Talk:Dacia

message: My senses tell me the sources original author may not have been citing a real historical reference, nor am I seasoned enough to do the research on my own ;)
Can someone please follow up with a non-primary source? I'm thinking of re-wording this topic to sound less as factual history, or maybe just outright deleting it. Thanks.  Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Empire as the Dacian Empire

message: The brief mention of language here seems to presume the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity, which is controversial, to say the least. I'm not expert enough on this period to venture to make a proper correction, but it seems to me that at least there should be some indication that there is no certainty that contemporary Romanians owe their Romance language to the Latinization of the Dacians. 
: Yes, that's right. The Dacian romanization is just one of the three possible explanations:
:# Dacians were romanized by the conquerors
:# Dacians had a language close enough to Latin and no Romanization was required
:# A Romanic population from came from South and asimilated the Dacians.
: It should be discussed (from a NPOV) on Origin of Romanians. (My opinion is that the second option is the closest to the truth).
:Bogdan 12:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: explanation #2 is utter fantasy and has no support from historians - Latin evolved in Italy, and the Dacians were far apart in time and distance HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll correct it.
-------------------------
It would be more correct to say that Burebista was taking control (conquer or just be recognise as suzerain) by Greek towns on the Pontus Euxinus from Olbia (the northest, at the river mouth of Bug, today Ukraina), to Apollonia (the southest, somewhere near today Varna, Bulgaria). 
[User: MihaiC] 19 Dec 03
----
If you can, Translate it for it is worth it! 
http://casanoastra-romania-dacia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/dacii-sau-getii-sau-gotii-sau-geatii.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILISANU (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: : The discovery of Tartaria tablets seem to indicate that the dacians were the first ones to use writing (as far as we know it by now). The tablets were dated 7300 years BC.. that is ~9300 years ago and ~2000 years before the Sumerian tablets previously known as the oldest discovered writing.
The tablets were written by pre-Indo-European people (before the IE invasion) and Dacians, as Indo-Europeans couldn't be the authors. You may argue that genetically, the Tartaria people were the ancestors of the Dacians, but the Dacian culture/language/civilization is clearly of Indo-European origin. Bogdan | Talk 13:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tartaria

message: I don't think the Transylvania issue is really a serious territorial dispute: Hungarians constantly whine about, yet it is not a real dispute at the level of other territorial disputes in the world. We shouldn't even give anybody the impression that the dispute is at that level. Alexander 007 05:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the article are you referring to? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I erased the one word that I was referring to (" the disputed area"). Alexander 007 06:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transylvania  'Disputed' 

message: which, as the ode was written on  March 1, 29 BC, probably refers to the campaign of Marcus Crassus (30 BC-28 BC), not to that of Cornelius Lentulus, who was not consul until 18 BC. Marcus Crassus is supposed to be long dead by 30 BC; something needs to be done about this mistake. (Criztu, 2 Jan 2005)
That's all well and good, but why did you delete this?:
:"The inhabitants of this district are considered as belonging to the Thracian stock. The Dacians were known as Getae (pl. Geton) in Greek writings, and as Dacus (pl. Daci) and Getae in Roman documents; also as Dagae and Gaete — see the late Roman map Tabula Peutingeriana. Ancient writers are unanimous in considering the Getae the same as the Daci."
Please at least make comments when you delete substantive statements.
Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
::This artice should not be deleted - it is historical truth. Dacians are a part of the so called "Thracians" (in fact - Bulgarian tribes). The Romaninan language was formed after a strong Latin influence over a part of the Dacians and other "Thracians" in the area. You can easily check the connection between  modern Romanians and Bulgarians through reading some DNA researches, showing more than 90% proximity of blood. Unlike the proximity between Bulgarians and any "slavic nation" - Shisharki
:::No one was talking about deleting the article, and as the comments below show, Criztu did not actually remove that paragraph above from the article. No reputable scientist believes that the Thracians were Bulgarian tribes: the Thracians did not speak a Slavic language. Romanians and Bulgarians absorbed Thracian peoples, but neither Romanians nor Bulgarians are pure Thracians. The Thracians are extinct. Unless the Albanians are Thracian or Dacian descendants, rather than Illyrian (see Origin of Albanians).Alexander 007 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how does this "Thracian" language sounds like? Any clue? Or just hypothesis based on guesses? There aren't any, just because there are no evidences for the existence of a nation called "Thracians"... There were hundreds of tribes with the same culture, language, and origin - none of them was called Thracians. Dacians are among them. At teh same time some greek sources say that the people living north of ancient Greece are the lagest nation in their known world after the Indians. Any idea where they all left? If anyone can cite a source (Roman or Greek or any) mentioning the word "Thracian", let all of us see it and learn. Thanks! --Shisharki 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of work has been done on the Thracian language, a lot of it done by Bulgarians: and it is overwhelmingly agreed that the Thracian language was not a Slavic language. However, you will be interested to learn that there is one linguist — a controversial linguist — who suggests that the Thracian language may have been a type of conservative Paleo-Slavic language:Mario Alinei (I'll get the link later). Yet his theory about the Thracian language has been so far ignored. The Thracian language is known from some words cited in ancient glossaries, and from many personal names, town names (see List of ancient Thracian cities), place-names, etc.; there are also some longer inscriptions which may be written in Thracian (see Thracian language#Inscriptions) and they are not close to Slavic. The word "Thracian" is from Latin and Greek sources, and is first attested in Homeric Greek I think, in the Iliad; it is found in numerous classical texts, including Herodotus: Herodotus book 5, chapter 3. It's online at [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, and the word Threikon (=Thracian) can be seen. Alexander 007 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: i only created a Geography cathegory for Dacia and added info that Sarmisegetusa was its capital, the above paragraph is still there Criztu 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  chopped off from the main article 

