Printable View
I was taking a look at the EB map and I noticed a territory called "Dahyu Alanna". I assume that these are the Alani from later periods that I am somewhat familiar with. Anyway, what were the Alans up to during the time frame of the game and could they be replacing the Yuezhi?
This would lead me to assume that they were chumming around with the Sauromatae. Most likely a subjugated tribe. But I am no expert.Quote:
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
Sarmatia
(särm´sh) (KEY) , ancient district between the Vistula River and the Caspian Sea, occupied by the Sarmatians [Lat. Sarmatae] from the 3d cent. B.C. through the 2d cent. A.D. The term is vague and is also used to refer to the territory along the Danube and across the Carpathians where the Sarmatians were later driven by the Huns. The Sarmatians, who until c.200 B.C. lived E of the Don River, spoke an Indo-Iranian language and were a nomadic pastoral people related to the Scythians (see Scythia), whom they displaced in the Don region. The main divisions were the Rhoxolani, the Iazyges, and the Alans or Alani. They came into conflict with the Romans but later allied themselves with Rome, acting as buffers against the Germans. They were scattered or assimilated with the Germans by the 3d cent. A.D.
See study by T. Sulimirski (1970).
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press.
Ok, how about we create a popup kind of thing and whenever someone opens a new topic he gets 100 popups with the message
"Stop whining about faction X replacement"
You lost me there Djurre.
So this means BI is another historical muckup? With the Sarmatians and Roxolani around.
Well, you could say that by 272 BCE the Alans were busy being the Massagetae and not the Alans just yet. The first mention of the Alans in western sources is of mid-late I CE. At roughly the same time, Chinese sources record that a powerful nomadic group, living in the area where the Alans came from, changed its name from Yancai to Alan-na or Alan-liao (reading varies). This suggests a shift of power within one nomadic confederation with a group called "Alans" becoming dominant now and giving its name to the whole polity. That was a common occurrence among the nomads and that's how what we know as "The Alans" came to be. By being largely out of EB's time frame they are not really eligible as a faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by tk-421
Alan descent from the Massagetae is just a hypothesis, mind you. Quite well-supported and accepted by many, but not unanimously. I won't inflict the supporting evidence upon you, unless someone specifically asks for it.
The relationship of the Alans with the Sarmatians is a hotly debated issue, currently unresolved and likely to remain so for some time yet. For some the Alans are just another Sarmatian tribe, for others they are a different group of peoples, although closely (very closely) related culturally and ethnically. Personally, I see the Alans as part of a large cultural and ethnic complex called "Sarmatian peoples" that has a very substantial extension in both time and space. The Alans would represent the latest major phase of that complex. In any case, it is clear that they formed their own different, separate polity, ("state" or "nation", if you will...).
I suppose that by now someone will be wondering: if "The Alans" only appear in I CE how come you guys have a Dahyu Alanna province? Ok, the explanation may be a bit long and it has to do with the name "Alan" itself. "Alan" is simply "Aryan" in the language of the Alans (pretty much a dialect of Sarmatian). The change ry > l is a common phenomenon that philologists call "labdacism" well attested for those languages. Now, "Aryan" is originally the widespread auto-ethnonym (how people call themselves) of most Iranian groups. Two examples from modern Iranian groups: in Tadjik, "tadjik" is "eron" and in Ossetian, "ossetian" is "iron". Both "eron" and "iron" (and "iran", btw) being just derivations of "aryan". This use of "aryan" as auto-ethnonym is attested from the earliest instances of Iranian languages and seems to be very, very old. So, in all likelihood we had peoples calling themselves "Alans" (="aryans") in our Dahyu Alanna province by 272 BCE and hence, given the lack of better toponymic information for that period, the province name.
Well... yes. No Roxolani by 363 CE, which is when BI is supposed to start. At this time, the Roman sources when dealing with Sarmatians have not spoken of Roxolani, Iazyges or any other of the "classical" Sarmatian groups for quite a while. By this time, and since the arrival of the Alans first and, then, the Goths in 215-250 CE, those Sarmatians that were not absorbed by the invaders had been pushed westwards and away from the Black Sea steppes and were restricted to the Hungarian plain roughly between the Tisza, Danube and the Carpathians. Not really a whole lot of land. In all likelihood during this upheaval, the former Sarmatian groups mixed and lost its separate identities. In the records of recurrent conflicts extending from 334 to 359 and 375 CE, the Roman sources distinguish between Limigantes and Argaragantes between the Sarmatians, but the former are the "slaves" of the latter who revolt against their masters. Most likely, we are being told of a power struggle within a tribal confederation, but it is noteworthy that the former groups are no longer visible. Additionally, during III and IV CE the Romans allowed/encouraged several mass resettlements of Sarmatians within the Empire. In fact, the Magister Equitum (very important position) for emperor Jovian in 363 CE, Victor, was a Sarmatian.Quote:
So this means BI is another historical muckup? With the Sarmatians and Roxolani around.
Djurre tk-421 just asked an interesting question about the Alans and suggested that they could be the new faction in EB he then asked for peoples opinions on the subject sounds like pretty typical discussion forum behavior.
Personally I've just been assuming its an arab faction not for any real reason really another steppe faction to challenge the Sarmatians is just as possible from a gameplay perspective I guess either way I look forward to finding out :2thumbsup:
Edit - Guess I just found out.
No. The Alans most likely part of the Massagatae confederacy at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizigothe
The Alans were relatively late arrivals on the Sarmatian tribal arragment, so much so that certain historians classify the Sarmatians and Alans seprately. Of course much of the Alanic army were absorbed Sarmatians. But there were differences, such as the crenellated horsemanes. However, at least a few differences seem to come from translation errors, the most important being the fact that some people believe that the Alans main weapon were javilens, instead of the bow.
Ah, Pedro already took care of it, and did so very well, to.
^^^^
He is the expert, not me. :book: *reads another history book*