Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hellenized, romanized and celticized Sarmatians?
#1
Sooo, I am fascinated by Sarmatians for quite a long time, but for a long time I didn't have proper literature and sources for creating a good enough picture in my head for doing a Sarmatian kit of a certain period. Now I think I'm almost ready, but I still have some questions (like you can know everything about Sarmatians, eh...). I already made a thread about late Sarmatians who I think are a bit easier to recreate because they became less eastern and more westernized, with much mixed elements of Romans, probably Goths too (or am I wrong?). But earlier Sarmatians, 4th century BC to 2nd century AD, are a bit more misterious to me. Reading Simonenko I got an impression that they were a confusing mix of eastern lamellar, western mail, maybe scale, eastern swords, la tene celtic swords, greek armour parts and helmets, la tene celtic helmets, roman helmets etc... I guess they came to Black sea area looking quite eastern, with lamellar, Sarmatian type 1/Chinese Han swords and other eastern looking equipment, but coming there as raiders, didn't have natural resources to make new equipment in their native eastern style and started using looted, traded or bought western equipment, by Romans, Greeks, Celts, maybe even eastern Germans... I guess my post is confusing, please share your posts about this mess of mine... Smile
Reply
#2
Sarmatians came in waves with first the Iazyges, closely followed by the Roxolani. The Siraces seemed to be a mixture of nomads and part time farmers and didn’t seem to move west like the other groups and usually lived in hill-forts in the Kuban. They were probably the smallest group but they had a lot of contact with the Greek Black Sea cities and were probably the most Hellenized of the various Sarmatian groups, some even marrying into the various ruling families and were constantly involved in the various wars of these Greek Black Sea city-states to the extent that a lot of their rulers by 2nd Century probably thought of themselves more as Greeks than Siraces & these cities being the final point on the northerly silk routes would have been an entrepot of weapons & goods from the east till destroyed by Goths & Huns.

Then came the Aorsi who seem to have been absorbed by the Alans in the first century. They may have been Alans or ‘As’ all along with the ‘r’ in their name becoming redundant and dropping out over time. Even if they were a separate entity they were eventually absorbed by the Alans or at least the western branch.

As stated above the Siraces seemed to be the most Hellenized because of their location to the Greek city states while the Iazyges in Hungary lacking iron resources seemed to have develop a close relationship with the Quadi and probably adopted a lot of their customs and weaponry and in turn the Quadi nobles developed equestrian skills, so not long after their defeat in 175 AD Marcus allowed the Iazyges to trade with the Roxolani as well as allowing them access to Roman markets so he must have realised that trade was important to keep the peace with the Romans and negate the need for raids.

The Roxolani in turn developed a close relationship with the Dacians who would have been a good source for metal and importantly, salt for the health of their livestock herds. It was no surprise that the Roxolani chose to fight on the side of the Dacians while the Iazyges fought for the Romans as they had previous clashes with the Dacians. The Roxolani also had a close relationship with the Bastarnae as they had to share the massive river deltas so I am assuming that trade and marriage alliances kept the peace amongst the two peoples with an interaction of weapons as well.

The Alans had close relations and there was probably a lot of intermarriage with the Greutungi (Saphrax was probably an Alan) who more so than the Tervingi seemed to have become accomplished horsemen and picked up steppe military tactics and played a major role in the defeat of the Romans at the battle of Adrianople, to the extent that Theodoric Strabo in 478 AD lamented that there was a time when each Greutungi or Ostrogoth as they were by then, had two or three horses but now they have no horses and walk through Thrace like infantrymen. (He was probably referring to their leaders.)
So trade and interaction with their neighbours would have been important to the various groups. If they couldn’t trade for something they probably went on raids and took it. Metal would have been important not only for weapons but for metal to rim the wheels on their wagons which were a deature of all Sarmatian groups and for pots and cauldrons for cooking. They desired not only metal for weapons & arrowheads but also certain luxury items, mirrors, dyes, wine and decorations, either for themselves or their horses. The Alans in particular loved the colour red for their horse bridles and leather and traded with the Persians for lac a dye which the Persians got from India and Asia at least that is the story going by Armenian sources. But overall they were pretty self sufficient.