message: : Roman names for the cities, mountains, and rivers disappeared altogether beyond the Danube
That's wrong. Here is a short list of rivers and cities that kept their ancient names:
:Tisa - Tissia - river
:Olt - Alutus - river
:Prut - Poratum - river
:Siret - Sieratus - river
:Argeş - Argessos - river
:Someş - Samus - river
:Mureş - Maris - river
:Timiş - Tibiscum - river
:Mediaş - Mediam - city
:Abrud - Abruttum - city
:Piatra Neamţ - Petrodava - city
Bogdan | Talk 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissappearence of the names 

message: Recently added link: UNRV Dacia article. Can anyone explain what UNRV is? The linked article looks fine, but the site seems an odd combination of things... -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
: from that site's "About" section:
: UNRV... United Nations of Roma Victor, represents the all encompassing power of Rome in the ancient world. United and Romanized, through conquest, or absorbed through its culture, Rome still stands today as a legacy to the achievement of mankind, and its failures. Bogdan | Talk 08:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that, but does it make sense? How do you "represent" a defunct empire? And have you noticed the type of things that are for sale on the site? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
If Savescu's "Dacia.org" can be given as a link, what's wrong with giving UNRV as a link. I haven't seen them selling anything unusual so far, mostly books and coins, but I haven't really paid attention to the merchandise. The most off-beat thing I saw so far was a link to a site selling ninja swords. Basically, the site is a so-so source of info on the ancient Roman empire, about each province, et cetera. Alexander 007 01:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not objecting, just trying to get my head around what the site is. Maybe we should have an article on them? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I have no idea who runs the site or what their agenda is. I think they are just "romanticists". There seems to be a vaguely sinister aura around the site, but I think that is because of the dark blood-red color they use as a background (suggestive of the Roman's preference for red, the color of Mars, the god of war). Alexander 007 03:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNRV 

message: Eutropius says some things that are obviously dramatic exaggerations: "All Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated (vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia)"---it is extremely unlikely that all Illyria and Moesia had been depopulated in the sense that the word is usually used (made a wasteland, totally unpopulated). It is also extremely unlikely that Dacia was depopulated, in the sense that the word is usually used. His poor word-choice and his dramatic slant on things have warped history. I'm going to read through his work one of these days and look for more exaggerations. Alexander 007 00:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit 
---There's no omni involved here, which is read into by some commentators. Alexander 007 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: should you be able to provide a better translation/link to a translation of the passage, pls do that :) , i'm also unsatisfied with the english translation from the link i provided ... i mean, Eutropius also tells about the same "vastatio" hapening in Spain and Gaul, and yet nobody uses Eutropius's words to "debate" about the galo-roman-frankish origin of the French nation :0( -- Criztu 10:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eutropius the Exaggerator 

message: Eventually, most likely, somebody is going to come by and protest this sentence: "The Dacians adopted the religion and language of the conquerors---the modern Romanian language being a Romance language." I suggest we deal with this 'in-house'. It is true, based on archaeology & other historical sources, that by far most of the Dacians within Roman territory (and probably some outside of) adopted (forcefully or otherwise) the Latin language (or Popular Latin) and Roman religion. Yet the next phrase forces on the reader the viewpoint that this Romanization led to the Romanian language developing in early Romanized Dacia---regardless if it did or didn't, it is not yet proven that it did or didn't (others suggest that Romanian developed from Romanization in Moesia, etc.), so Wikipedia ethics means that we have to be NPOV. I'm going to find a npov solution. Alexander 007 04:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has to be addressed eventually 

