Thracians how numerous

herodot said, the thracians are the msot numerous people aside from Indians.
so how much thracians were there in total ?


And how closely related are Dacians and Thracians ? Some say, dacian is just a thracian dialect, others think its a seperatre language.
 
1) Herodotos said many things. Ethiopians being immortals by exemple and being 3 meters high people.

2) As you probably know, you can't have estimation of population for Antiquity being really certain especially for Thracians that were divided in tribal states, city-states and soe kingdoms...

3) Now if you need a guesstimate...In all Thracia (aka from Danube to Aegean Sea) maybe 2/3 millions. That would be a fairly good number given the context.

4)We don't exactly known what Thracian language is so...But the trend is generally to make them distinct even if it's possible they belonged to the same sub-group (as German and English)

It's certain it wasn't the same people, if it what you means.
 
but if thats the case,even the latins and gauls would be more numerous. there wer around 8 mio ? Gauls and 10 mio italians.
 
but if thats the case,even the latins and gauls would be more numerous. there wer around 8 mio ? Gauls and 10 mio italians.

1) Without sounding patronizing (critically when I make an awful lot of mistakes myself), could you put some effort on orthography, please?

2) Italians were less numerous than Gaul in the Ist century BC. Maybe 5,5/6 millions in Italy and 7/8 millions in Gaul.

3) We're talking about Thracia during Herodotus's time : V century BC. So I doubt comparison with I century BC would be...well fitting.

4) 3 millions is a farily good number for the era : it's (depending of the guesstimate) the double or 1/3 more than the whole population of continental Greece and between the half or 1/3 of the egyptian one.
 
LSCatilina said:
4) 3 millions is a farily good number for the era : it's (depending of the guesstimate) the double or 1/3 more than the whole population of continental Greece and between the half or 1/3 of the egyptian one.

The population of Egypt prior to the plague of Justinian has been estimated to be about 4.75 million- this is somewhat lower than its previous peak around 150AD, but still probably higher than at any other point in antiquity. So, those are some fairly well attested figures to work around.
 
The population of Egypt prior to the plague of Justinian has been estimated to be about 4.75 million- this is somewhat lower than its previous peak around 150AD, but still probably higher than at any other point in antiquity. So, those are some fairly well attested figures to work around.

The estimates I have for New Kingdom and Later egyptian kingdoms are respectivly 4,5 and 6 million. Still, it's from university basic manuals so it's not direct soures.
 
herodot said, the thracians are the msot numerous people aside from Indians.
so how much thracians were there in total ?

Herodotus wasn't accurate in everything he said. If he had visited India in his lifetime, and realized the size of the place, visited every region, then he'd have known better than to make that statement. Best take Herodotus with a pinch of salt.

As a pre-industrial culture with little in the way of urban development until the Common Era, there wouldn't have been much more than a couple of million. I could only say that the geographic range of the Thracians was basically limited to the eastern and central Balkans (modern Hungary, Serbia, Kosovo, Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Trakya in Turkey) and to some extent in The Bosporan Kingdom (Spartokid dynasty). Also, the Bithynians and the Phrygians of western and central Anatolia are considered to have been related to the Thracians of eastern Europe.


And how closely related are Dacians and Thracians ? Some say, dacian is just a thracian dialect, others think its a seperatre language.

Dacians ARE Thracians. Dacians were a specific nation, and Thracians were an ethnic group of many tribes and kingdoms, including Dacians, or Getae as they were otherwise called.
 
Dacians ARE Thracians. Dacians were a specific nation, and Thracians were an ethnic group of many tribes and kingdoms, including Dacians, or Getae as they were otherwise called.

That's really cause to discussion. While it's possible that they were part of the same sub-branch and quite close, they seems to have different institutions, religion (while this one could be due to a more important hellenization, admittedly) and apart Herodotus, there's apparently a general trend in ancient authors to take Thracians as a people in itself.

For Gaetes, it seems it was more a part of Thracians (as Arvernii were a part of Gauls) and used by metonimy.
 
That's really cause to discussion. While it's possible that they were part of the same sub-branch and quite close, they seems to have different institutions, religion (while this one could be due to a more important hellenization, admittedly) and apart Herodotus, there's apparently a general trend in ancient authors to take Thracians as a people in itself.

For Gaetes, it seems it was more a part of Thracians (as Arvernii were a part of Gauls) and used by metonimy.

I was under the impression Dacians were to Thracians as Danes were to Swedes.
 
The relationship of Dacians and Thracians is really unknown, since not enough of either language has survived to really know one way or the other. There were many Indo-European languages spoken in the Balkans (Paionian, Illyrian, Moesian, Ancient Macedonian, etc.) and no one knows exactly what their relationship was.

They both seem to have been Satem languages spoken in areas next to each other, but other than that no one can really agree on anything. One of the main differences is the Dacian word for town -dava does not resemble and of the Thracian words for town, village or fort (-bria, -para, -diza).
 
Top