Roxolani and Iaziges

[Alanus]

Michael and Holly,

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. We have to believe somebody, especially a knowledgeable authority, and I'll go with Hermatta who specifically noted that Iazyge graves contained short swords, as opposed to the much longer 2-handed Roxolani style (the Late Sarmatian Type 1). To date nothing has been published that contradicts Janos Harmatta. In actual a priori documents, we find no mention of the Iaz (Jaz) using cataphract armor or a contus. Besides short swords, arrowheads are present in their graves. This indicates they were primarily bowmen. As a traditional Alanic-styled archer studying its roots, I'm aware that bows have not survived in European soil, not like they have in the Takla Makan or Western China.

I consider about 50% of Trajan's Column is inaccurate and based on verbal descriptions, while the other 50% shows piles of captured swords and armor taken from the battlefield. A good example would be the armor images just posted by Michael. Yet even the "accurate' stuff was collected at random, and we don't know what was Dacian or Roxolani. As such, the Column makes a poor visual source. You need to "chose carefully," as I did when I had Grygorz Kulig make my incredibly expensive helmet.    

At the time M. Aurelius sent Iazyges into Britain, they were not "Sarmatized" by shoulder to shoulder contact with the Roxolani. That blending on the Hungarian Steppe came later. I'm exceedingly leery of historians who refer to Iaz as "Sarmatians" without checking actual cultural customs and weapons. If there is a need for followers of this thread to find a "heroic" and shimmering Sarmatian example, then look more accurately toward the Roxolani, Aorsi, and Alans, all of whom had contingents of heavy cavalry and appropriate weapons-- the long sword, body and leg armor, and a contus.

The old reproduction of a "Decurio Alae Sarmatirum" posted by Holly is interesting, as it does show a contus or a long spear. It's also incredibly ambiguous for an inscription, because it refers to more than one ala. If we consider that an ala of Iaz would have been referred to as such rather than as "Sarmatians," then we have no idea which Sarmatian ala the deceased belonged to. The only extant example of the Notitia Dignitatum is late, circa 395. Among alae containing Sarmatians, we had a contingent of Cataphractarii, plus Taifali Iuniores and Taifali Seniores. There may have been other alae in Britian that evade my memory.

All I'm saying is please be careful in portraying the Iazyges accurately, and don't make Littleton & Malcor-styled errors in building the Iaz into something they weren't.