Difference between the Scythians and Sarmatians?

Jul 2017
288
Srpska
#42
These Sarmatians in Serdica, were they called "Sermesianoi" by this source to be more exact?

I posted the english translation of the text in a post above, it's an image and you can see it. The name is translated as Sauromatai in the english text, which I presume is close to the original writing because that spelling indicates the translator wanted to stay true to the original greek text.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
288
Srpska
#43
Or to put it in another way, those "Sermesianoi" might have not been Sarmatians at all.
That story from the 7th century is just another evidence in the line of evidence from 0 AD to 1050 AD
that Sarmatians were in the central Balkans. And it is also evidence those Sarmatians in that story are Slavs, in the 7th century, in central Balkans.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,275
Europix
#44
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.

We don't know what sauromatai, schytians, petchenegues were, but as there were where people were 100% Slavs, we know they were Slavs ...

C'mon, what kind of argument is that ?!?
 
Jul 2017
288
Srpska
#45
We don't know what sauromatai, schytians, petchenegues were, but as there were where people were 100% Slavs, we know they were Slavs ...

C'mon, what kind of argument is that ?!?
I will try one last time. You cannot claim ignorance. You were given evidence, now you are aware, you are not ignorant, and now it's up to you to get it. You either get it or you do not get it.


In 1050 in Serdica (today's Sofia, Bulgaria) were Slavs, and nobody else. The Slavs. We know that 100%.
A Byzantine source calls them Sauromatai. At least one source explicitly tells you those Slavs in 1050 in Serdica are Sarmatians!
In 1050 a source equates Sarmatians and Slavs. Sarmatians = Slavs, in 1050, in Serdica, in central Balkans.
You either get it or you do not get it. At least you are aware.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,275
Europix
#46
Were Sarmatians also in some way related to Alans, or not at all?
Some consider them Scythians, some consider them Sarmats, closely related with Iazyges and Roxolanes.

IMHO, I think it's quit difficult at the moment to have a very clear view: it's very likely that "Scytian" or "Sarmatian" was often a generic denomination (not unlike "Barbarians", "Steppe Warriors", "Amerindians", aso) that doesn't necessarily imply a close/the same language/ethnicity.

After all, the "Huns" invaded Europe, but under that name it was a confederation of warriors of quite different origins/ethnicities.
 
Likes: TupSum

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,275
Europix
#47
I will try one last time. You cannot claim ignorance. You were given evidence, now you are aware, you are not ignorant, and now it's up to you to get it. You either get it or you do not get it.



In 1050 in Serdica (today's Sofia, Bulgaria) were Slavs, and nobody else. The Slavs. We know that 100%.



A Byzantine source calls them Sauromatai. At least one source explicitly tells you those Slavs in 1050 in Serdica are Sarmatians!



In 1050 a source equates Sarmatians and Slavs. Sarmatians = Slavs, in 1050, in Serdica, in central Balkans.



You either get it or you do not get it. At least you are aware.



Don't get me wrong, but the 1050 source You provided:

1. doesn't mention "Slav"
2. is mentioning "Sauromatai in the West"
3. is mentioning "Skythians"- AKA "Petchenegs"

In other words, nothing there sustain nor dismiss Your theory, as there's nothing in it related to it.

I think it would be clearer if You would provide sources for:

1. 100 % of inhabitants in Serdica were Slavs in AD 1050
2. Slavs were called Sauromatai
3. the Sarmatians equated Slavs
 
Jan 2016
1,135
Collapsed wave
#48
Don't get me wrong, but the 1050 source You provided:

1. doesn't mention "Slav"
2. is mentioning "Sauromatai in the West"
3. is mentioning "Skythians"- AKA "Petchenegs"

In other words, nothing there sustain nor dismiss Your theory, as there's nothing in it related to it.

I think it would be clearer if You would provide sources for:

1. 100 % of inhabitants in Serdica were Slavs in AD 1050
2. Slavs were called Sauromatai
3. the Sarmatians equated Slavs

Serdica was actually founded by the celtic tribe Serdi, it was populated with thracians, slavs and bulgars among other ethnicities. It wasn't 100% slavs.

However it's really interesting why indeed the roman chronicles refer to them as Sauromatians. Because at the time that was written, the times of steppen warriors were long gone. This was at the time when the first bulgarian empire was gone after ruling the area for 300+ years, the area was under Roman rule and still they called them Sauromatian.
 
Sep 2012
3,779
Bulgaria
#49
We don't know what sauromatai, schytians, petchenegues were, but as there were where people were 100% Slavs, we know they were Slavs ...

C'mon, what kind of argument is that ?!?
This theory belongs to James Prichard i believe. A quote from his 'Ethnography of Europe', page 433 "..Slavonians of the middle age were the same people who had been long known under the name of Sarmatae."

Source: Ethnography of Europe 3d ed.1841

Also it should be noted that sauromatae form was used by the earlier greek writers, whilst sarmatae was used by later greek and roman writers. Medieval byzantine writers as Attaleiates liked to use archaic terms from the distant past hence his sauromatae instead of sarmatae.
 
Last edited:
#50
Were Sarmatians also in some way related to Alans, or not at all?
Yes.

Alan's were a combination of the Aorsi and Siraces tribes, I can't recall but they either combined forces or went to war and ended up absorbing each other ........... either way the Alans were what remained north of the Caucasus once these two tribes had amalgamated.

Aorsi and Siraces along with all the other tribes in and around that area are all Indo-Iranian and were all subordinate to the great Scythians until the Classical era shifted and the Scythians got over run resting on their laurels.

Budini, Roxolani, Sarmatians, Thysagetate, Aorsi, Siraces, Massagetae, Dahae, Parthians, were known as Saka in the times of Alexander the Great, they are all the same stock Indo-Iranian nomadic tribes as the Scythians.