Some of the Alans who travelled west in the late fourth and fifth centuries, were probably very Romanised by the battle of Chalons with armour and weapons probably produced by the Romans so would have looked a lot different to the Alans of the late 4th century. Alans in particular had a reputation for being fine smiths even in the 13th century, producing cuirasses & swords so the weapon-making skills seemed to have passed on but raw materials were scarce & their societies, being mainly pastoral were not geared for organized metal ore production. :-)
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
#3
Sorry I seem to have accidentally deleted my post on the ipad so have posted it again.
Sarmatians came in waves with first the Iazyges, closely followed by the Roxolani. The Siraces seemed to be a mixture of nomads and part time farmers and didn’t seem to move west like the other groups and usually lived in hill-forts in the Kuban. They were probably the smallest group but they had a lot of contact with the Greek Black Sea cities and were probably the most Hellenized of the various Sarmatian groups and were constantly involved in the many wars of these Greek Black Sea city-states. Over time Siraces leaders married into the royal families of these cities where it probably got to the stage where they considered themselves more Greek than Sarmatian but going by some of the ruins from Kerch, they never forgot their Sarmatian roots and customs. These cities would have brought great wealth through grain and the fact that the northern silk routes probably ended up there to flank the Parthians and Persians. These cities lost their importance over time until destroyed by the Goths and then the Huns.
Next came the Aorsi who seem to have been absorbed by the Alans in the first century. They may have been Alans or ‘As’ all along with the ‘r’ in their name becoming redundant and dropping out over time. Even if they were a separate entity they were eventually absorbed by the Alans or at least the western branch.
The Iazyges in Hungary lacking iron resources seemed to have developed a close relationship with the Quadi which lasted possibly to the Great Migration of the Vandals and Alans in 406 and both groups were a constant thorn in the side to future Roman emperors, sometimes fighting separately but also fighting together. The Iazyges probably adopted a lot of Quadi customs and weaponry and in turn the Quadi nobles developed equestrian skills. Not long after their defeat in 175 AD after showing good behaviour Marcus allowed the Iazyges to trade with the Roxolani to the east through Dacia as well as allowing them access to Roman markets so he must have realised that trade and subsidies were important to keep the peace with the Sarmatians and negate the reasons for annual raids.
The Roxolani in turn developed peaceful relations with the Dacians who would have been a good source for metals and importantly, salt for the health of their livestock herds. It was no surprise that the Roxolani chose to fight on the side of the Dacians while the Iazyges fought for the Romans as they had previous clashes with the Dacians over the Banat and Oltenia. The Roxolani also had a close relationship with the Bastarnae as they had to share the massive river deltas and live in peace so I am assuming that trade, marriage alliances and agreements over grazing and water rights, kept the peace amongst the two peoples with an interaction of weapons as well.
The Alans had close relations with the Greutungi Goths and there was probably a lot of interaction and marriages with the Greuthungi (Saphrax was probably an Alan) who more so than the Tervingi seemed to have picked up horsemanship and developed steppe military tactics playing a major role in the defeat of the Romans at the battle of Adrianople. They had changed so much by interaction with the Alans and life on the steppe that Theodoric Strabo in 478 AD lamented that there was a time when each Greuthungi or Ostrogoth as they were by then, had two or three horses but now they have no horses and walk through Thrace like infantrymen. (He was probably referring to their leaders.)
So trade and interaction with their neighbours would have been important to the various groups. If they couldn’t trade for something they probably went on raids and took it. Metal would have been important not only for weapons but for metal to rim their wheels on their wagons, a major feature of Sarmatian and Alan lifestyles, arrowheads, buckles for belts and clothing and for pots and cauldrons for cooking. They desired not only metal for weapons, but also certain luxury items, wines, dyes and decorations, either for themselves or their horses. The Alans in particular loved the colour red for their horse bridles and leather and traded with the Persians for lac a dye which the Persians got from India and Asia at least that is the story going by Armenian sources. Smile
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
#4
Thanks for the detailed response. :-) So, is the Scythian king Skilurus in whose necropolis in Crimea was found a late La Tene longsword and his people actually a Siraces Sarmatian or were Scythians still powerful in these areas?
Reply
#5
Going by Sulimiski in his book The Sarmatians it was the Roxolani who seized all the steppe lands between the Don and the Dneiper in the 2nd century BC forcing the Scythians to abandon their defences on the lower Dnieper and being driven to the western side of Crimea or the lands of the mysterious Taurians who could have been Scythians or some say remnants of the Cimmerians. It seems clear that Skilurus either allied himself to them or subjugated them but I don’t think he was a Sarmatian/Siraces. Over time the Crimean Scythians constantly fought over Chersonesus with the Bosporan Kingdom which was probably closely aligned with the Siraces. But it seems that the Roxolani dominated the Crimean Scythians after that till the Romans sent a garrison to Chersonesus and maintained good relations with the Bosporan Kingdom.

I am not sure of how many La Tene swords were found in the Crimea (2 I think as well as numerous Celtic fibulae) but Sulimiski thought the Bastarnae were La Tene Celts but others think they were Germanic and they had a presence on the western and north-western shores of the Black Sea and would have traded weapons and armour with the Crimean Scythians and possibly elements of the Roxolani although reading Tacitus, the Roxolani swords seemed to be of more eastern influence similar to the swords shown on the Orlat battle plaques. But the sword found may have been a status symbol changing hands a few times as it passed from Switzerland to possibly Olbia and into Skilurus's hands. I think there were depictions of Celtic shields found in Ukraine as well. Alanus knows his swords, scabbard slides and Sarmatian weaponry so maybe he could help you with your kit.

I think the Scythians although they had reduced influence remained in western Crimea at least till 3rd century AD, as they were defeated by a Roman garrison which was stationed at Cheronesus in the 1st century AD. Smile
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


Forum Jump: