Gainas, his plundering of Constantinople and the getae-gothic connexion

[iulian]

hi! I'm new here... I found this resourceful forum trying to get several historical informations and I'd want to share some less known data from chronicals and Church Tradition that could shed a bit of light on such complex and under-documented subjects like steppe peoples (scythians, etc.), getae, goths, their connexions and so on. In my opinion, searching and finding the hidden truth is a challenging and exciting task (just like any detective job) but usually it can be done only by team work and extensive debate. St. John Cassian (St. John Chrysostom's disciple, founder of western monasticism) emphasized the key importance of mutual deliberation and valuable advice:

"Salvation depends upon thorough counceling" - St. John Cassian (from Casian of Scythia Minor, Romania)

One of the very few leading goths from getic lands about whom we have some biographic details (thanks to St.John Chrysostom and Byzantium chronicles) is Gainas (Gaina), the commander of a gothic army that plundered Constantinople (400 A.D.) just before Alaric's pillage of Rome (410 A.D.) - by the way, Alaric was born in Peuce island from Danube Delta (in Scythia Minor of Dacia). In only 10 years, both capitals of Roman Empire were plundered by gothic armies ruled by warriors born in getic lands, and this could support a folkloric tale that the dacian priests besieged at Sarmizegetusa in the final epic fight launched a curse against Rome to be conquered by a warrior of getic origin. Whatever it may be, superstition or just divine justice, it seems they had some revenge. Moreover, it could explain the strange and almost complete loss of ancient books, war memories and chronicles relating to getae, Dacian wars and gothic origin (e.g. Trajan emperor's books and his physician's memories, Hadrian emperor's memories, Cassiodorus books, etc).

As we know from St.John Chrysostom, Gainas was born on the northern side of Danube and had a very humble origin. The name Gainas is practically the same with romanian Gaina, a name found until now in the lowest class of romanian peasants: it means "hen" (as the latin "gallina"). Interesting, one of the best romanian novels ("The lunatics" - by Ion Vinea) and the movie "Through the ashes of Empire" (about the interwar period, after the fall of Habsburg Empire), both of them present a character bearing the name Gaina, of very low origin. When Gaina makes a "dignity crisis" and becomes insolent, his sponsor replies with scorn and sarcasm, reminding him that the one who receives a stipend is not in a position to make such remarks about his master.

In my opinion, Gainas may be a key element for solving the complex problem of getae-gothic connexion, supporting the idea that goths were a coalition of getic and northern "germanic" tribes, and sometimes even prominent leaders of them could have a getic origin. Further on, the word "gaina" instead of the latin "gallina" indicates that already in the 4th century the basic daco-roman lexicon had typical romanian words - with their specific form, a bit different from the latin one.

Significant historical data:
395, 17 January: Death of Theodosius I; Arcadius and Honorius succeed their father; Alaric marches into Greece
398 Patriarch Nectarius dies; succeeded by John Chrysostom
399 Revolt of Visigothic settlers in Phrygia; conspiracy of Gainas; fall of Eutropius; in the Sasanian Empire, Bahram IV is succeeded by Yazdgard I; birth of Pulcheria
400 Gainas in Constantinople; praetorian prefect Aurelian exiled; Gainas unable to control the city; streetfights; Gainas leaves; return of Aurelian
401 The Hunnish leader Uldin kills Gainas; birth of Theodosius and Flacilla

A short story of Gaina, inspired by Gibbon - http://2guysreadinggibbon.wordpress....-scorned-women

Fall of Gainas (the barbarian Usurper-General)

Gainas is Arian (a heretic by Catholic standards) – (as are most Goths) – so the empire is hostile against him
Gainas was sent to take care of the Goth Tribigild’s rebellion – he pursues Tribigild, but does not battle his horde, while sending excuses back to Constantinople why he fails to engage the enemy pillaging the Syria
Gainias unites with Tribigild’s forces, marches on Constantinople, forces the death of opposing ministers (Aurelian and Saturninus)
Gainas enters and takes Constantinople as Master General of the Imperial Armies – riot and pillaging in Const.
He has his forces transported across the Hellespont into Europe
Due to religions bigotry (Const. hated Arians) troops and people rise in revolt and kill the Goths – 4th-5th massacre of the Goths (7-2-400)
Gainas attempts to go back to Asia, his lieutenant Fravitta (also a Goth), now in power in Const. destroys a great part of the Goths trying to get passage back sailing across the straits away from Const. back to Asia Minor (12-23-400)
Gainas decides to retreat north – moves north with army – Fravitta has a consulship, and does not pursue him
Gainas’s army destroyed by the Huns who have taken over the Danube, his head is sent back to Const. (1-3-401)


A brief (catholic) biography of St. John Chrysostom says:

In the East John Chrysostom criticized rich nobles, many of whom had a dozen or more mansions and a thousand or more slaves, who were often brutally treated. He preached that the marriage rights of the wife are equal to those of the husband. John opposed granting the Arian Goths a church in the capital, but he visited the church of the orthodox Goths often.

(...) A garrison of 6,000 sent from Dalmatia to protect Rome were almost all killed or captured by Alaric's army. Olympius sent some troops against a force of Goths and Huns led by Athaulf, Alaric's brother-in-law. In 410 Alaric deposed Athaulf and met with Honorius; but negotiations were broken off when the Visigoth Sarus attacked Alaric's camp. Alaric marched on Rome for the third time and allowed his troops to sack the city, though as an Arian Christian he had the churches spared; he died before the end of 410. To succeed him, the Ostrogoth Athaulf was elected king of the Visigoths.

In January, 399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not long before, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered, delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he was seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been sent out to subdue Tribigild, who had revolted.

In the summer of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named commander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of the Catholic churches at Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousand Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns.

We also have a more detailed catholic article about Gaina, in the context of Byzantium and gothic wars at that time www.san.beck.org/AB11-AugustineandRome.html

The Latin poet Claudian wrote two books against Rufinus accusing him of extorting oppressive taxes, bribery, unjust confiscations, forced and fictitious wills by which he gained inheritances of his enemies, the public sale of justice, and other corruption. Claudian exaggerated the evils of Rufinus, because he favored his patron Stilicho; but much of it was probably true. The Goths selected Alaric as their leader and ravaged Thrace and Macedonia before advancing on Constantinople. Rufinus dressed as a Goth and persuaded them to march west. Lucian used money his father Florentius had extorted from Gaul to get Rufinus to appoint him Count of the East; but when Lucian refused to favor the Emperor's uncle, Rufinus went to Antioch and had Lucian condemned and cruelly punished. Rufinus tried to marry his daughter to Arcadius, but the Emperor preferred the beautiful Eudoxia, the daughter of Bauto, a Frank general serving Rome.

The East still lacked troops that had been moved west for the war against Eugenius. Stilicho was to return with them, and he imposed the will of Theodosius, giving Honorius dominion over Thrace. Rufinus got Arcadius to call for Stilicho from the conflict with the Visigoths in that region, and the Gothic officer Gainas marched the imperial legions to Constantinople. Rufinus met the troops of Gainas but was assassinated by them, and this was blamed on Stilicho. Meanwhile Huns from the north invaded Mesopotamia and ravaged Syria. With Rufinus dead the eunuch chamberlain Eutropius dominated the government of Arcadius. By intrigue Eutropius managed to kill and appropriate the wealth of military commanders Abundantius and Timasius. Claudian also wrote two books of poetry against Eutropius, criticizing his greedy ambition and exaggerating his sale of offices. The poet wrote that the only passion the mutilated body of Eutropius could indulge was the passion for gold, and he even wondered whether the effeminate slave could blush or feel shame.

In 396 the Visigoths led by Alaric moved south into Greece, taking Boeotia, Athens, Megara, Corinth, Argos, and Sparta. Athens was spared, but the temple at Eleusis was plundered, according to Eunapius by a band of fanatical monks accompanying the Gothic army.(...) Ironically this poem marking the end of those mysteries that were founded when the Greeks were at that stage coincides with the invasion of the Goths and Huns, whose populations had increased to the point where they too must find enough land to settle down into an agricultural way of life. Stilicho led forces across from Italy and met Alaric at Elis. They made an agreement, and Alaric withdrew to Epirus being recognized as master of Illyricum. The Senate in Constantinople resented Stilicho entering Greece and declared him a public enemy, while Claudian flattered Honorius with empty praise.

The German Gainas, who had been directed by Stilicho to lead the Eastern army back to Constantinople, had become Master of Soldiers. Ostrogoths in Phrygia led by Tribigild invaded Galatia, Pisidia, and Bithynia, as Arcadius was retiring to a resort at Ancyra for the summer of 399. Generals Gainas and Leo, a friend of Eutropius, were sent against the invaders. Synesius, a philosopher from Cyrene arrived in Constantinople and wrote against Germans in the state, arguing that giving arms to foreign Germans was like a shepherd trying to tame the cubs of wolves. Gainas secretly reinforced the Ostrogoths and got his own Germans to revolt, resulting in the death of Leo. While pretending to be overwhelmed by Ostrogothic power, Gainas urged Arcadius to meet Tribigild's demand of deposing Eutropius. The empress Eudoxia also turned against Eutropius, who fled for sanctuary in the church St. Sophia. There he was protected by John Chrysostom, who preached on the vanity of the world. Eutropius surrendered when offered his life and was banished to Cyprus.

Eutychian was replaced as Praetorian Prefect of the East by Aurelian as the anti-German party triumphed. Gainas openly allied with Tribigild, and they plundered the Propontis. Apparently they got Aurelian replaced by an unknown person referred to as Typhos in a literary work by Synesius called Egyptians. The Patriarch Chrysostom persuaded Gainas to banish rather than kill the three hostages Aurelian, Saturninus, and John, the lover of Empress Eudoxia. Gainas marched into Constantinople with his army and ruled there for the first half of the year 400. Then when the Goths left the capital, many were trapped in a church and killed. The one called Typhos fell, and Aurelian again became Prefect. Gainas became a declared enemy and plundered Thrace. At Abydos the Goths ran into the imperial navy commanded by the loyal Goth Fravitta. The troops of Gainas were defeated, and he was driven to the Hun king Uldin, who cut off the head of Gainas and sent it to Arcadius. Thus the East escaped the barbarian threat, and Stilicho could no longer plot against them. Stilicho became consul in Rome, venerated again by the poetry of Claudian.

According to another western source, " St. Nilus kept up a correspondence with Gaina, a leader of the Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He denounced vigorously the persecution of St. John Chrysostom both to Emperor Arcadius and to his courtiers ": www.catholic-saints.net/prophecies/st-nilus.php

[iulian]

The Dialogue of Palladius concerning the Life of St. John Chrysostom
www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/palladius_dialogus_03_footnotes.htm

381. 2 Gainas was a Goth, who had been made commander of the army in Constantinople (in which he had enrolled "his whole tribe"), and sent to check the advance of an insurgent brother Goth, Tribigild.

Instead of doing so, he joined forces with him, and advanced upon the city, demanding the surrender of three Court favourites. Chrysostom was known to be kindly disposed towards the Goths, as he had organized mission work among them (his befriending of heathen against Christians was one of the charges brought against him at The Oak); he therefore was asked to negotiate (hence "the champion of our souls" or "lives"), and was granted the lives of the three, but could not stop Gainas' entry. For some months nothing was done, the barbarians only waiting for orders to sack the city; meanwhile, Gainas asked for a church within the walls, for himself and his fellow-Arians. Chrysostom discussed the matter with him before the Emperor, and the request was refused. In the winter the Goths attacked the palace, but were repulsed through "a vision of angels" (or through the efforts of the citizens), and half the army, with Gainas, retired through the gates, which were at once shut. The rebel forces were thus divided; Gainas fled to Thrace, where he was killed, in January 401. Theodoret, H. E., v. 32, places his application for a church before, not after, his rebellion.


The treatise as it stands is anonymous, but it is generally attributed to Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis. Its present title is "An historical dialogue of Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, held with Theodorus, Deacon of Rome, concerning the life and conversation of the blessed John, Bishop of Constantinople, the Golden-mouthed." And in the margin the words are added, "In other (copies) it is written, Bishop of Aspona."

Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis (Drepanum, in Bithynia), is known to us as the author of the Lausiac History; this consists of a number of brief biographies or anecdotes of worthies, chiefly monks, whom he had known, or of whom he had heard, during his life as a monk in the desert, or in the course of his travels. The Introduction to this work states that it was compiled for the same purpose of moral instruction which is alleged for the Dialogue. He was evidently a friend of Chrysostom, who writes to him from Cucusus, asking for his prayers, and saying that he ceases not daily to be anxious for his welfare (Ep. 113)

The History shows that he was consecrated Bishop of Helenopolis after leaving the desert, in the year 400, "having become embroiled in the disturbance connected with the blessed John"; the Dialogue gives us the account of his journey to Ephesus, of his visit to Rome, his voyage to Constantinople, and his exile to Syene. On his return, he lived for two years in Galatia, and, as Socrates informs us, he was translated as bishop to Aspona, in Galatia. Two years later he wrote his Lausiac History, and some time between 420 and 430 he died. This treatise, obviously written by one who had full information, and was an eye-witness of many of the incidents which he narrates, is our best authority for the life of St. Chrysostom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, Gaina episode in "The Life of Our Father Among the Saints, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople"
From The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, Volume 3: November
http://chrysostom1600.org/index.php/life/P1/

During Saint John Chrysostom’s reign as Patriarch, there still remained numerous Arians in Constantinople. They were permitted to profess their faith freely and to perform their services. The blessed one considered how he might cleanse the city of the Arian heresy, and one day, when he found a convenient occasion, said to the Emperor, “Pious Emperor, if someone were to set in your crown a worthless stone, dark and dirtied, alongside the jewels imbedded in it, would you not consider that he had dishonored the entire crown?”
“Yes, that is so,” the Emperor replied.
“Thus is this Orthodox city dishonored,” continued John, “by the presence of the unbelieving Arians. Just as the dishonoring of your crown would arouse your wrath, 0 Emperor, so does the defilement of this city by the heresy of Arianism incur God’s anger. Therefore, you would do well either to return the heretics to the unity of the faith or to drive them from the city.”
When the Emperor heard this, he commanded that the leaders of the Arians be brought before him, and asked them to recite their confession of faith in the presence of the Patriarch. When they began to utter words full of impiety, and blasphemies against our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor commanded that they be expelled from the city.

After some time, the Arians, who had as helpers and intercessors persons of high rank serving in the imperial palace, began to return to the city on Sundays. They would form processions and go to their chief place of assembly, chanting heretical songs which blasphemed the Most Holy Trinity. When the Most Holy Patriarch John learned this, he was troubled, fearing that the common people would join in the Arians’ processions. He ordered his clergy to walk in procession through the city with lighted candles, carrying crosses and holy icons and chanting hymns glorifying the Most Holy Trinity, composed to combat the blasphemous songs of the Arians. When the processions met, considerable tumult would arise between the Orthodox and their opponents. Once a riot ensued, and several people on either side were killed, the head of the Emperor’s eunuch Bresonus, who was among the Orthodox, being split open with a stone. The Emperor learned of this and became furious with the Arians. He forbade them to form processions or to enter the city, and thus the blasphemings of this heresy finally vanished from Constantinople.

There was a general named Gainas, by origin a barbarian, who was extremely courageous in battle and enjoyed the Emperor’s favor. This man was deceived by the heresy of Arius and persistently asked the Emperor to give one of the churches of the city to the Arians. The Emperor did not know how to answer him, since he feared that Gainas, a foul-tempered and violent man, would become angry and bring about a rebellion within the Greek Empire. The Emperor told Saint John of this and received this reply: “Call for me when Gainas next petitions you for a church, and I will answer for you.”

The next day, Gainas came before the Eniperor and asked him for a church for use by the Arians, saying that this favor was due him as recompense for his labors in time of war and his bravery. The great John was summoned to the palace, and answered Gainas thus: “A pious Emperor does not take up arms against the churches of God. These are under the care of the spiritual authorities, appointed by God. If you wish to pray, enter whichever church you wish: all the churches of the city are open to you.”
“But I am of another confession,” replied Gainas. “It is for this reason that I wish to be given a church within the city. I desire that my fellow believers have a place to worship. I ask the Emperor not to disdain my request, for I have hazarded my life and suffered wounds for him, toiling greatly in the military service of the Empire.”

John then said, “You have received recompense for your labors: great honor from the Emperor, fame, rank, and gifts. It would behoove you to reflect upon what you were before and what you are now. Once you were a poor, obscure man, but now you have become wealthy and renowned. Consider how you lived before you crossed the Danube and how you live at present. You were a simple, impoverished peasant then, clad in wretched garments, happy to have bread and water on your table; but now you are a respected and famed commander, clad in the costly uniform of a general. You possess much gold and silver and countless estates, all due to the Emperor’s beneficence. Such are the rewards you have received for your labors! Be grateful, continue to serve the Greek Empire, and do not ask for divine things as recompense for mundane service.”

Put to shame by these words, Gainas fell silent. The Emperor marvelled at John’s wisdom and how he was able with a few words to stop the mouth of the tempestuous and violent barbarian. Within a year, however, Gainas forsook the Emperor’s service, and assembling a great army, marched on Constantinople. The Emperor, who had no force at hand with which to combat him, did not know what to do, and begged Saint John to go out to meet the barbarian and to calm him. Although he knew he had enraged Gainas when he told him he ought not ask for a church for the Arians, John was prepared to lay down his life for his sheep and went to the camp of the proud barbarian. And God aided His servant, for John’s eloquence calmed the man. After transforming the wolf into a lamb and reconciling him to the Emperor, the saint returned to the city.

[clandestino]

Let me get it strait, the key point of your theory is that Gainas was actually a Get because his name sounds like chicken in modern Romanian which also proves that Goths were actually federation of Goths and Getae ( which are Romanians ) ?

[CiviC]

That some Free Dacians or Romanised Dacians could have been federated into Gothic tribes is plausible, but needs further proofs. The name Gainas could be of proto-Romanian origin, but again, has anybody idea if Gainas means something in Gothic language?

[clandestino]

Gainas is his name rendered in Greek, knowing the habit of medieval Greek writers to sodomize foreign names beyond point of being recognizable it's very dubious how his name actually sounded in Gothic language or whatever language he spoke. Second, closest word in Goth would be gaisjan meaning to frighten, terrify which would certainly be much appropriate then chicken, also someone who actually knows something on Gothic and other old Germanic languages would probably found something closer. Third, as much plausible that he was Romanized Dacian it's plausible that he was Sarmatian, Slav, Bastarn or whatever of the tribes that were parts of Gothic federation.

[Getwulf]

Gainas is his name rendered in Greek, knowing the habit of medieval Greek writers to sodomize foreign names beyond point of being recognizable it's very dubious how his name actually sounded in Gothic language or whatever language he spoke. Second, closest word in Goth would be gaisjan meaning to frighten, terrify which would certainly be much appropriate then chicken, also someone who actually knows something on Gothic and other old Germanic languages would probably found something closer. Third, as much plausible that he was Romanized Dacian it's plausible that he was Sarmatian, Slav, Bastarn or whatever of the tribes that were parts of Gothic federation.

I don't think that you will find that GAISJAN in the Gothic of that period. I'm using a dictionary based on Wulfila's "Moesian" Gothic and I can tell you that the word doesn't exist... Below is a section of the dictionary where that word should appear... If you're using some other form of Gothic be aware of the fact that some on-line dictionaries are usually supplemented in order to fill in the blanks. Also, according to this dictionary "FRIGHTEN" in Gothic is actually "USAGJAN" and "FEAR" is "FAURHTJAN".

<gagrēfts> decree --
1.11
<gaháusjan> to hear --
6.200, 8.30, 8.89
<gaƕeilan> to cease --
10.151
<gaƕeitjan> to whiten --
7.52
<gajukō> parable --
6.46, 6.221, 6.244
<gakannjan> to make known --
8.105
<galagjan> to lay, put --
1.138, 1.254, 9.132
<galáubeins> faith, belief --
10.29
<galáubjan> to believe [Pokorny leubh- :: to care for, like, love] --
9.246, 10.129
<galeikōn> to be like --
5.203

One of the very few leading goths from getic lands about whom we have some biographic details (thanks to St.John Chrysostom and Byzantium chronicles) is Gainas (Gaina), the commander of a gothic army that plundered Constantinople (400 A.D.) just before Alaric's pillage of Rome (410 A.D.) - by the way, Alaric was born in Peuce island from Danube Delta (in Scythia Minor of Dacia). In only 10 years, both capitals of Roman Empire were plundered by gothic armies ruled by warriors born in getic lands, and this could support a folkloric tale that the dacian priests besieged at Sarmizegetusa in the final epic fight launched a curse against Rome to be conquered by a warrior of getic origin. Whatever it may be, superstition or just divine justice, it seems they had some revenge. Moreover, it could explain the strange and almost complete loss of ancient books, war memories and chronicles relating to getae, Dacian wars and gothic origin (e.g. Trajan emperor's books and his physician's memories, Hadrian emperor's memories, Cassiodorus books, etc).

I think Emperor Galerius who was actually a Dacian mostly beat the Getae to it... See Lactantius "Death of the Persecutors" on what I call the Dacian revenge.

I support the idea that the Getae were in fact Goths. I think the confusion comes from the deliberate twisting of history by Romanian historians who did their best to create an origin for the Getae that is only supported by a few lines by Herodotus.

[Flavius Nevitta]

I think Emperor Galerius who was actually a Dacian mostly beat the Getae to it... See Lactantius "Death of the Persecutors" on what I call the Dacian revenge.

Oh god not this again

[Romano-Dacis]

I think there are far better evidences than some guy whose name might sound like something but might not mean anything at all. Bishop Ulfila, for instance, is known to have come from the Roman Empire as a prisoner of the Goths and is known to have spoken Latin as well as Greek. Why grasp at straws when there are so many better people to choose from? BTW, I have yet to meet anyone named "Chicken." Also:

this could support a folkloric tale that the dacian priests besieged at Sarmizegetusa in the final epic fight launched a curse against Rome to be conquered by a warrior of getic origin.

Or it could be based on nothing at all as this folkloric tale never existed. I've never even heard of this folk-tale, and if it does it exist, it probably is a much more recent invention, like the solomonari.

Whatever it may be, superstition or just divine justice, it seems they had some revenge.

So a Latin people subdue a Thracian people, and the Thracian people get their revenge through a Germanic people? Ok...

Moreover, it could explain the strange and almost complete loss of ancient books, war memories and chronicles relating to getae, Dacian wars and gothic origin (e.g. Trajan emperor's books and his physician's memories, Hadrian emperor's memories, Cassiodorus books, etc).

<CITATION NEEDED> Late Antiquity is extremely sparsely documented. The loss of the chronicles on the Dacian Wars is perplexing and saddening, but not a reason to start baseless conspiracy theories.

I'm sorry but it just makes no sense.

[clandestino]

So a Latin people subdue a Thracian people, and the Thracian people get their revenge through a Germanic people? Ok...

Correction, through Germanic people who speak Latin language, or should I say Romanian language.

[Carpathian Wolf]

"In my opinion, Gainas may be a key element for solving the complex problem of getae-gothic connexion, supporting the idea that goths were a coalition of getic and northern "germanic" tribes, and sometimes even prominent leaders of them could have a getic origin."

I can agree with this and I think RD even wrote a bit about such a possibility. I wouldn't go as far as the non sense that Getwulf says though.

[Romano-Dacis]

Yes, the Chernyakhov culture definitely shows that the Free Dacians/Carpi played a fundamental part in the formation of the Gothic people... but that doesn't mean that we can suddenly start believing Alaric was some "Getic avenger." In general I think, people give too little credit to those who were there beforehand and focus more on the "new barbarians." Thus the Balkans and even Western Europe have become some sort of ethnic mystery, where historians no longer care about what the locals did but rather only about the barbarian immigrants. How can one deny that the Thracians and Balkans Romans played a part, a significant part, in the formation of the Balkan Slavs? It's impossible, especially when we consider new researches in archaeology (see Florin Curta's The Making of the Slavs for example). Similarly, we can't just believe that the Goths came in and annihilated everyone before them. They mixed with the local Dacians and Sarmatians east of the Carpathians. However, it's important to realize that (from the little evidence we have on Dacian) that they spoke a different language from the Dacians, a Germanic rather than a Thracian language.

Plus, the argument coming from iulian is inconsistent: his thesis is that the Getai and Goths are the same, and yet he uses the name Gainas, giving it the etymology of "chicken" in Latin, and thus relating them to the Romanized locals of Dacia. How does relating his name to a Latin word prove that the Getai and Goths were the same?

So, in summary:
CULTURES ARE STATIC AND RIGID: NO. It is clear that Gothic culture emerged on the Roman frontier from a mix of local cultures, including the Carpic culture. See Michael Kulikowski's Rome's Gothic Wars.
GETAI AND GOTH ARE SYNONYMOUS: NO. No more than Sarmatian and Goth. The evidence is lacking for such a conclusion, and the argument provided with Gainas makes no sense. In fact, as Kulikowski himself states:

To the Greek authors who wrote about them, the Goths were ‘Scythians’ and that is the name used almost without exception to describe them. ... For Greek writers of the third, fourth and fifth centuries A.D., barbarians who came from the regions in which Herodotus had placed the Scythians were themselves Scythians in a very real sense. It was not just that classicizing language gave a new group of people an old name; the Greeks and Romans of the civilized imperial world really did believe in an eternal barbarian type that stayed essentially the same no matter what particular name happened to be current for a given tribe at any particular time. And so the Goths, when they first appear in our written sources, are Scythians – they lived where the Scythians had once lived, they were the barbarian mirror image of the civilized Greek world as the Scythians had been, and so they were themselves Scythians.

On the transformation of Gothic culture:

One might argue, as most do, that the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture came into being because of a migration out of theWielbark regions, but one might equally argue that it was an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic and Dacian cultures or of the migration of steppe nomads from the east meeting Przeworsk-culture warriors from the west. In purely archaeological terms, each of these interpretations is equally possible, for as we have seen,Wielbark cultural elements are no more numerous in the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture than are the many other cultural traditions that make it up. It is only the text of Jordanes that leads scholars to privilege the Wielbark connection. Indeed, if Jordanes did not exist and we were dealing with truly prehistoric cultures, it is highly unlikely that anyone would draw the same connection.
...
What, then, are we to make of all this? How are we to interpret the origins of the Santana--de-Mures/Cernjachov culture and the Gothic hegemony with which it coincides chronologically? Is there such a thing as Gothic history before the third century? The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries – everything except the sixth-century Jordanes. In the third century, the Roman empire was assaulted from the regions north of the Danube and the Black Sea by large numbers of different barbarian groups, among whom Goths appear for the first time. Not long thereafter, the Goths are clearly the most powerful group in the region, while most of the other barbarian groups with whom they appear in the third century either disappear from the record or are clearly subordinated to them. The most plausible explanation of this evidence is to see one group among the many different barbarians north of the Black Sea establishing its hegemony over the scattered and hitherto disparate population of the region, which was thereafter regularly identified as Gothic by Graeco-Roman observers.

Kulikowski continues on how "Gothic" identity developed:

At their centre were leaders who were seen to be Goths by the Romans and who perhaps saw themselves as Goths as well. Certainly, in time, after being told repeatedly that they were in fact Goths and leaders of Gothic gentes with whom the empire would fight and make treaties, there was no question in anyone’s mind that they were indeed Goths. Likewise the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture must surely be the result of a political stability of long enough standing for stable cultural relations to develop. That stability is attested by the growing political sophistication of the Gothic leaders whom we meet in the course of the fourth century and who form the subject of the next chapter.

It's not so much that iulian is going off into crazy-town... it's that the conclusion he reached is exaggerated. Culture is a very fluid concept, much more fluid than most of the amateur military historians on this forum realize, and more fluid than Total War games will have you believe. Thus it is entirely possible that the Goths were Getic/Carpic... but only a fraction of them, and they lost their indigenous culture as it blended into the "Gothic" melting pot of the Ukranian/Moldovan steppe. It's unfair to say the Goths and Getai have no relation, but it's equally unfair to claim that the two are the same.

[clandestino]

I support the idea that the Getae were in fact Goths.

No, Getae were Slavs, and Scythians were Slavs, and Tribals and Moesi were Slavs, Dalmats were also Slavs, therefore Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians were all Slavs No wait, those are just medieval historians using archaic names for Slavs living where those antic tribes used to live. But it seems that this logic doesn't applies to Getae and Goths. No, when some Roman rethorician make some fantastic story just to suck up to his barbarian king and make him and his barbarian newcomers look cool and for that reason identify Goths with Getae and send them fighting in Troian war, he is actually speaking the truth and he cannot be questioned!

I think the confusion comes from the deliberate twisting of history by Romanian historians who did their best to create an origin for the Getae that is only supported by a few lines by Herodotus.

So the Getae are Germanic people who lived in the same place from 5th century BC to 5 century AD?
For gaisjan:
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/tiff/goth_balg/b0120.tiff and http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/tiff/goth_balg/b0121.tiff

[Getwulf]

For gaisjan:
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/tiff/goth_balg/b0120.tiff and http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/tiff/goth_balg/b0121.tiff

I believe that your two sources show the word to be from O.E. and M.E. that is from Old English and Middle English if I'm not mistaken. Again, I don't think you will find the word in use in the Gothic of Wulfila's time...

As for the other stuff I have nothing to say... you already know my position.

[clandestino]

cf means compare, so '' cf. O.E '' means compare ( gaisjan ) with Old English gaesan ... I don't pretend to be right with this one, I'm just making an example how basic search on internet can give you bunch of other etymological explanations beside the chicken one.

As for the other stuff I have nothing to say... you already know my position.

So where do you stay? Goths are Getae and they always lived where they lived, some small portions latter migrated to Italy and Spain while rest remained on place and eventually became Romanian while changing at least three totally unrelated languages in process, but always remainig firmly Getic?

[Getwulf]

So where do you stay? Goths are Getae and they always lived where they lived, some small portions latter migrated to Italy and Spain while rest remained on place and eventually became Romanian while changing at least three totally unrelated languages in process, but always remainig firmly Getic?

Well the people remained "the people" genetically I don't see much of a change but they lost most of their culture in the process... and politically they obviously lost their significance.

In reality even the Goths that went into the west were actually quite happy to be Latinised/Romanised if we are to believe Orosius on Atawulf...

At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Please please please everyone, don't argue with Getwulf's arguments...because then we all lose.

[clandestino]

Well the people remained "the people" genetically I don't see much of a change but they lost most of their culture in the process... and politically they obviously lost their significance.

You are not going to use that ridiculous map as a '' proof '' again, are you? The one showing that Moldavians are in fact Bosnians-Serbs-Croats from Herzegovina, Dalmatia and Montenegro? Since my family ( from both sides ) is originally exactly from the area which ( allegedly ) has highest frequency of Haplogroup I in Europe does it means that I'm Goth, or Get, or Moldavaian, or whatever you claim?

[Getwulf]

You are not going to use that ridiculous map as a '' proof '' again, are you? The one showing that Moldavians are in fact Bosnians-Serbs-Croats from Herzegovina, Dalmatia and Montenegro? Since my family ( from both sides ) is originally exactly from the area which ( allegedly ) has highest frequency of Haplogroup I in Europe does it means that I'm Goth, or Get, or Moldavaian, or whatever you claim?

No...

As for you, you can be whatever you want to be. I don't get into the habit of telling people what they are.

[clandestino]

As for you, you can be whatever you want to be. I don't get into the habit of telling people what they are.

I know what I am while you are obviously very confused.

[Frostwulf]

CULTURES ARE STATIC AND RIGID: NO. It is clear that Gothic culture emerged on the Roman frontier from a mix of local cultures, including the Carpic culture. See Michael Kulikowski's Rome's Gothic Wars.

This is not clear as even Kulikowski puts it as his view pg.67. There are differing views and one thing I think counts against Kulikowski is that the Goths(Gotones) are mentioned by Tacitus as a tribe(not a supra-tribe yet). I agree with allot of what you wrote but the three main theories are there.

We know that Goths first appear in contemporary literary sources in the early decades of the third century and that, in the company of various other named groups, they posed a threat to the peace of the empire from bases in the region to the north and west of the Black Sea. As we shall see in the next chapter, by the earlier fourth century the Goths had unquestionably become the most powerful group in that region. In that same region - roughly between Volhynia in the north, the Carpathians in the west, the Danube and Black Sea to the south and the Donets to the east - a single archaeological culture is visible from the late third until theearly fifth century. This archaeological culture is known as the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture and is reasonably well dated on archaeological grounds. This means that we can use the socio-historical evidence of that material culture to help describe fourth-century Gothic social structures and economic relations - as we will in the next chapter. Pg.63

The theory of the Getae being Goths simply ignores the location, language, cultural and classical written information while solely relying on a misconstrued medieval text(we mustn't forget the Amazons and half a dozen other people that the Goths are according to said text).
Unfortunately I don't have time to expand on this, but good job on the rebuttal R-D. until the