Did Sarmatians have \"Kings\"

[Michael Kerr]

I was reading The Cambridge Ancient History Ad70-Ad192 about Marcommic Wars and the reigns of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius and the writer kept referring to the various tribes of saraumatae/sarmatians as having kings. Hadrian increased Rome's ongoing subsidy to Roxolani to stay on northern bank of Danube and signed treaty with Roxolani king Rasparaganus who was made honorary "citizen". Also during Marcomannic wars Marcus Aurelius refused to deal with Iazyges because they replaced their king Banadaspus with another man called Zanticus. He must have represented the "war party" as when Iazyges found out Marcus wouldn't deal with this man they promptly brought back Banadapus.
My question is we're these men actual kings or were they chosen in times of war by maybe a tribal council to represent all the various tribes?
Alternatively, knowing the Roman's love of interfering in other people's affairs, were these men Roman choices? Someone who the Romans felt would better serve their interests.
Rasparaganus and his family were set up in style by Romans so he must have been overthrown by his tribe Roxolani.
Being nomads, unless the whole tribe was under threat I don't think there would be much central control. Unless certain chiefs exercised their authority through terror like Atilla.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[koechlyruestow]

Chieftains of a nomad federation owed their position to their success, as soon as they or their descendants failed they were doomed. On the steppes this meant success in war, plunder and exploitation. It seems Atilla's court was largely based on the nomad model, so probably the earlier Sarmatians and the later Avars and Bulgars also introduced their nomad organisation.

However, considering that the Iazyges replaced their "war-king" with a "peace-king" under Roman pressure suggests the success of a chieftain of a sedentarised federation was no longer exclusively measured by his military ability.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Eduard, I was mainly wondering why the Romans referred to them as kings. Was it diplomatic niceties or was it just a way to impress the chieftain with titles and opulence and giving him ideas that he was important?
Regards
Michael
Kerr

[koechlyruestow]

Yes, you are right. I had not thought of that, most Arab chieftains were simply called phylarch, why were the Sarmatians honored in this way? I have no idea, perhaps because those kings allowed the Romans to recruit among their tribe?

[D B Campbell]

why were the Sarmatians honored in this way?

As far as I recall, the Romans referred to all of their "allies" as reges ("kings"), whether their power base was tribal or not.

[Michael Kerr]

D B Campbell wrote:

"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