Difference between the Scythians and Sarmatians?

#31
I think this is one of the things we disagree upon, or we misunderstand each other: Iazyges weren't the Sarmatians, but Sarmatians amongst other Sarmatians. The "Western branch", if You want.

As the Roxolanes (who were Sarmatians too).
We don't disagree because that's exactly what they were.

You said the Sarmatians never settled in Pannonia then went on to say the Izagyes did .......... I simply stated the Izayges were Sarmatians.

Sarmatians were the peoples as a whole, you had Sarmatians from the Russian steppes all the way to Panonnia, they were not ruled by one king.
 
Jul 2019
20
Australia
#34
Found this on wikipedia: "The Sarmatians differed from the Scythians in their veneration of the god of fire rather than god of nature", is this true?

Also, Herodotus (4.118–144) mentions how the Sauromatians answered the Scythian call for help against King Darius I, to repel his campaign in Scythia, along with the Gelonians and Boudinians. This was around 500BC right? So the Sarmatians originally fought with the Scythians but eventually came to overrun them?

It looks like the Scythians fought together with the Sarmatians once again around 300 years later as they had a kingdom around Northern Crimea around the the 2nd century BC (When they had supposedly already been overrun by the Sarmatians) and they fought with the Roxolani against Mithridates of Pontus: Skilurus - Wikipedia

Is it possible that this Scythian kingdom in Crimea was never actually overrun by the Sarmatians (or at least not up until the 2nd century BC) so they were still on friendly terms? Or did they just fight with the Roxolani out of desperation to keep their legacy and not fall under Mithridates' rule. Although I doubt the Scythian kingdom under Skilirus would have fought with the Roxolani if they had overrun the rest of their Scythian neighbours.

Interesting discussion here too about the Iazyges: Iazyges - Nomads or Not?
 
Last edited:

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,275
Europix
#35
Don't use labels and fancy names! ...
It ain't a label, nor fancy.

protochronism: ( πρώτος "protos" ="first" and χρονος "chronos"="time" => « first time/ old times»).

It's designing a pseudo-historical trend, based on a national/nationalist projection on the past.

It existed as an official imposition upon history/historians since the dawn of times (finding direct lineage for the ruling personage up to Hercules, or Shiva, or Buddha, Romulus and Remus, or whatever).

Jordanes, in his Getica, is a protocronist by his false equivalation Goths=Getae, for example.

It became a plague nowadays with the WorldWideWeb.


...Sarmatians are found in the central Balkans from 0 AD to 1050 AD in sources. Now you know something.
No, I can't say I know more now.

Simply because it was about Sarmatians being Slavs, about 0 AD to 1050 AD, continuous presence in central Balkans, while giving arguments like Dacians and Petchenegues being "Sarmatians" (?!?), aso.

For the moment, I didn't saw (nor in Your posts nor elswere, something credible on Your thesis: "Sarmatians=Slavs=>living permanently and uninterruptedly in central Balkans since A.D. 0".

If it isn't what You are saying and trying to demonstrate, my apologies for misunderstanding You.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
288
Srpska
#37
Simply because it was about Sarmatians being Slavs, about 0 AD to 1050 AD,
In the sources, from 0 AD to 1050 AD, from Strabo, through Appian, Dio Cassius, Ammianus, Jordanes, Attellieates. Sarmatians are in the central Balkans. You just need to understand that to get a passing grade. Otherwise you fail in school.

Whether they are Slavs is a separate analysis. I did not post that analysis, but the source from 1050 AD is one evidence, because we know who was there in Serdica in 1050 AD, the Slavs, and the source calls them Sarmatians. So those Sarmatians are Slavs because we know 100% Slavs were there. So there is your one proof that Sarmatians are Slavs, at least those.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,275
Europix
#38
Let's cut short an useless discussion:

Its not.


The Sarmatians got to the West and even settled there.
but in the third and fourth centuries AD there were Sarmatians north of the Middle Danube and Sarmatians in Ukraine. Ev
I said:

To be honest, I never heard about Sarmatians nor Scythians being centered in Panonian plains. It's debatable even if they ever reached that much west except for raiding.
Nor Scthyans nor Sarmatians weren't centered in Panonian Planes. Both were centered in Eastern/Pontic Stepes and migrated/expanded)settled eastwards, southwards and westwards.

As for how far west they reached, I don't know why I had in mind a frame up to A.D.0.

Anyway, I was wrong having an arbitrary time frame in mind (and worse, noone could guess I had it): of course, later, Sarmatians populations settled westwards, and can be found at certain moments even as far as today's France and UK.

My apologies for that. I hope it clarifies things.
 
Jan 2016
1,135
Collapsed wave
#40
In the sources, from 0 AD to 1050 AD, from Strabo, through Appian, Dio Cassius, Ammianus, Jordanes, Attellieates. Sarmatians are in the central Balkans. You just need to understand that to get a passing grade. Otherwise you fail in school.

Whether they are Slavs is a separate analysis. I did not post that analysis, but the source from 1050 AD is one evidence, because we know who was there in Serdica in 1050 AD, the Slavs, and the source calls them Sarmatians. So those Sarmatians are Slavs because we know 100% Slavs were there. So there is your one proof that Sarmatians are Slavs, at least those.
These Sarmatians in Serdica, were they called "Sermesianoi" by this source to be more exact?

They might have been the people that came with Kuber from the city Sirmium when they moved from Panonia to the Balkans around 670AD:

Kuber - Wikipedia

Sirmium - Wikipedia

Or to be more direct are you talking about the "Miracles of St. Demetrius"?

Or to put it in another way, those "Sermesianoi" might have not been Sarmatians at all.
 
Last edited: