Re: [tied] Re: When Getae equaled Goths

> --- In cybalist@..., "stevelong02" <x99lynx@...>
> wrote:
> > I have some old notes here. In the early fourth
> century, Aelius
> > Spartianus in his Life of Caracalla wrote
> regarding his subject's
> > triumphal names: "For when he assumed the surnames
> Germanicus,
> > Parthicus, Arabicus, and Alamannicus..., Helvius
> Pertinax, son of
> > Pertinax, said to him in jest, or so it is said,
> "Add to the
> others,
> > please, that of Geticus Maximus also"; for he had
> slain his brother
> > Geta, and Getae is a name for the Goths, whom he
> conquered, while
> on
> > his way to the East,..."
> >
> > So it seems there was talk of "Getae" = "Gothi"

{***GK: Rather Gothi= "Getae"****}

> only about 50 years
> > after Dexippus' first fragmentary reference to
> Goths in Greek texts.

******GK: Valuable texts and comments. The fact that
the Greek-speaking Dexippos did not identify the Goths
with the Getae is rather significant. Spartianus'
words ("..et Gothi Getae dicerentur")sounds very much
like an innovation, viz., the application of an old
term to a new reality. What is curious here is the
implication that Goths should be considered Dacians
(given Strabo's earlier terminological explication). I
believe that historical scholarship remains undecided
on the question of whether Caracalla actually did
fight the Goths while passing through Dacia, or
whether this referred to skirmishes with the "free"
Dacians (incl. Carpi) across the border. I suspect
that the story is an addition by Spartianus to the
independently sufficient dark pun by Helvetius
concerning Caracalla's "victory" over his assassinated
brother.*****

> >
> >(S.L.) Claudian (born @ 370 AD) also use Getae and

Goth

> interchangeably in
> > his lives of the emperors. And there is also the
> inscription on
> the
> > triumphal arch regarding Alaric quoted by
> Gibbon:"...but in less
> than
> > seven years, the Gothic conquerors of Rome might
> read, if they were
> > able to read, the superb inscription of that
> monument, which
> attested
> > the total defeat and destruction of their
> nation.... 'Getarum
> > nationem in omne aevum domitam,...' So it would
> appear that the
> > inscribers of that arch also thought the Goths
> were Getae.

*****GK: Note again the curious fact that the
Getae/Goths are not (ever?) explicitly identified as
Dacians. One feels as though the new "identity"
(Goths=Getae) could only be sustained if the old one
(Getae=Daci) were not.******

> >
> >(S.L.) It seems probable from all this that the

Goths as

> Getae was not a
> > mere convenient connection made centuries later.

*****GK: I'll try to find the citation from Orosius
when time allows. We know that the convergence
Goth-Geta is not confirmed prior to the early 4th
century. When the Goths emerge into history they are
"Gutones" (1rst c.) or "Gothi" (3rd c.) not "Getae".
And Severus' father (born in the early 2nd c.)was
certainly not named after the Goths.*****

> (S.L.) In fact, I don't
> > think anyone we know of did not connect Goths and
> Getae before
> maybe
> > 1400AD.

*****GK: Probably true for the period subsequent to
400 AD. ***** (To be continued)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
http://movies.yahoo.com/