Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roxolani and Iaziges
#91
Hi, Michael

Indeed it would be informative to find something, anything, on Iazyge cavalry tactics. That's what Holly, Childeric, and Rodger, are also looking for.

To finish up on the proposed close interaction between the Iaz and Roxolani at the time of the Marcomannic Wars, we should remember the Roxolani were not in Pannonia. A number of Germanic tribes appear to be between them. As we both mentioned, one of the last official acts of Marcus Aurelius was giving the Iazyges permission to trade with the Roxolani, who obviously were still down in Walachia.

   
The c. AD 125 map (shown above) places the Roxolani on the Walachian Plain and the Iaz in Pannonia. Between them we find an entire mountain range-- the Carpathians... plus the Very Scary heights of Transylvania. 

The illustration below shows the position of the Iazyges at the culmination of Marcomannic Wars, and we see Germanic tribes between them and the Roxolani to the southeast. (the latter not shown because they were on vacation).
   

Trading doesn't necessarily mean both tribes held the same culture or customs. The Altai group traded with the Persians and Chinese yet didn't become "Chinese-ized"... or whatever. Big Grin  We see other differences in the two tribes under discussion. Perhaps the best indicators of differing cavalry tactics would be their swords. The Iayage sword was short, perhaps around 70 to 80 cm. The blade was broad, and the grip was also short. The ring pommel was made by forging an extra-long tang then bending it in a circle. This sword was primarily used for stabbing, much like the Scythian version and also the Roman gladius. On the other hand, the Roxolani Type 1 sword was designed expressly for slashing, actually for slashing at a mounted opponent who might be as much as five feet to one side, perhaps as each warrior passed each other. The sword had a long grip, used one-handed or with both hands, since the weight of the sword was twice that of an Iaz example. The Type 1 sword was a minimum of 100 cm, and some also reached 1.5 meters in length. They were huge!-- but they had excellent balance. I see no point in illustrating the Iazyage sword again, and the Type 1 Sarmatian Sword has been shown on other threads.

I'm sure there were other differences. The Iazages were recorded as excellent cavalrymen, but they were never mentioned as wearing heavy armor. They did use a contus, because I've recently seen an illustrated Iaz grave with the short sword and what seems likely to be a contus-head.

When I read the Roxolani were like the Whomever (perhaps the Historiae Augustae's famous list of 16 tribes inserted here), I am exceedingly leery. To Roman and Greek authors, all the steppe tribes were almost the same-- ie: they lived in yurts or wagons (they were too lazy to build a house); they never ate grain but ate meat and drank milk (they were just like carnivorous animals); and they attacked you from the back of a horse (they were too cowardly to jump down and fight you on the ground). Scythians and Sarmatians were the worst plundering, inhuman, and barbaric people on earth... until they had something you wanted. Cool
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#92
 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. Smile 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
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#93
Michael,

Thanks for elaborating on some the points I last mentioned. I'd also noticed that Iazage graves in Pannonia contained bone arrowheads, not iron ones. (And at this time they should have been iron, not bronze). Even their consistent use of short swords might indicate a design produced in an iron-poor area, although I still think they reflected a different style of cavalry warfare than the Roxolani. Obviously, their need for iron-- and particularly salt, as you mentioned-- shows their desire or even basic need to trade with a Sarmatian group which had access to everything within the Northern trade network... a trade road that actually still went down into India. The Iaz were fond of jewelry designed with carnelian beads and carbuncles and (more rarely) Bactrian and Indic stones.

This lack of iron could manifest in leather armor, as you pointed out and illustrated earlier. Leather armor seems quite logical in the Iazage's case. As an aside, if anyone following this thread might consider becoming an Iazage re-enactor, leather is a far cheaper option than the heavy cataphract-styled versions used by the Roxolani. (My entire Roxolanus kit ended up far more expensive than the average Roman one, the cost actually staggering.) Also, I believe one or two arrow makers are now offering bone heads, perfect for the "modern Iazage."

As to the origin of the name Roxolani (aka Rhoxalani) the older spelling indicates the same structure as the nomen of Alexander's wife, who was Bactrian. (Mallory notes the closest language to Alanic was Sogdian, and the Bactrians apparently spoke Sogdian. Also, this fact alludes to the geographical area originally inhabited by the Alans.) I would rather accept that explanation over others, especially the hypothetical "Rus" version. This subject might be best discussed in "Origin of the Alans," the thread I threatened to initiate last week. I think I go for it with your aid; and I hope other RATers might join the "party." Big Grin
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#94
Hi everyone! Sorry for disappearing; went on a short roadtrip with my family last weekend which somehow threw me off for a whole week.

