From: Torsten
Message: 65096
Date: 2009-09-22
>Once Raetia (15 BC), Noricum (16 BC), Pannonia (9 BC) and Moesia (6 AD) were made provinces, everyone there was 'captive'. Why should the Sarmatians, famous for their lack of allegiance to anyone but war itself, have left?
> Sorry from the premature click. Message completed below.
>
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@... com> wrote:
>
> >
> > GK: The likeliest explanation (in the absence of firm
> > historical or archaeological indicators) is that Sarmatian
> > horsemen were hired by the Pannonians from somewhere north of the
> > Danube, not necessarily the Tysa area, Dacian at the time.
>
> True, but still in the neighborhood.
>
> ****GK: Close enough to be hired (summoned). I don't rule out the
> possibility that some of the defeated Sarmatians may have remained
> behind as captives.
> If that is all you meant, it's arguable if still quite hypotheticalThe alternative, which you want to pass off as the null hypothesis, is that the Sarmatized Roman auxilliaries were other non-Romans. Which ones would that be? According to Hrvoje Grac^anin
> and not necessary to explain the Roman army's "weapons"
> sarmatization.
> We are still left with the situation that the first known largeAnd that is so because only then did they set up ethnically named auxiliary units.
> scale recruitment o0f Sarmatians into the Roman cavalry did not
> occur until 175 CE.
> Prior to this they recruited their auxiliary cavalrymen from theRef.?
> Gauls, Germanics, and Illyrians (including Pannonians)* ***
> > Thus one might think that the immigration of the Yazyges into theAs I said. First ethnically named auxiliary units.
> > Hungarian low plain might have taken place much earlier than
> > assumed until now. Under this assumption the locus in Lucanius
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Marcus_Annaeus_ Lucanus
> > would be easier to understand, according to which the Yazyges at
> > his time had already lived for a century near Pannonia. One
> > shouldn't imagine this movement by the Yazyges as one single
> > advance towards the Northwest. As we shall see, these Iranians
> > lived in a rather loose family and tribal organization also 100
> > years later. Thus the idea suggests itself that their penetration
> > took place in smallish bands, families or tribes. Under this
> > assumption their mention by Ovid can also be explained. While the
> > first groups of Yazyges were already settled between the Danube
> > and the Tisza, other tribes of this people might still have lived
> > in Muntenia
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Muntenia
> > and near Tomi."
> >
> > Maybe we can do better than that, they might have settled *among*
> > the Dalmatians etc as equestrian mercenaries, as they did
> > elsewhere and elsewhen.
> >
> > GK: Here you are going beyond the available evidence for this
> > early time frame. That is always the main difference between you
> > and me (and other scholars). There is always a danger in
> > overreaching and trying to make the facts say what they don't say
> > because you have a beloved agenda. In this case Harmatta has one
> > also (=very early Yazigian settlement in Hungary), and his belief
> > opens the way to yours (and could even support more radical
> > views: once you stretch things a little (Harmatta) you can
> > stretch them a little more (Pedersen), and then even a lot more
> > (someone could claim the Sarmatians already wound up in France,
> > or Spain, or elsewhere |as equestrian mercenaries) : if you can
> > have them in the Tysa basin before they are documented in history
> > or archaeology (Harmatta) you can have them anywhere...* ****
>
> Once you have them as gradually Romanizing Roman mercenaries they
> would become invisible in the general Sarmatization of the Roman
> army wrt materiel. Whatever trace the former left would be ascribed
> to the latter.
>
> *****GK: Note that the Sarmatians recruited in 175 did not actually
> become "invisible".
> We simply don't know of any such prior recruitment. We mayTake another look at your 'null hypothesis'. Do you think it holds water?
> postulate individual informants, but that is hardly sufficient for
> your broad conclusion.* ***
> Here's an interesting article on the importance of the IllyriansHuh? Where did that 'fact' come from?
> and Pannonians in the Roman empire:
>
> /cut for economy/ That is indeed interesting, but well known.
> Romans did indeed utilize the manpower of their conquered
> territories. But they never conquered Danubian Sarmatia. So they
> got manpower therefrom only sporadically.****
> http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/167165.FIllyrica _antiqua-h-gracanin. pdf
> 'THE ROLE OF THE ILLYRIAN MILITARY
> The sources emphasize the importance of Illyrian troops:
> **********
> > > We know that they ranged on the Lower Danube (and perhaps made
> > > incursions westward) as early as the end of the 2nd and the
> > > beginning of the 1rst c. BCE. BTW the Wikipedia article also
> > > has it wrong in calling the Yazigi "metanastae" (after Ptolemy)
> > > already at the time of their original settlement in Ukraine.
> > > The Metanastae are those Yazigi who settled in Hungary. There
> > > is no evidence for the settlement of Yazigi in the
> > > trans-Pannonian plain until very shortly before the mid-1rst c.
> > > CE. During Vannius' time of trouble with his relatives, when
> > > these had the loyalty of the Quadian cavalry, Vannius, in need
> > > of equestrian mercenaries, got some help from the Yazigi, with
> > > the probable permission of Farzoi.
> >
> > Oops! Where did this fact (Vannius' cavalrylessness) come from?
> >
> > GK: Tacitus. Vannius' "native" troops were infantry only at
> > that time.
>
> Yes, but where does the fact that Vannius' cavalry had defected to
> his relatives come from? It's not something you concluded on your
> own?
>
> ****GK: Yes it is. The Quadi had a native cavalry.
> The fact that Vannius could not rely on it and had to ask for helpTrue, but that's about it. Definitely not inevitable.
> from the Yazigi suggests that they supported his rebelling
> relatives (perhaps they were cavalty leaders?) The conclusion seems
> defensible.*****