message: The article says that the Dacians worshipped Bendis, a Thracian goddess. That has to be verified, because according to Hoddinott, the goddess Bendis was "worshipped by Thracians in Attica (including in Athens), but documented in Thracian lands only in Bithynia and a small area of Aegean Thrace---Philippi, Drama, and Thasos". Alexander 007 06:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bendis

message: From the article:
:There's also a theory that the Albanian language is
The suspense is killing me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! OK, I finished it. bogdan | Talk 09:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence trails off into nowhere 

message: I've done my best to copy edit a poorly written recent addition to the Roman conquest section. I don't think the discussion of language should be there, and especially not the backdoor smuggling in of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. If we want to discuss the latter, we should take the topic head-on in a section or article of its own; if we just want to mention it in passing, I think it belongs in the language section of the article. In either case, not here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good faith insertion by  of the Dacian was a Latin language idea , which is totally different from the concept of Daco-Roman continuity (I subsequently explained the problem of including that idea in main Wikipedia articles to Proturism on Talk:Dacian language#Update, and he apparently agreed to the policy, of which he was not aware, so it was good-faith editing on his part). I plan on starting a specific Wiki article on the Dacian-Latin idea. It is notable enough, but not authoritative enough to be discussed in these main articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight). I plan on removing the idea from Origin of Romanians as well, once I (or someone else) start(s) the specific article. Alexander 007 06:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daco-Romanian continuity 

message: The following sentence was recently removed without comment: "Eighty percent of the former territory and people [of Dacia] remained outside the empire. I don't have a citation for this, but it accords with what I'm quite sure I'd read elsewhere. Assuming it is correct, it seems an odd thing to remove. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 80% percent is an exaggerated figure, but I don't have the references at hand ATM. It seems okay if it's left out till 80% is backed up with a proper citation. Alexander 007 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends how you compute the area. There were some Dacian outposts as far as southern Poland, but that doesn't mean that all the area to Poland was inhabited by Dacians. Anyway, see the map. (it includes the areas where could be found "-dava" cities southern of the Danube and Moesia) bogdan 09:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like 80%... What's your source? Alexander 007 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No source. It's based mainly on the toponym maps. Of course, it doesn't look like 80% -- that is the figure repeated by Napoleon Săvescu. :-) bogdan 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman conquest 

message: The Classical Latin phone represented by the letter v is considered to be w (or a slurred u sound approximating to w; see Latin spelling and pronunciation). I don't know if Dacian -dava was recorded in any Latin texts of the Classical Age, nor am I sure how standard the Classical pronunciation was among Latin speakers of the time, or exactly when the letter v began to represent the sound v. But I just thought it would be worth mentioning that -dava may have been pronounced -dawa (PIE base *dhe-) in Dacian. Alexander 007 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know of ancient Greek texts having a β for Dacian -dawa, -dava? Procopius does but he's Byzantine. I think Criztu added the -deba, -daba stuff, & he got this info from secondary or tertiary sources, etc.. I'm updating it, because AFAIK the older Greek texts set it down as -daua. Alexander 007 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, readers should realize, that for toponyms only attested in the work of the Byzantine Procopius (and other late writers) who was listing contemporary toponyms as far as Dacian and Thracian are concerned, I think,...there is no evidence that such towns were around in the time covered by this article, and perhaps should be removed. They will be found in List of Dacian cities, which will soon have details on attestation/ dates. Alexander 007 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawa

message: There are getting to be an awful lot of links here. It would be great if someone would go through them and work out which are actually worth keeping. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: dacia.org is a private owned site, it is not an uncontested academical/official source. i will also remove the "masagaetia and other provinces" until evidence (other than dacia.org) of such divisions of Dacia will be provided. i will remove Daco-Tracia also. provide evidence of the existence of a state named Dacia prior to Burebista Criztu 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dacia.org is sheer pseudohistory, see Dacianism. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  dacia.org 

message: I can find nothing in any reference work that substantiates the comment that Decebalus' name was originally Diurpaneus. The name Diurpaneus doesn't appear in Britannica, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, or  Illustrated History of the World, all of which have entries on Decebalus. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diurpaneus -- Decebalus? 