@Alanus

- Believe me, I am well aware of your curmudgeon-ness. But good point about the "Barbaricum" paper. I also wish it had included dates for each example. 

- On the sword in the British Museum: seen it before.

- Could you link me to the "illustrated Iaz grave with the short sword and what seems likely to be a contus-head"?

@Michael

- I also would like to see "more archaeological evidence to ascertain the weaponry of the Iazyges during the period up to the Marcomannic Wars." (You may have already read this paper on Iazyges swords, but I feel I should throw it out there for everyone.)

- On arrowheads: have you read the paper "Sarmatian Archery in the Carpathian Basin" by Istvanovits and Kulcsar? It mentions several finds of bronze arrowheads, and potentially one iron one.

- Also, great sources on Pannonia! You should add those to the Sarmatiana thread. 
Reply
#95
Hi, Holly

Thanks for the link on Archery in the Carpathian basin. The authors did a good job, finally recognizing there were two styles of bows in use, the old Scythian "Cupid" one, and the newer so-called "Hunnic" model. My bows are asymmetrical "Hunnic" models. The earliest of these bows show up in the Sargatskya culture east of the Urals, late 3rd century BC. The bow with siyahs then traveled east into Saka territory (maybe the Massagetae branch). From there it was adopted by the Yuezhi and Wusun, situated just east to the Xiongnu (the Huns). So "Hunnic bow" is a misnomer. The authors of the Archery paper noted the new bow used larger arrowheads. My collection includes about 30 (mostly socketed and trilobate) small bronze and iron ones (used with the Scythian-early Saka bow) but only a half dozen larger ones (all iron and tanged). The authors are right on the money.

The "Hunnic" bow followed a well-traced trajectory. It shows up in the southern Takla Makan (western China), then on the Orlat battle plaques (Sogdiana, but pictured with the Yuezhi and dated c. 100 BC to the beginning of the Common Era). Then the new bow shows up on wall paintings in the Bosphorus (as used by the Siraces). Not doubt, the Roxolani used them since they arrived from the same eastern culture. All the eastern examples, and probably 90% of all of them, were asymmetrical) Check out the last few posts on the "Origin of the Alans" thread. The Orlat scenes are shown, the bows tilted top-forward, exactly how you shoot an asymmetrical.

I saw that lance-head along with the Iazage sword illustration about 3 weeks ago. I tried finding it again with no luck. The head seemed larger than a hasta head, so I believe it went to a contus.

By the way, the strength of the "improved" bow's siyahs does not require bone plates. A straight-grained hardwood like cherry or walnut can be used. For this reason, a good number of bows have decomposed into the archaeological stratae. I think Simonenko was unaware of this. We can equate the bone siyahs with a Rolls-Royce model and the plain wood ones with a Volkswagon. Here is a drawing of the Niya bow (Takla Makan, China) and its quiver/case, and the same style shown on the Orlat buckle. These are exactly like the bows/quiver/cases depicted on the walls of Bosphoran catacomb graves (attributed to the Siraces).
   

Here is a Yuezhi hunter with the "Hunnic" bow. Notice how he tilts it, exactly what you have to do when using an asymmetrical.
   
 
Glad to have you back, Big Grin
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#96
Hi, first post.
There was much new to me in other old posts. Being long before the net, I am not use to footnoting info. Wiki has improved drastically over the last decade. And the years since this thread started. From wiki and similar sources, the Iazges were part of the Sarmatian Confederation. Many posts strike me as a bit prejudiced. A confederation is not a tribe. Sounds much like someone claiming the Huron are not Iroquois, nor the Cherokee. We do call it the Iroquois language, and the Iroquois was a confederation of five, later six tribes.

Yep, the further back in the lineup of the ‘Sarmatian’ confederated tribes being forced west, more east Asian blood one has captured through slaves or treaty marriages with the Chinese. One also married into the power tribes pushing the Sarmatians west, to slow them down. Genghis Kahn had red hair and blue eyes, (from my then astounded reading). A couple of generations after taking China and six wives each and each generation, the Mongols were as they now are. In my post am I making assumptions with lack of ‘moderner’ than the old posts? Well I find 1+1=3 better than 1=1= 1 ½. As did others who love knights in shining scale armor. And for reason I cannot understand ‘dislike’ the Iazges.

