04-28-2013, 07:08 AM
D B Campbell wrote:
Even though Iazyges were enemies of Rome, initially they were allies during Dacian wars while Roxolani were allies of Decebalus so I suppose that's how the Romans addressed their leaders. But these leaders hold on power was tenuous in a semi nomad society and especially the Iazyges being isolated with their trade routes cut by establishment of Dacia as a province. It would have been hard for a leader to hold on to power except through plunder as Hungary was surrounded by Romans and Quadi and tribes to the north. Access to iron and trade with Roxolani and also Iazyges might have thought Romans would give them Banat region for their help but why would Rome give up its access to Dacia by giving a foreign power this strategic bridgehead. These points of difference between the two probably drew the Iazyges to the Quadi and Marcomanni later in an alliance against Marcus Aurelius in Marcomannic wars. Anyway that' s from Iazyges point of view I suppose. J Harmatta puts the Sauromatae/Sarmatae attitude in following article.
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh2_1.html
Harmatta in his article above alludes that the Romans possibly encouraged Iazyges to migrate to Hungarian plain to act as a buffer against Dacia and maybe they entered a "client king" relationship maybe like Roxalani king Rasparaganus who was given honorary "Roman Citizenship". Thanks for information on how Romans addressed leaders of allies.
Regads
Michael
Kerr
Quote:"As far as I recall, the Romans referred to all of their "allies" as reges ("kings"), whether their power base was tribal or not.
Even though Iazyges were enemies of Rome, initially they were allies during Dacian wars while Roxolani were allies of Decebalus so I suppose that's how the Romans addressed their leaders. But these leaders hold on power was tenuous in a semi nomad society and especially the Iazyges being isolated with their trade routes cut by establishment of Dacia as a province. It would have been hard for a leader to hold on to power except through plunder as Hungary was surrounded by Romans and Quadi and tribes to the north. Access to iron and trade with Roxolani and also Iazyges might have thought Romans would give them Banat region for their help but why would Rome give up its access to Dacia by giving a foreign power this strategic bridgehead. These points of difference between the two probably drew the Iazyges to the Quadi and Marcomanni later in an alliance against Marcus Aurelius in Marcomannic wars. Anyway that' s from Iazyges point of view I suppose. J Harmatta puts the Sauromatae/Sarmatae attitude in following article.
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh2_1.html
Harmatta in his article above alludes that the Romans possibly encouraged Iazyges to migrate to Hungarian plain to act as a buffer against Dacia and maybe they entered a "client king" relationship maybe like Roxalani king Rasparaganus who was given honorary "Roman Citizenship". Thanks for information on how Romans addressed leaders of allies.
Regads
Michael
Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
