+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Roxolani and Iaziges (/showthread.php?tid=22006)
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-05-2013
Michael,
Thanks for more photos. This stuff is bronze age, really old! When we see beautiful artifacts like these, it's very inspiring to the Sarmatian reenactor. Who else had "turkey-carving" forks an entire millenium before the Eupropeans reinvented the fork in the 1600s? The akinakes and sagaris of this early period have magnificent artistic qualities. And skiing archers! What a pip! :woot:
We are looking at some of the most inventive weapons and fighting techniques of the ancient world, one reason I encourage RAT members to "go Sarmatian."
illy: These people didn't "borrow" like the Romans did. They CREATED!
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-05-2013
Oh!
And I just noticed the skier wearing lamellar armor made from bone... plus bone splint greaves. These might be ancestors of the Tagar culture, the most northerly of the Saka and living around the river Yenissi above the Altai. What we see is incredibly early pre-Sarmatian.
mile:
Roxolani and Iaziges - Michael Kerr - 03-11-2013
Hi Alanus, I promise this will be my last question about the "Sagaris". I was reading a book called "Preserving the Frozen Tombs Of The Altai Mountains" where a lot of Scythian Kurgans have been found in the permafrost. I shall post a picture of a horse skull below.
[attachment=6665]horseskull.jpg[/attachment]
This horse was buried with his Scythian owner and I noticed the hole in the skull which looks like it was made with a sagaris. Being mounted warriors and like the images of the Orlat battle plaques which you posted previously show where there was an injured horse do you think that it would be normal practice for a Scythian/Sauromate/Sarmatian to put a wounded horse out of it's misery with this weapon/tool? Also for burials and religious ceremonies. One more picture although an artist's reconstruction of a Scythian Prince and his wife with goods found in their grave in Altai Mountains. He must have been wearing a sagaris and akenakes.
[attachment=6666]114067571-FROZEN-TOMBS-OF-THE-ALTAY-MOUNTANS_Part9-2.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael
Kerr
Michael
Kerr
Roxolani and Iaziges - Folkert van Wijk - 03-11-2013
The Scythians most likely didn't kill wounded horses. but instead, -at the funeral of important people -they sacrificed hundreds of healthy and fit horses...
I do recall seeing an artist impression of Scythians killing horses indeed with a Sagaris.
Roxolani and Iaziges - Sutoris - 03-11-2013
Wow, look at the length of that sagaris handle :-o
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-12-2013
You guys are correct. A poor noble had a "one horse" funeral, while the "big guy," the top general, had up to 300 horses ritually killed for his send-off party. The horses could have easily been killed by the use of a sagaris, and 1,000s of people then attended the feast in the general's honor. These would have included various subtribes and clans who fought alonside the honcho.
I really HATE the common practice by historians and archaeologists referring to these people as "Scythians." :x These people were Tall Hat Saka, ancestors of the Sarmatians, Wusun, and Alans. Scythians were a whole 'nother people, living to the EAST of the Aral-Caspian.
The earliest sagarii found were bi-metal-- bronze and iron. It must have been a very quick way to dispatch both humans and horses. :whistle:
Roxolani and Iaziges - Michael Kerr - 03-24-2013
Hi, in regard to the Iazyges. I have a few questions that maybe someone could help me with.
When the Iazyges were defeated by Marcus Aurelius they had to hand over 8000 cavalry of which 5500 were sent to Britain. What happened to the other 2500 horsemen? A friend told me they were sent to Egypt but I can't find anything about their deployment.
Another question is how do you make a semi-nomadic horseman hand himself over leaving his family behind where unlike a farmer or town dweller he can just pack his wagon and move away from the reach of the Romans? I assume that hostage taking was the Roman way but I don't really know.
Were the Iazyges allowed to transport their families with them?
I only ask because although he defeated the Iazyges Marcus Aurelius needed to conclude a treaty quickly to deal with a revolt in the East could they have wrung some extra conditions out of the Romans even though the Rebel leader Avidius Cassius was murdered by his own troops so he had to go with an army to consolidate his position. Would he have taken Marcomanni and Iazyges with him. (If I had to travel through rebellious provinces I wouldn't trust the Eastern Army.)
I read where he had trouble with Iazyges after 175AD so the Iazyges must have still been a military threat to him so did he get his 8000 in one go or was it phased (the logistics of moving 8000 horsemen through the war ravaged empire would have been tremendous) as he finally let the Iazyges trade near the Danube and trade with Roxolani (which is what they wanted since Trajan cut them off when he conquered Dacia), after 179AD as though certain conditions were met after full transfer of horsemen or something. Any help with sources would be appreciated.
Roxolani and Iaziges - koechlyruestow - 03-25-2013
He would not leave without his family, the whole point was that the Romans had succeeded in bringing their families within their power. Recruited pow's were relocated, not as divorcees, but with their wives and children. Having their families live within Roman society, turning them into just another group of civilians that needed to be defended, "tamed" the barbarians (as long as there were not too many of them).
Chances are, the emperor first took the Iazyges with him to deal with the next crisis before deciding what to do with them and dispersing them all over the empire. And he would have kept their families with him too as he marched to the east, to assure himself of their good conduct. The families were the hostages that gave the Romans leverage.
Roxolani and Iaziges - Michael Kerr - 03-25-2013
Eduard wrote:
Quote:The families were the hostages that gave the Romans leverage.
That makes sense for Marcus Aurelius to let the families come as soldiers would fight better when defending families. From what I have read the Iazyges were sueing for peace for a few years but Romans desisted from making peace. But the revolt of Avidius Cassius changed things dramatically. But transporting their families would have been an enormous cost that the Romans would have been hesitant to pay. Other problems were Antonine Plague was still around and also "March route" did they go through parts of Italy and Gaul and then Britain? I think after what happened when Marcomanni laid seige to Aquiela that Italian cities would have been reluctant to allow Iazyges anywhere near their towns and farms. So did they avoid Italian peninsula. I suppose they would have had their own herds of cattle and sheep but how would they provision for horses? I know without written sources it is hard to pinpoint what exactly happened but like I said in previous post it was an enormous logistical exercise for an ancient world power so was transfer conducted over a few years. In regard to the other 2500 Sarmatians, I read that Marcus was shocked that Egypt swung behind Avidius Cassius so maybe he thought Sarmatians would be good replacement for rebellious troops.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-27-2013
I don't think you would have necessarily gone through Italy to finally be sailed to Britain. From Pannonia, they may have gone through the Roman sphere along Raetia, across the Jura pass in northern France. The supposition has been held by Littleton and Malcor ( :whistle: ) that Iazyges were so populous in Britain they retained their cultural memory into the 5th century, giving us the (non)historical basis for "King Arthur"... a totally legendary person. Strange, at least for "scholars," that Littleton and Malcor were completely unaware of the later Equites Taifali and Cataphractarii sent into Britain in the late 390s. :dizzy:
Roxolani and Iaziges - Michael Kerr - 03-27-2013
Hi, I agree with you that it was a big call by Littleton and Malcor to associate Iazyges with Arthur. I obviously have too much spare time and I was reading "The Cambridge Rome series and was wondering why Marcus Aurelius still had trouble with Iazyges after signing surrender of Iazyges as it said maybe one of the conditions for Iazyges co-operation was that Rome defeat Quadi before they would hand over bulk of troops because Iazyges feared the Quadi just as much as the Romans. In hindsight it probably wasn't a good idea for Marcus to agree to let Iazyges resume contact with Roxolani as a lot of Roxolani moved into Hungary after that filling vacuum left with departure of 8000 Iazyges horsemen.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-27-2013
True. One steppe tribe on the Hungarian Plain was replaced by another. Hard to know Marcus Aurelius' reasoning. Certainly not munificence, but probably placation, reestablishing the link to steppe-oriented trade goods. If Aurelius was such an "understanding" emperor, he had a strange way of showing it in Gaul... where he let officals stake Blandina to the "beasts." :whistle:
Roxolani and Iaziges - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2013
Quote:True. One steppe tribe on the Hungarian Plain was replaced by another. Hard to know Marcus Aurelius' reasoning. Certainly not munificence, but probably placation, reestablishing the link to steppe-oriented trade goods. If Aurelius was such an "understanding" emperor, he had a strange way of showing it in Gaul... where he let officals stake Blandina to the "beasts." :whistle:
If I'm correct it was the Iazyges -> Roxolani -> Taifali -> Goths -> Huns -> Gepids/Avars right?
Roxolani and Iaziges - Alanus - 03-27-2013
On moving from the lower Danube up to Pannonia? I think you're mostly right. The Taifali never got there, captured and sent to Italy and France. Don't forget a large percentage of the Alans, thus converted to Arianism in Pannonia by Bishop Amantius. Gepids were more Gothic than Avarish. Then the Huns. And the final tribe was the Magyars... ancestors of our great modern bowyers: Grozer, Toth, and Kassai. Today, the Hungarians reenact their roots, wear traditional costume, and shoot the finest bows in the world. :cheer:
Roxolani and Iaziges - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2013
I thought so, in terms of control it would be like
Iazyges -> Roxolani -> Alans/Goths -> Huns -> Gepids -> Avars -> Magyars right?