From: Torsten
Message: 65097
Date: 2009-09-22
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:...
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I felt this might be relevant wrt. the visibility or not of the
> > rent-a-Sarmatian business.
> >
> > GK: But the Kouznetsov-Lebedyns ky text does not support this at
> > all. It merely points out that Alanic influence continued after
> > they lost "their steppe empire" and they trace this influence
> > only where sources document (in one way or another) the presence
> > of minority Alans. There is nothing here to back up the notion of
> > "present though totally invisible".
> >
> > Vladimir Kouznetsov, Iaroslav Lebedynsky
> > Les Alains
> >
> > 'CONCLUSION
> > BILAN D'UNE HISTOIRE A REBONDISSEMENTS
> >
> > Au terme de cette étude, le lecteur dispose de tous les éléments
> > utiles pour constater que les Alains méritent mieux dans
> > l'histoire que quelques notes éparses.
> >
> > Lorsqu'ils apparaissent en tant qu'héritiers des confédérations
> > sarmates de la steppe eurasienne, ils se situent dans la
> > continuité de ces peuples « scythiques » qui ont imprimé leur
> > marque sur ces immenses espaces et sur tant de leurs voisins :
> > Slaves et Germains, Finno-Ougriens, Turcs d'Asie centrale.
> >
> > A la fin du IVe siècle, ils perdent cet « empire des steppes »,
> > mais Germains orientaux et Huns diffusent en Europe centrale et
> > en Occident une culture synthétique qui leur doit beaucoup et qui
> > démultiplie leurs influences militaires, artistiques, peut-être
> > même religieuses. Et s'ils ne sont qu'une minorité dans la masse
> > « barbare » des nouveaux maîtres de l'Europe occidentale,
> >
> > GK: This would be the "indirect" influence of a recorded minority.
> >
> > leur rôle direct en Gaule ne doit pas être sous-estimé : c'est
> > bien le roi alain Eochar, au centre du dispositif « romain »,
> > qu'Attila trouve en face de lui aux Champs Catalauniques.
> >
> > GK: And this an example of "direct" influence. I don't notice any
> > reference to either "direct" or "indirect" influence by
> > unrecorded elements.
> >
> > etc. cut for economy.
> >
> Too bad, cause you cut out the section I found most significant
> (but decided to quote with the rest of the chapter for context);
>
> *****GK: I cut this for economy since there is nothing here to
> suggest an "invisible unrecorded presence" (which is your point).
> Cf. below .****
>
> 'A considérer cet aspect des choses sur le long terme, on est
> frappé de la facilité avec laquelle les Alains, dont la guerre est
> l'une des « industries » principales, servent à différents titres
> dans des armées étrangères. Ils combattent pour Rome,
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
>
> pour Constantinople,
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
>
> pour la Perse,
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
>
> pour la Géorgie,
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
>
> pour les Khazars,
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
>
> pour les Mongols,
>
> ****GK: Documented ****
>
> pour la Hongrie...
>
> ****GK: Documented.****
> " Allied, auxiliary or mercenary, in all these cases, what mattersThe presence of Yazygi in Illyricum is noted and assumable from statements by Eusebius and Lucanus.
> is less the defense of the interests of the Alans themselves as the
> exercise of indisputable military talents. If the Alan warrior is
> reflected well in his epic Nart double, the key to this attitude
> rests in the warrior ideology: the fulfillment which the warrior
> finds in battle is, to a certain degree, more important than the
> nature of his adversary or thye reasons for the conflict. That's
> why the Nart hero throughout the tale is looking for an occasion to
> show his bravery. BTW, the Alans of the Mongol guard participated
> in the conquest of China neither pressured and forced nor for love
> of Khubilai, but because this adventure gave them the possibility
> to live the the kind of life which gave meaning to their whole
> culture".
>
> Torsten
>
>
> ****GK: Nowhere in this text is there even the slightest indication
> that Alans were an invisible and unrecorded presence in those
> situations where their presence was not noted or assumable from a
> previous clear notation.
> Similarlly, when Appian states that Mithridates hired SarmatiansThere was at least one.
> and Scythians for his Roman wars it is unnecessary to keep
> mentioning their names (though he sometimes does). Had their names
> not been mentioned at all (but those of other peoples had) we would
> not have been entitled to postulate their invisible presence in his
> armies. And the Sarmatians are not mentioned (or documented in any
> way) as present in Roman armies before 175 CE. So, except for the
> bare possibility of individual captives in 7 CE
> they just weren't there.*****Which individual peoples are documented in the Roman army for that period the way you describe?
>