message: Some of the sites given as external links seem to advocate Dacomania. Shouldn't we clean up a little bit? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up some. The links I removed, I did so on the basis of either being non-English on the English Wikipedia; they were marginally related to Dacia, or they were identified as malware by my browser. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I would like to help with this article, in a good faith for the historical truth Blurall (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are some additional information that misght be included 

message: The borders are written by some sources Dio, then later Crassus, also Traianus. The basic consensus (as the borders were moving since the decades) that the borders of Dacia was Black Sea and Tisa/Tisza, and Danube from South. Firstly, we need to write that we have no data on the North border, we are just guessing. Secondly, people do not recognise that rivers are not static for 2 millineum. According to geologists, in Dacian times, the Tisza River was flowing roughly where the Romanian-Hungarian border is now. Maros/Koros rivers have piled up some earth on the lower part of the river, so it "pushed" slowly the Tisza westward. A good proof of this is Hortobágy, where there is a 9-hole bridge over a very small river. In the past this was a much bigger river. In the 19th century the Tisza was "regulated", and it became straight, as they "cut off" some curves. So to conclude, we can use the maps as per included in the article, but to be precise, we need to add this information, too. Abdulka (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders of Dacia 

message: Hi,
WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Dacia

message: "Dacia had in the middle the Carpathian Mountains and was bounded approximately by the Danubius river, in Greek sources Istros (the Danube) or, at its greatest extent, by the Haemus Mons (the Balkan Mountains) to the south–Moesia (Dobrogea), a region south of the Danube, was a core area where the Getae lived and interacted with the Ancient Greeks–Pontus Euxinus (the Black Sea) and river Danastris, in Greek sources Tyras (the Dniester) to the east (but several Dacian settlements are recorded in part of area between Dniester and Hypanis river (the Bug), and Tisia (the Tisza) to the west (but at times included areas between Tisza and middle Danube)." Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -) I agree. Thanks for the help with the cleanup. The article needs a lot of help.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you guys finally have some competition for worst sentence in Wikipedia: Talk:Fall of Man#Worst sentence in Wikipedia.3F :) Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most unreadable run-on sentence ever written on Wikipedia. 

message: Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/Thracians and Illyria/Illyrians, as well as the tree in :Category:Dacians and :Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving religion, occupations, culture, language from [[Dacia]] to [[Dacians]] 

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Dacia (disambiguation)#Primary topic over which article should be the Primary Topic for the name "Dacia". Comments welcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic 

message: Is the pronunciation given for Romanian?  It certainly doesn't sound like any way the word would be said in English. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: The section on Galerius as a Dacian is based solely on Lactantius, who had a major axe to grind. The paragraph presents it as fact, whereas it was probably a caricature, since Lactantius was in the business of making the emperors who persecuted the Christians look bad. I'm guessing maybe he had a Dacian origin (most of the emperors at that time came from the frontiers, which were the main reservoirs of military strength) -- I'll try to go check and then revise it. Horatio325 (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galerius the Dacian? 

message: Dear Sarah, sorry but your motivation is based on WP:EXTERNAL - "Links normally to be avoided". This is special case because:
#the link provides only one Google Earth KMZ file;
#the KMZ file provides an insightful picture of the subject;
#the content KMZ file is based on reliable sources;
#Wikimedia Commons does not store KML/KMZ files and thus Google Earth Community was chosen to store the file;
#there is no intention to chat nor socialization on that link;
#this is an external link mutually accepted for long time by the members of WP:Dacia.
If you are interested on Dacia, we gladly invite you to this project. -- Saturnian (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the external link leading to KMZ file 

message: Dacians are not mentioned by Herodotus  Getae are mentioned by Herodotus . Getae is a Iranic Scythian name there , two of them Massagetae and TyragGetae were attested as Scythian-Iranic people . Edit away that  lie of Herodotus mentio ing Dacians Edelfred (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The two terms are interchangeable. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not! The Daci were originally Thracian tribe that came under the domination of sarmatian Getae. They eventually came to speak the same language as Getae, but under no circumstances are they the same thing!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.211.148 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herodotus did not mentione d Dacians ,take away this lie 

message: Its a South European culture name, regardless of its origin, so its "dah-" not "dei-", and because Latin mostly used c instead of k, its actually "dah-kee-ah", as evident by the Greek written form, but without the Greek ending. Even though its an applied Greco-Roman ethnonym, with unclear origin, its basic to not read "da-" as dei, and "c" for s. -Inowen (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: There's a photo of his depiction on the Arch of Constantine, but no reference to him in the text. Please expand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.85.11 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the section with the image you refer to, the term "Tarabostes" is explained. It refers to a social class, not to an individual.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarabostes ... who? 

message: Dacia was bounded in the south approximately by the Danubius river (Danube), in Greek sources the Istros, or ... the river Danubius, in Greek sources the Tyras.
Maybe there's an obvious answer that eludes me. Dgndenver (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istros or Tyras: which is it? 

message: That Dacians existed then? Point granted. That the state of Dacia existed? WP:CITE WP:RS to that extent, but not Dacianism makulatur. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begin year 

message: That Dacia had Latin as official language is not true for all of its BCE history. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tgeorgescu do you think the data in the "Currency" line of the infobox is correct? First, I'm not sure if the "koson coins" can be called a currency. Second, denarii and currencies of Greek states were used everywhere in the Barbaricum. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin language