Roxolani and Iaziges

[Michael Kerr]

 Hi Alan, you make a very good point in regards to the  type of swords found in mid 2nd century Iazyges graves  and the use of a slashng type of sword for heavy cavalry which was a key feature of a Roxolani cavalryman. As to armour, to a people who were constantly short of iron on the Hungarian plain I suppose you could always go back to basics and use horse hooves like Pausinius mentioned or rawhide bands fastened at the front  like the suit on the base of Trajan's column. If some as you suggested used the contus then I suppose it depended on the type of wood available. Phil Sidnell in his book Warhorse mentions that fir wood was used by many Sarmatians because of its availability but it could shatter into long splinters that would be a danger to horse and rider.

 In regards to trading between the two tribal groups I agree with you that there must have been certain differences in customs or culture. The fact that during the Dacian wars the Iazyges fought on the Roman side and the Roxolani on the Dacian side meant that technically they were enemies when it suited. But even Sarmatta pointed out that the Hungarian plain or the southern areas which were basically marshy wetlands back then were deficient in iron for weapons, especially arrow heads as a lot of Iazyges arrowheads are bone or antler, cooking utensils, wheel rims etc, stone for building materials, fuel, timber, salt and grain. Salt especially or lack of it could devastate the pastoralist herds of livestock and horses which makes me think the groups who controlled the regions around the Caspian and Aral Seas would have done alright out of the salt trade. So the Iazyges would have been keen to trade for these essential items as well as a few luxuries.

 As to the prejudices of the Historia Augustae well that goes for the Chinese sources as well. I think Sarmatians liked a bit of wine and grain, especially millet for both themselves and their prized riding horses but probably not for their working horses. As for meat and milk, why not if you had cattle, sheep and goats aplenty. I am sure herbs were used in their cauldrons to spice up a bit of plain mutton. Portable housing, why not if you were a pastoralist. They probably were criticized for wearing trousers as well but in the long run other than the Scottish kilt, which men wear skirts or togas these days. Trousers rule.

 In regards to the distance between the Iazyges in Pannonia and the Roxolani in Wallachia there are a few important factors to consider. After the Dacian wars Trajan set up a Roman presence north of the Danube, mainly to keep an eye on the Roxolani who still used the land for grazing as it was not suitable for agriculture and was basically an extension of the steppe, at least back then and to maintain a corridor to the new province of Dacia which included the Oltenia, land the Iazyges thought would be ceded to them for their support of Rome during the Dacian wars . However when Hadrian became emperor he reduced the stipend paid to the Roxolani and apparently both the Iazyges and the Roxolani rose up and the Roxolani destroyed some Roman forts in Wallachia. In response Hadrian ceded all the land east of the Olt River to the Roxolani  and increased their stipend as long as the Roxolani king ensured stability, which he didn't as not long after he was deposed and spent the rest of his life in exile at Salona on the Adriatic coast.

 In regard to the Iazyges in the west Trajan did not incorporate the land west of the Transylvania mountains into the province of Dacia in 106 AD but according to Andras Mocsy in his book Pannonia and Upper Moesia he was happy to leave it to the Iazyges even though there was a strong Dacian presence. Mocsy thinks that this was to appease the Iazyges for not getting Oltenia. So the Iazyges dominated the region between the Tizsa and Oltenia and the narrow corridor between Dacia and the rest of the empire was flanked on both sides by Roxolani and Iazyges.

 The Olt line of forts and roads would run on the western bank of the Olt for 150 miles, but Derek Williams in his book The Reach of Rome thinks that Hadrian probably made a mistake by choosing this bank as the right or eastern bank of the river was higher so it was hard to keep an eye on  enemy movements which would make use of the valleys cut by various south flowing rivers and wetlands between the Olt and the Tisza. It would have been difficult to evade patrols but not impossible like any good smugglers. There would have been impassable mountains in the north but mainly foothills and plains as you got closer to the Danube and I don't know when the situation improved for the Romans but I think the Sarmatians had free rein in Dacia for a large part of the Marcomannic wars anyway.I don't think big river systems and their lakes and wetland areas have ever been an impediment for any determined steppe people from the Volga to the Danube anyway as they seemed to live on the various river systems to water their herds and spend the winters there. Although there are many theories on the origin of the name Roxolani or (Rhos)kalans one that sticks to my mind is Rhos which was an ancient Greek word for the Volga River (Volga Alans) and was probably a loan word from the Scythian word Rha for river.  Reading material I am basing my post on are
The Reach of Rome by Derek Williams
Pannonia and Upper Moesia by Andras Mocsy
Rome and the Nomads by Roger Batty
Warhorse by Phillip Sidnell

Regards

Michael Kerr