what?Most historians today would laugh in your face if you told them that Getae and Goths are the same people,so why would i need help with proving something which is widely accepted everywhere by any serious historian.Sorry if i can't use your triangle of disagreement properly tho i do apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins."The Getae were also assumed to be the ancestors of the Goths by Jordanes in his Getica written at the middle of the 6th century. Jordanes assumed the earlier testimony of Orosius." So he assumed that the Getae where the ancestors of the goths,yet he claims that Goths migrated eastward from "Scandza"(Scandinavia).Interesting,so the Getae after being displaced by the Romans sailed to Scandinavia adopted a Germanic language and then migrated back to Dacia and gave rise to the Gothic nation.No fallacies here at all. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.24.222.206 (
talk)
00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"During 5th and 6th centuries, several historians and ethnographers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs)." This just proves that the term Getae was used as an umbrella term for any barbarian tribe that attacked the roman empire from Dacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And what proof do you have that contradicts my views?A bunch of fairy-tales written by historians known for their inaccuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want your view represented in the article, the burden is on you to source it if possible. (Hmmm, seems to be harder than I would have thought, from your assurance that historians are in unanimous agreement about this!) Without any sourcing, we can't really add it as an unsourced random viewpoint; it's against policy... Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok,in that case.Give me the sources that proof that the Getae people weren't actually Koreans.I mean if you can't find any historians saying otherwise it must mean that they are Korean.(That's what your logic is right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And you don't see how stating this can give people the wrong idea?I'm pretty sure many people who never did any kind of self study about Thracians,dacians,or getae after having read the "goths and getae" section at the end of the article now equate them as the same people in their heads which was probably the goal of the person who posted that information.It is misleading people from main stream history.(I really shouldn't have to provide you with sources that state that the Getae and goths were completely different people how about just Google "goths" research as much as you can on them and then Google Getae it should be pretty clear from their language difference that they could not have been the same people)And the sources provided contradict each other.In the book "Getica" jordanes states that goths came from scandza.How can he later claim they sprung from a native people from the Balkans that by itself should ring a few bells in your head. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.24.222.206 (
talk)
21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually for a group of people to speak a certain language means that the group was at one point(especially in the case of Americans)mainly made up of people that were from a country that spoke that language.There is no way a minority of people will impose their language on a majority unless they are superior in some kind of way either military wise of technology wise.Also one question to you.How would all these medieval writers know what kind of migrations happened in "prehistory" times?
Also how do you explain this.
The story of the Goths generally begins in Scandinavia, as is told by the historian Jordanes in his The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, chapter 4: " IV (25) Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. (26) Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. (27) In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted with the great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter ruin, nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be surrounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double obstacle nature has made it inaccessible. And even to-day one may hear in that neighborhood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to believe the stories of travellers, although we must grant that they hear these things from afar." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
But i just posted above a source that says Goths have their origin in Scandinavia....Or is that invisible to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And by that you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We aren't only talking about Getae here tho.We are also discussing Goths(which you seem to claim are the same people as getae) so i'm providing proof of Goths originating in scandza and having nothing to do with getae.Why are you acting like i am completely of topic here?This is a talk page.It is not only made for providing sources.It is made for general discussion about the Getae.What i posted should be added to the 'goths and getae" section.Infact I'll do it myself as it is a "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you removing my changes to the article then?Personal grudge?I provided sources for every statement i made.This is why Wikipedia is a piece of shit they allow retards to become mods and basically re-write history from their own perspective.Quoting fairy-tales written in the medieval times.I just read almost half of Jordanes "Getica" he also claims that the Goths sacked "Troy and Ilium" just after they had recovered somewhat from the war with Agamemnon.Hmm,i thought the war in troy happened around the bronze age and didn't the Goths emerge around 200 ad?So you can keep ruining this article by allowing fairy tales to be accepted as reliable sources.Maybe someone can find a reference to Getae in a star wars book and it can be seen as a reliable source as well.This is Wikipedia at it's finest.And i am trying to improve this article by removing all the fabricated fictitious history from it.
What i posted did mention the Getae.....So why was it removed?
bout the origin of the name Massagetae, scholars have emphasized that: "The classical and modern authorities say that the word "Massagetae" means "great" Getae(mentioned). The ninth-century work De Universo of Rabanus Maurus[7][8] states, "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae(mentioned)."[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Source ^ Maurus, Rabanus (1864). Migne, Jacques Paul, ed. De universo. Paris. "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So you are giving me permission to add a section to the Getae article called "Massagetae" and add that to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There should be included more ancient quotations, and neutral After reading this article I understand Getae are not related to Dacians. Just some Romanians pretend this but Boias and Djuaras clarified this. I was confused before Now I know why Thank you LBartok ( talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Augustus?
"Augustus aimed at subjugating the entire Balkan peninsula, and used an incursion of the Bastarnae across the Danube as a pretext to devastate the Getae and Thracians. He put Marcus Licinius Crassus"
I mean, is this sentence refering to this augustus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus? If so, this is a mistake, since Crassus was long dead by the time Augustus had any sort of power to give orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.126.242 ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The entry that an anonymous reworded and whose meaning he changed, it was clearly stating the point of view of known ancient sources. BTW, it was properly referenced according to Wikipedia rules.
The article starts with interpreting the records of ancient sources, but , first, we have to know what they say. While nobody can make such a statement that Dacians were indiscriminately Getae, It is important to know the view of the ancients. When reading Cassio, it is important to know that, the Dacians of Cassio Dio were Getae, because of the fact he stated himself that he named the Getae of Greeks, Dacians. Boia, whose works are about Myths and Mythologies, is not a linguist either. So, his view about Thracians, Dacians and Getians language is not a linguist expertise. He also ignores that Strabo visited the Pount Euxinus region.
Do you expect from us to write the ethnicity of all historians? British, Bulgarians, French a.s.o.
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint [1]
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. [2] Boldwin ( talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it adds a lot to readability, since there are too many large paragraphs in the 1st section. It also groups the opinions by their view, useful to the reader. The section about Vulpe is in between the two opinions, his position being ambivalent. It can be part of either sections, but I think it provides a nice transition from the 1st to the 2nd view. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia - choppy, disorganized, in places even incoherent. Small wonder serious historians laugh at Wikipedia. Congratulations guys, for a job well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.184.70.232 ( talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the passage "The Romanian historian of ideas and historiographer Lucian Boia stated: "At a certain point, the phrase Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians".[28] Lucian Boia took a sceptical position, arguing the ancient writers distinguished among the two people, treating them as two distinct groups of the Thracian ethnos.[28][29] Boia contended that it would be naive to assume Strabo knew the Thracian dialects so well,[28] alleging that Strabo had "no competence in the field of Thracian dialects".[29] The latter claim is contested, some studies attesting Strabo's reliability and sources.[30] There is no reason to disregard Strabo's view that the Daci and the Getae spoke the same language.[17] Boia also stressed that some Romanian authors cited Strabo indiscriminately.[29]" - all worth removing. The arguments are of a confused mind - there is no specific reason to question Strabo's "competence in the field of Thracian dialects" more than the competence of ANY historian of antiquitiy, talking about the relations between various Celtic, Germanic or even Scythic tribes. The problems is always there, when it comes to distinguishing Goths from Gepides, or Galls from some small Celtic tribe in the Alps, etc - the pars pro toto issue is omnipresent. So Boia's adolescentine phrase brings nothing to the reader. Besides, more than being a controverse, it is hard to understand its reason. In any case, Getae are some part of the Thraco-Dacian family - be it as an alternative name, at a different period of time, be it, as one might also read from Strabo, as a smaller subfamily. But what is the point of the controversy. Except for some Boia wanting to pretend to bring a different light on just about anything, for the sake of rumour - there is no logical point and the Wiki article fails to present it. Therefore, better let it be. Write in 10 years, when Boia will certainly be forgotten! If there is no reaction within one week I will erase that part
PredaMi (
talk)
23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC).
You can say that the word 'Khettas', used in some places to design the 'Hittites', can be considered an equivalent to 'Getae', the quotation that they were experts in throwing arrows while horseback riding may be probably found also in the Bible: Hittites taught Zyon to build war chariots, and along with horseback riding, Hittites introduced an idolatric cult, this is also referred in the Bible in the Hebrew withdrawing from the idolatry, and along with getting ride of it, never came back to the horseback riding they learned concomitantly. The 'Town in the height' -in classical Greek: 'Acropolis'- that Jesus Christ Himself cites that 'can't be hidden', most probably was 'Hattusa', the capital of the 'Hittite empire', burnt by its inhabitants -scorched earth- and abandoned when a civil war cut the supplies coming there from the rest of their empire. The 'Hittites' seem were not an uniform people from a genetical point of view, perhaps its ruling groups were, but the main constituent of the Hittites seem people from several ethnic backgrounds that accepted a rule for the welfare advantages its efficacy gave for those incorporating to this group, the constituents of this society not belonging to the ruling group, class, or ethnicity received the collective name 'Hittis' (Any connection to 'Hostis'='Enemy' in Latin? -the tradition of officers considering some subordinates as a potential 'enemy' existed inside the Spanish armies not long ago, the armies there having had a remote predominancy of Visigoths-, 'Hittis' being a word more definitory of social functions than of ethnicity. How cognate can be considered these 'Khettas', a synonim of 'Hittites', to the 'Getae', considered also equal as the Visigoths? Had them common and close, or even identical, ethnic backgrounds, or was it mainly a cultural similarity more than other things?. If the subject is already solved an considered fixed, it would be of interest receiving more information from experts in the field. Thanks. -- Jgrosay ( talk) 00:12, 23 November 2013
What about getes?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uShGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA453&dq=jatt+scythia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lZzCUu-9H4WChQf4wICYCg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ
What are secondary sources (passing wp:rs) that oppose the fact that some early medieval authors confused the Getae with the Goths. This is the mainstream academic view on the matter, AFAIK, but IP 172.58.185.32 claims that adding sources to that effect is a breach of WP:NPOV. So, IP 172.58.185.32, please present reliable academic sources that reaffirm the view of early medieval authors in identifying the Getae with the Goths. If such sources pass wp:rs, we will surely add them to the article. In the meantime, please stop removing reliable sources and restoring unsorced text. Vladimir ( talk) 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Ive noticed your not much of one for discussing your pov like any rational editor does, you're more from the "act haughty and superior, while resorting to any stratagem to avoid an honest discussion" school of thought, or so I find when I see on my talkpage that you are accusing me of being someone else. So as faras Im concerned, congratulations, you've fucked up another article with one sided pov pushing on Wikipedia, which is like a joke website infamous for its laughable partiality, so you may have it and to hell with you too, anyone with a lick of sense knows to get their info elsewhere 172.58.185.32 ( talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article clearly states that the Getae were strongly associated with the Dacians.
There is no consensus among scholars (yet) that the Dacians were a subgroup of Thracians.
Therefore the formulation "Dacian and/or Thracian" is more accurate.
Grant | Talk 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Although ... after further reflection I see that the problem is even more complicated.
For example:
"Strabo ...wrote that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, after stating the same about Getae and Thracians."
"Pliny: ... at one spot the Getae, by the Romans called Daci."
"Appian .... noted ... Getae over the Danube, whom they call Dacians ..."
"Justin ... wrote ... that Dacians ... as well are a scion of the Getae..."
"Cassius Dio ... argues that the Dacians are "Getae or Thracians..."
Getic language redirects to Dacian language, which seems slightly controversial, given the possibility that both were distinct and separate dialects of Thracian? Anyway, it suggests us that there "is general agreement among scholars" that all three spoke Indo-European languages, although "widely divergent views exist about their relationship". The article lists four theories about their relationship.
From the above we have at least six different (although not all mutually exclusive) theories regarding the relationship between the Getae, Dacians and Thracians as ethnolinguistic groups
Of these, only the last seems unlikely and not supported by the ancient sources. Grant | Talk 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The sources cited in the article for the most call the Getae a single tribe, rather than a collection several tribes, so I will be correcting the article accordingly. If anyone is able to obtain significant sources showing that the Getae were in fact composed of multiple tribes, then feel free to revert my edit and add those sources in the citations. Antiquistik ( talk) 15:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://ebin.pub/romanian-folklore-and-its-archaic-heritage-a-cultural-and-linguistic-comparative-study-3031040503-9783031040504.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. User3749 ( talk) 15:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Getae article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Herodotes the Gatae where the second most populous nation after the Hindi, therefore their representation in the map (small red area) is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.101.146.196 ( talk) 08:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Criztu wrote:
This needs a proper citation. The reason it is not guaranteed, despite superficial appearances, is that there were apparently non-Thracic tribes with the -getae element in their ethnonyms: Thyssagetae, Massagetae, and perhaps more. Alexander 007 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I found three sites that list the Tyragetae as a Daco-Getic tribe, so I will restore mention of them in a newly phrased sentence; v. [ http://www.unrv.com/provinces/dacia.php , [ http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/dacian-tribes.htm , [ http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/article6.htm . Alexander 007 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea of merging the article with Dacians, as it is clear from Lucian Boia's points I reported that important Romanian historians disagree on the idea of a single people. The merge appears mostly wanted to awnser a Romanian nationalistic pov.-- Aldux 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I too agree with the fact that the Getae and the Daci are two different names, and that to a point they designate different populations (different, not by ethnie, language nor history, but by pottery, influences, etc). However, a distinction between the two causes clear disambiguation. Just one example (one which comes from common sense, so not one which is based on the tens of ancient sources which unanimoulsy speak of the Getae-Dacian equality): following the Dacian wars, Trajan wrote his "Dacics", while Stratilius Crito`s works on the wars are called the "Getics"... Even the name of the Dacian capital Sarmisegetusa says it all...
Daci or daos is just a name, taken for unknown reasons by the Getae (probably because they consider themselves "wolf-warriors"; daos=wolf)... Tomaschek sayd that "Les daces et les Thraces bessiens sont des emigrants aryaques, qui de trcs bonne heure, plusieurs siccles avant les Scolates du Pont et les Sarmates encore plus situe a l'est, quittcrent la patrie premicre des Ariaques, se fixcrent dans les Carpathes (a savoir, les Balcans dans la langue des Turcs). L'habitat s'appelait lui-meme Dak: le K est sans doute de nature suffixale de manicre qu'il semble qu'on puisse rattacher a la racine Da; le nom Dakos porte en general par les esclaves du pays des Gctes. Celui qui douterait encore de l'etroite affinite du peuple besso-thrace avec les Daces et de la parente originaire des deux peuples avec les Iraniens se laissera sans doute convaincre par la nomenclature topographique"
And saying that the Getae lived primarily in Bulgaria is plain gros 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: when you use your own comments on sources to draw conclusions about a reference, you are engaged in original research. Dahn
there is a historic text translated in english that reads ”getae experts of bow and arrows while on horseback”, but i cant find it pff Criztu 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that apparently we reached on consensus on how to regard Boia's contribution, I have another thing I don't agree. The argument given by Boia (I don't have this book so I even don't know if it is properly quoted) on Strabo. I've already provided in the lengthy debate on Boia's scholarship this link: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-01-25.html to justify my opposition to the rushy dismissal of Strabo as a source. On the other hand I don't think this is the right place to question Strabo's reliability, even in a match between scholars. But keeping only Boia's opinion (again, if it is properly quoted) in the page seems POV to me. So I want either a) add opinions crediting Strabo as a source or at least specifying it is not necessary for Strabo (whatever ancient writer) to visit places himself to take him as a source b) remove Boia's argument and reference #3 and leaving him as a reference only for the first part of the paragraph. Daizus 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have answered above (only to those very few things in the above two posts that I can consider relevant to the debate). Dahn 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In a debate on the identities and differences between Getae and Dacians I've quoted also Cassius Dio. The current version in the main article now says: << But also Cassius Dio in his Roman history argues the Dacians are "either Getae or Thracians of Dacian race" (51.22)[2] but also details he calls the Dacians with the name used "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not". (67.6)[3]. >>. The references point to the relevant paragraphs from this site: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html
When I added first time this information the user Dahn removed it on sight (as OR), later he attempted to argue on it (see above Cassius Dio section) but eventually he couldn't justify what is the OR in it. Now he keeps boycotting the mainpage by keeping {content} tag (which was added after I told him I won't concede with his removal so he should watch for 3RR policy) for the same reason - OR.
I believe his reason unjustified because all along that quote simply mentioned CD's testimony. I have not commented on it, therefore his accusations (also in the comments he made while editing, also here) are not supported. Daizus 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: I note that the request here makes a false claim about me not having discussed the issue on the talk page. I will demand from Daizus that he withdraw that comment. Dahn 13:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This somewhat unending dialogue has obscured the core of the dispute, as far as I could understand it. This case is about how sources should be treated. The most basic academic common sense and practice teaches us, that there is a hierarchy among sources: most important sources are primary sources (those closest to the object), than sources commenting primary sources, that is, secondary sources, than those building upon secondary sources, etc. The most modest chrestomathy, accessible in the secondary school, is structured according to this principle. In the case of Getae, ancient authors like Cassius Dio or Strabo enjoy undoubtedly the most auctorial authority. Citing and/or invoking such sources represent the ultima ratio in any argumentative discourse. We don’t have better than primary sources. It is therefore beyond any hesitation that primary sources should have the primacy in any demonstration. So far the principles. As for the actual article under debate, I don’t think that Daizus had a good idea in contrasting Cassius Dio to …Boia. With all due respect, it seems to me quite ridiculous to oppose a monumentally primary source like Cassius Dio to a contemporary historian with no credentials in ancient history, like Boia. This is not a democracy. You cannot equiponderate opinions like in a survey or a talk-show. Cassius Dio and Strabo have not the same weight as …Boia. It is already a chance that an issue of ancient history can be backed by primary sources: this article should be founded essentially on those sources. Than, secondary and tertiary sources should be used, weighting them as complementary and secondary comments, anyway it would be preferable to find some more qualified voices than Boia.-- Vintila Barbu 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, Aldux, don't you think you have to motivate your revert actions? Daizus 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I consider this RfC closed. The issues were resolved. Daizus 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I cite from the introduction of the Romanian version of "Romania: borderline of Europe", ISBN 973-50-0392-9. The last 3 lines of the introduction, in page 11, are:
Dpotop 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: We are not here to promote Boia's work and deconstruct Romanian founding myths. We are here to report existing positions in Romanian and other historiography according to their weight. Dahn, your edits are POV. Dpotop 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the following fragment is POV:
Is this expression unique to Romanians? Or we have to trust Boia on this, too? In any event, I think that this is the POV of Boia, and should be presented as such. Dpotop 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying I have no inclination to enter into the pros and cons of this debate, having no idea who Lucian Boia is, and what his qualifications are, and also having no clear idea after reading this article what the relation between the Getae and the Dacians really was. But just on a purely grammatical level, I am having problems with the following fragment from the article:
Lucian Boia states that "At a certain point, the pharse Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians" [1]
Is this an ad-literam quote from that book (written in English, I assume)? If so, I hesitate to correct it, because I don't want to distort the original. But let me point out that "pharse" should be "phrase", from what I gather. Also, one would normally say "in Romanian historiography" instead of "in the Romanian historiography". Moreover, one would probably set in quotes "Geto-Dacian" in such a sentence, but that's a bit more optional. Finally, beyond the grammatical aspects, I wonder what that "certain point" refers to. Could one make the temporal reference more precise, at least within plus/minus a decade or so (or at the very least, place it within a given century)? For otherwise, it seems just too vague to me, leaving the novice reader wondering what this "certain point" refers to. Turgidson 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the perpetrator of that deformed citation. My only excuse is working under pressure (out of reasons you may know) and don’t even having the original text in front of me at that moment. Anyway, as it is now, the article is but a mess: in the heat of the editing war, information got lost, text was massacred. I am however optimistic that material loss will go along with some learning. After restoring the lost stuff, I suggest keeping in the article two structural gains: 1. the sections; 2. the order of presentation, which should begin with the primary sources, mention modern main stream interpretations and end with voices which dissociate. I dare to believe, that these suggestions are basic common sense. -- Vintila Barbu 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert in ancient languages, but from "Getae" (nominative plural) and from "Getarum" (see Jordanes - for genitive plural), it looks this is a 1st declension noun. There also was the Greek form "Getai". I suspect the nominative singular in Greek would have been "Getis" (I found a parallel in "Persis" - persian). Warning - this is my OR. Daizus 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Byrebista is an attested form (Byrebistas, Boirebistas, etc). AFAIK there's no Burebista (though Jordanes called him "Burvista") - this is a modern scholar (co/i)nvention. If the scholar consulted for this material used Byrebista, I think it ok to use it as such. Also, as you can see from Burebista's article, though virtually unreferenced, it has a note that his name in Greek sources was Byrebistas. Daizus 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Are Getae, Geats and Goths distinct people, maybe a short distinction about what they are , and they not shoul be put the three mentioned articles. because here in the article is mentioned that: several writers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs). For instance, in the third book of the History of the Wars Procopius details: "There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic. Still in the Geats article there is a mention like this: "Geats should not be confused with the Thracian Getae." But the article mention Jornanes and mention that the Geats are in Jordanes Gautigoths and Ostrogoths. To be more confusing the Goths article states that: According to Jordanes' Getica, written in retrospect in the mid-6th century, under their 5th king, Filimer, son of Gadaric, the Goths entered Oium, a land of bogs, part of Scythia,[27] defeated the Spali and moved to the vicinity of the Black Sea.[28] There they became divided into the Visigoths ruled by the Balthi family and the Ostrogoths ruled by the Amali family.[29] Ostrogoths means "eastern Goths" and Visigoths means "Goths of the western country."[30] Can someone put some order in the above mentioned articles, the things are not very clear and I think that jordanes create a lot of confusion regarding the Geats:) 193.230.195.1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
Jordanes is known to have created that confusion quite purposefully - at least this is the wide spread modern point of view. Being a Roman of Gothic ethny, he wrote a history in which he tried to add to the contemporary glory in arms of his folks a more renowned ancestry, and he did that by using the related phonems Get - Got. It is seems that the confusion was purported until the early Renaissance in Scandinavia. PredaMi ( talk) 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You people are complete morons.Getae-dacian people have nothing to do with Goths.The Goths arrived in Dacia after the Roman conquest.And it is known that they spoke a Germanic language and what is also known is Dacians did not speak a Germanic language nor the getae.Just because both of the peoples names start with a "g" doesn't mean they have direct corellation to each other.For fucks sake this is the worst article on wikipedia.
Might help me with what?Most historians today would laugh in your face if you told them that Getae and Goths are the same people,so why would i need help with proving something which is widely accepted everywhere by any serious historian.Sorry if i can't use your triangle of disagreement properly tho i do apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins."The Getae were also assumed to be the ancestors of the Goths by Jordanes in his Getica written at the middle of the 6th century. Jordanes assumed the earlier testimony of Orosius." So he assumed that the Getae where the ancestors of the goths,yet he claims that Goths migrated eastward from "Scandza"(Scandinavia).Interesting,so the Getae after being displaced by the Romans sailed to Scandinavia adopted a Germanic language and then migrated back to Dacia and gave rise to the Gothic nation.No fallacies here at all. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.24.222.206 (
talk)
00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"During 5th and 6th centuries, several historians and ethnographers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs)." This just proves that the term Getae was used as an umbrella term for any barbarian tribe that attacked the roman empire from Dacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And what proof do you have that contradicts my views?A bunch of fairy-tales written by historians known for their inaccuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want your view represented in the article, the burden is on you to source it if possible. (Hmmm, seems to be harder than I would have thought, from your assurance that historians are in unanimous agreement about this!) Without any sourcing, we can't really add it as an unsourced random viewpoint; it's against policy... Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok,in that case.Give me the sources that proof that the Getae people weren't actually Koreans.I mean if you can't find any historians saying otherwise it must mean that they are Korean.(That's what your logic is right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And you don't see how stating this can give people the wrong idea?I'm pretty sure many people who never did any kind of self study about Thracians,dacians,or getae after having read the "goths and getae" section at the end of the article now equate them as the same people in their heads which was probably the goal of the person who posted that information.It is misleading people from main stream history.(I really shouldn't have to provide you with sources that state that the Getae and goths were completely different people how about just Google "goths" research as much as you can on them and then Google Getae it should be pretty clear from their language difference that they could not have been the same people)And the sources provided contradict each other.In the book "Getica" jordanes states that goths came from scandza.How can he later claim they sprung from a native people from the Balkans that by itself should ring a few bells in your head. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.24.222.206 (
talk)
21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually for a group of people to speak a certain language means that the group was at one point(especially in the case of Americans)mainly made up of people that were from a country that spoke that language.There is no way a minority of people will impose their language on a majority unless they are superior in some kind of way either military wise of technology wise.Also one question to you.How would all these medieval writers know what kind of migrations happened in "prehistory" times?
Also how do you explain this.
The story of the Goths generally begins in Scandinavia, as is told by the historian Jordanes in his The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, chapter 4: " IV (25) Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. (26) Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. (27) In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted with the great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter ruin, nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be surrounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double obstacle nature has made it inaccessible. And even to-day one may hear in that neighborhood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to believe the stories of travellers, although we must grant that they hear these things from afar." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
But i just posted above a source that says Goths have their origin in Scandinavia....Or is that invisible to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And by that you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We aren't only talking about Getae here tho.We are also discussing Goths(which you seem to claim are the same people as getae) so i'm providing proof of Goths originating in scandza and having nothing to do with getae.Why are you acting like i am completely of topic here?This is a talk page.It is not only made for providing sources.It is made for general discussion about the Getae.What i posted should be added to the 'goths and getae" section.Infact I'll do it myself as it is a "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you removing my changes to the article then?Personal grudge?I provided sources for every statement i made.This is why Wikipedia is a piece of shit they allow retards to become mods and basically re-write history from their own perspective.Quoting fairy-tales written in the medieval times.I just read almost half of Jordanes "Getica" he also claims that the Goths sacked "Troy and Ilium" just after they had recovered somewhat from the war with Agamemnon.Hmm,i thought the war in troy happened around the bronze age and didn't the Goths emerge around 200 ad?So you can keep ruining this article by allowing fairy tales to be accepted as reliable sources.Maybe someone can find a reference to Getae in a star wars book and it can be seen as a reliable source as well.This is Wikipedia at it's finest.And i am trying to improve this article by removing all the fabricated fictitious history from it.
What i posted did mention the Getae.....So why was it removed?
bout the origin of the name Massagetae, scholars have emphasized that: "The classical and modern authorities say that the word "Massagetae" means "great" Getae(mentioned). The ninth-century work De Universo of Rabanus Maurus[7][8] states, "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae(mentioned)."[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Source ^ Maurus, Rabanus (1864). Migne, Jacques Paul, ed. De universo. Paris. "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So you are giving me permission to add a section to the Getae article called "Massagetae" and add that to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 ( talk) 05:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There should be included more ancient quotations, and neutral After reading this article I understand Getae are not related to Dacians. Just some Romanians pretend this but Boias and Djuaras clarified this. I was confused before Now I know why Thank you LBartok ( talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Augustus?
"Augustus aimed at subjugating the entire Balkan peninsula, and used an incursion of the Bastarnae across the Danube as a pretext to devastate the Getae and Thracians. He put Marcus Licinius Crassus"
I mean, is this sentence refering to this augustus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus? If so, this is a mistake, since Crassus was long dead by the time Augustus had any sort of power to give orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.126.242 ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The entry that an anonymous reworded and whose meaning he changed, it was clearly stating the point of view of known ancient sources. BTW, it was properly referenced according to Wikipedia rules.
The article starts with interpreting the records of ancient sources, but , first, we have to know what they say. While nobody can make such a statement that Dacians were indiscriminately Getae, It is important to know the view of the ancients. When reading Cassio, it is important to know that, the Dacians of Cassio Dio were Getae, because of the fact he stated himself that he named the Getae of Greeks, Dacians. Boia, whose works are about Myths and Mythologies, is not a linguist either. So, his view about Thracians, Dacians and Getians language is not a linguist expertise. He also ignores that Strabo visited the Pount Euxinus region.
Do you expect from us to write the ethnicity of all historians? British, Bulgarians, French a.s.o.
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint [1]
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. [2] Boldwin ( talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it adds a lot to readability, since there are too many large paragraphs in the 1st section. It also groups the opinions by their view, useful to the reader. The section about Vulpe is in between the two opinions, his position being ambivalent. It can be part of either sections, but I think it provides a nice transition from the 1st to the 2nd view. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia - choppy, disorganized, in places even incoherent. Small wonder serious historians laugh at Wikipedia. Congratulations guys, for a job well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.184.70.232 ( talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the passage "The Romanian historian of ideas and historiographer Lucian Boia stated: "At a certain point, the phrase Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians".[28] Lucian Boia took a sceptical position, arguing the ancient writers distinguished among the two people, treating them as two distinct groups of the Thracian ethnos.[28][29] Boia contended that it would be naive to assume Strabo knew the Thracian dialects so well,[28] alleging that Strabo had "no competence in the field of Thracian dialects".[29] The latter claim is contested, some studies attesting Strabo's reliability and sources.[30] There is no reason to disregard Strabo's view that the Daci and the Getae spoke the same language.[17] Boia also stressed that some Romanian authors cited Strabo indiscriminately.[29]" - all worth removing. The arguments are of a confused mind - there is no specific reason to question Strabo's "competence in the field of Thracian dialects" more than the competence of ANY historian of antiquitiy, talking about the relations between various Celtic, Germanic or even Scythic tribes. The problems is always there, when it comes to distinguishing Goths from Gepides, or Galls from some small Celtic tribe in the Alps, etc - the pars pro toto issue is omnipresent. So Boia's adolescentine phrase brings nothing to the reader. Besides, more than being a controverse, it is hard to understand its reason. In any case, Getae are some part of the Thraco-Dacian family - be it as an alternative name, at a different period of time, be it, as one might also read from Strabo, as a smaller subfamily. But what is the point of the controversy. Except for some Boia wanting to pretend to bring a different light on just about anything, for the sake of rumour - there is no logical point and the Wiki article fails to present it. Therefore, better let it be. Write in 10 years, when Boia will certainly be forgotten! If there is no reaction within one week I will erase that part
PredaMi (
talk)
23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC).
You can say that the word 'Khettas', used in some places to design the 'Hittites', can be considered an equivalent to 'Getae', the quotation that they were experts in throwing arrows while horseback riding may be probably found also in the Bible: Hittites taught Zyon to build war chariots, and along with horseback riding, Hittites introduced an idolatric cult, this is also referred in the Bible in the Hebrew withdrawing from the idolatry, and along with getting ride of it, never came back to the horseback riding they learned concomitantly. The 'Town in the height' -in classical Greek: 'Acropolis'- that Jesus Christ Himself cites that 'can't be hidden', most probably was 'Hattusa', the capital of the 'Hittite empire', burnt by its inhabitants -scorched earth- and abandoned when a civil war cut the supplies coming there from the rest of their empire. The 'Hittites' seem were not an uniform people from a genetical point of view, perhaps its ruling groups were, but the main constituent of the Hittites seem people from several ethnic backgrounds that accepted a rule for the welfare advantages its efficacy gave for those incorporating to this group, the constituents of this society not belonging to the ruling group, class, or ethnicity received the collective name 'Hittis' (Any connection to 'Hostis'='Enemy' in Latin? -the tradition of officers considering some subordinates as a potential 'enemy' existed inside the Spanish armies not long ago, the armies there having had a remote predominancy of Visigoths-, 'Hittis' being a word more definitory of social functions than of ethnicity. How cognate can be considered these 'Khettas', a synonim of 'Hittites', to the 'Getae', considered also equal as the Visigoths? Had them common and close, or even identical, ethnic backgrounds, or was it mainly a cultural similarity more than other things?. If the subject is already solved an considered fixed, it would be of interest receiving more information from experts in the field. Thanks. -- Jgrosay ( talk) 00:12, 23 November 2013
What about getes?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uShGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA453&dq=jatt+scythia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lZzCUu-9H4WChQf4wICYCg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ
What are secondary sources (passing wp:rs) that oppose the fact that some early medieval authors confused the Getae with the Goths. This is the mainstream academic view on the matter, AFAIK, but IP 172.58.185.32 claims that adding sources to that effect is a breach of WP:NPOV. So, IP 172.58.185.32, please present reliable academic sources that reaffirm the view of early medieval authors in identifying the Getae with the Goths. If such sources pass wp:rs, we will surely add them to the article. In the meantime, please stop removing reliable sources and restoring unsorced text. Vladimir ( talk) 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Ive noticed your not much of one for discussing your pov like any rational editor does, you're more from the "act haughty and superior, while resorting to any stratagem to avoid an honest discussion" school of thought, or so I find when I see on my talkpage that you are accusing me of being someone else. So as faras Im concerned, congratulations, you've fucked up another article with one sided pov pushing on Wikipedia, which is like a joke website infamous for its laughable partiality, so you may have it and to hell with you too, anyone with a lick of sense knows to get their info elsewhere 172.58.185.32 ( talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article clearly states that the Getae were strongly associated with the Dacians.
There is no consensus among scholars (yet) that the Dacians were a subgroup of Thracians.
Therefore the formulation "Dacian and/or Thracian" is more accurate.
Grant | Talk 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Although ... after further reflection I see that the problem is even more complicated.
For example:
"Strabo ...wrote that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, after stating the same about Getae and Thracians."
"Pliny: ... at one spot the Getae, by the Romans called Daci."
"Appian .... noted ... Getae over the Danube, whom they call Dacians ..."
"Justin ... wrote ... that Dacians ... as well are a scion of the Getae..."
"Cassius Dio ... argues that the Dacians are "Getae or Thracians..."
Getic language redirects to Dacian language, which seems slightly controversial, given the possibility that both were distinct and separate dialects of Thracian? Anyway, it suggests us that there "is general agreement among scholars" that all three spoke Indo-European languages, although "widely divergent views exist about their relationship". The article lists four theories about their relationship.
From the above we have at least six different (although not all mutually exclusive) theories regarding the relationship between the Getae, Dacians and Thracians as ethnolinguistic groups
Of these, only the last seems unlikely and not supported by the ancient sources. Grant | Talk 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The sources cited in the article for the most call the Getae a single tribe, rather than a collection several tribes, so I will be correcting the article accordingly. If anyone is able to obtain significant sources showing that the Getae were in fact composed of multiple tribes, then feel free to revert my edit and add those sources in the citations. Antiquistik ( talk) 15:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://ebin.pub/romanian-folklore-and-its-archaic-heritage-a-cultural-and-linguistic-comparative-study-3031040503-9783031040504.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. User3749 ( talk) 15:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)