Like the Scythians before them, the Iazges and others of the Sarmatian Confederation often raided into rich Thrace; who were also good ahorse with bow and spear. On the ground where the Sarmatians were also good, they fought against the Thracian Rhomphaia, a pole arm; a 20-25-inch-long (50-60cm) blade with @ two foot/5-60cm long shaft; later Dacia for its gold, slaves and battle field plunder. (As someone mentioned here in their signature. A horse an empire can be conquered but only held by the infantry.

The spear with a shield was still the queen of battle, especially against someone without a shield even with a Rhomphaia. If one was good enough, held one’s line and nerve. I cannot see those pole arm users being completely unarmored, ‘boiled’ leather at least, and it being a high-status weapon, perhaps scale armor. I do not know where the ‘fact’ that they ran shrieking into battle as naked as a Celt, (OK unarmored) but all things are possible.

Somewhere, (How was I to know I needed to footnote, I was reading for me.) I read that the long Kontos of the Sarmatian’s screwed together, so ahorse it would be two six-foot shafts in a forward saddle boot. I have read that broken Kontos were found in Sarmatian graves. Is it possible the bronze middle of the screw together unit of the Konto was salvaged because of its value to the sons and fighting daughters of the Sarmatian Confederation? Such gizmo’s would be high tec and perhaps not made by nomads. It could be carried in a saddle boot on the other side from the bow and Gorytos bow case. Against a horse killing and leg chopping Rhomphaia or even worse Flax, a super long screw together spear from a boot, with a pointed iron or steel shoe, (pointed shaft protector) that could drive through any shield and two men if the spear reversed; where a blade might not drive through and or be able to pull it out, would be neat to have.

Fighting the Dacian, the Iazges had to face the even worse weapon of the same length as the Rhomphaia pole arm; the sickle shaped hole in the armor poking Flax. Which forced the Romans to dust of their antique lorica squamata, that they hadn’t used since shortly after the Republic, over their mail. Both the Iazges and the Thracian/Dacians had very good full scale armor and the Iazges did have the normal Sarmatian ‘Spangenhelm’. The Romans were forced to reinforce their helmets against the go over, through and around the shield armor piercing point Flax.

The now richer than Iazges, Roxolani were on the other side of Dacia so did not influence Rome as much as some here think IMO. The Romans had a number of battles with scale mail Iazges before the Dacians and Roxolani. Yes, in Hungry, I’m sure there was mare hoof scales made for laminar/scaled armor like back in the early days of the Scythians, but in a swampy middle Hungary, surrounded by poor mountain folk on three sides and mean Romans on the other, a bone arrowhead will kill un-armored farmers or deer. The way I ‘heard’ the cousins didn’t fight each other so the Roxolani would be on the opposite wing as the Iazges……. So it is true the Romans did get to know the Roxolani, well after fighting the Iazges. How ever it was the deadly, shield shattering, shield moving, armor piercing Flax that made them go to more and ‘heavier’ old armor mix.

In the long pushed west, moving Sarmatian Confederation; the Iazges were first or most westerly. Behind them were the Roxolani; above both of them, the Alans. The Iazges fought their way through the Dacian 'Empire'; through mountain passes where the super fierce Flax bearing Illyrian were at home. The Roxolani found there was no reason to move into a narrow swamp, so dealt with reality, the wealthy Dacians. For as long as they could, but they were being pushed west by more desperate tribes behind them.

The ransom for losing the war (one of many; some were also won) to Marcus Aurelius, was the return of 100,000 Roman hostages, many worth their ransom, and the 8,000 Iazges warriors taken into Roman legion service after losing one of their latter wars against Rome. Having won the war, the Romans would IMO insist that the Iazges be self-armored and weaponed. (Why should Rome pay big money to armor the losers, when their armor was more than good enough.)

Full armor would take away the noble class and their long swords that because of poverty would have been left to tribe fighters again IMO rather than buried. Poverty and tribal survival will change the honor that can be given the dead. As far as I can recall, gold too was scarce in Iazges Hungarian graves. (Not so when they were on the other side of Thrace.)
Some 5,500 of the 8,000 were originally sent to England/Britannia. The rest to northern Italy, from my reading. Some could have of course been with Marcus Aurelius, when he ran off to put down a rebellion, in I think Syria. 5,000 of the 5,500 Iazges were taken back to Europe for the many rebellions or other wars within the Roman Empire. The other 500 stayed at Ribchester.
From my reading (oft Wiki and blogs that show up) that seemed to happen long before Magnus Maximus stripped Britannia of its legions @ 390-5 AD. However, no sure date was given anywhere. (Thanks for the news that other steppe folks were also sent to England. Now to find out where.)

Swords, again without footnotes. In the Caucasus mountains were the people of the Siraki; the Kalybes who made swords from black iron sand for the Hittites who rode south to conquer Turkey and Syria; and the later Scythians and any others mentioned in the above posts. For good swords they had a monopoly on the great steppe and anywhere surrounding them.

So, the Hungarian Iazges would have been cut off from the great steppe sword makers. Roman swords made on the Rhine were “ok”. (The Danish bogs have enough of them, good enough to be sacrificed to the gods.) But the ones from Roman Toledo’s banded iron ore were then and now the greatest….(outside Indian Wooze steel.) The Kalybes had the same problem with black iron sand as the Japanese, when compared to the great steel of Toledo, that was as I just read common issue for Roman Legions.

The Japanese went away from the long sword and real long two-handed sword @ 900 AD. After this era the Japanese sword had to have a soft iron core to prevent breaking, because the steel was not good enough for such long swords. Without the soft iron core even as short of a sword as the katana which is considered a long sword in Japan, would break. The iron is poor enough as is, so one is not to block with the blade but deflect. Which is good advice as it, but come a ‘whoops moment’, the second klingle you heard was half your blade hitting the ground. The “great” Japanese sword is much a myth.
(Very pretty swords and very pretty blades. There was a Samurai exhibit in a local German museum, and I drooled over some hundred swords or bare blades….behind glass….sigh. I had read much before going to the museum. It was only a medium steel sword at best. That was all black iron sand allows. With 2,000 or more years or more years’ experience, I'm sure Kalybes made swords as good as the Japanese in both used black iron sand.

The Roxolani Kalybes long sword, would also have the same such weaknesses as the Japanese. A long sword really helps against the dreaded Dacian Flax. As long as it holds up. It would interest me if the buried Roxolani long swords showed reforging of breakage. Bronze 'long' swords were status/ceremonial swords, in they broke or bent easier the longer they were. It could well be that the Rhine smithed swords of the Romans were a tougher blade than the Kalybes. (Of course, I have only one Elbow….what do you mean elbows come in pairs?)

Breakage of black iron sand swords also explains why so many of the great steppe warriors had shorter swords; besides it's easier to stab someone and not fall out of the saddle than swing a huge long sword. (pre-stirrup.)
The Iazges in the swamps and moor land of 'Hungary' were poor, having no salt; very little slave farmed farm land. Their trade with the Roxolani was cut off by the fierce Dacians. So their trade of China/India goods was cut off. Poverty is caused by having to slaughter one's seed stock to survive the winter instead of salting the meat. Heresy, having to slaughter one’s darling horses, in one don’t have enough cattle left. Poverty squared. As far as I know none of the steppe peoples were noted miners or smiths outside the mountain Kalybe suppliers, except for gold.

(The Iazges also learned not to arm their many slaves to fight a major war. But that’s another story. It’s hard to think of someone being poverty stricken when one has the basic allotment of five or more slaves. But it was so. If I recall they had to kill some 100,000 their armed for a war slaves, after it; when they didn’t want to put the collar back on.)

The Roxolani, knowing how poor a place Hungary was for a raiding horse folk or even by then semi-nomadic, were pushed into Hungary by the tribes following. They did not move into the slums of Hungary by choice.

The last to arrive in Hungary were Magyars. To quote wiki, “The Khazars attempted to reconquer the Magyars both by themselves and with the help of the Pechenegs, another Turkish tribe. This tribe drove the Magyars from their homes westward to lands between the Dnepr and lower Danube rivers in 889.”
Shortly after that the Khazars became Jewish, so who were people of the Book, in they had two huge fights against 100,000 man Islamic armies and being Jewish, besides keeping the Muslims off their necks, allowed them to trade with Containable with less import fees. That worked well, into the Russ split their empire and cut out their trade routes to Containable some 150 years later.
Reply
#97
Whoops! Red haired Genghis Kahn had green eyes, not blue.

During my reading in Wiki the day before yesterday, the Thracians had red hair and had expanded way out into the great steppe perhaps before the time of the Scythians, or well before the Scythians moved west of the Aral and Caspian seas. Again one of those WoW moments one stumbles upon.
There was a whole slew of red headed folks once on the great steppe, the Thracians (!), Scythians, and some of the Sarmatian Confederation.
The confederation may not have "fought each other", but I'm sure did raid each other for horses and cattle.
Who knows, the more eastern tribe silk and cotton cloth trader saying, move your pastorage west a few days ride and I'll give you a great deal on the cloth and toss in some salt.
Everyone was pushed west by more desperate tribes to the east.
Reply


Forum Jump: