Hubbry Logo
IazygesIazygesMain
Open search
Iazyges
Community hub
Iazyges
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Iazyges
Iazyges
from Wikipedia

Sculpted image of a Sarmatian from the Casa degli Omenoni[1]

A physical map of Europe under Emperor Hadrian with the borders of Rome in red
The Roman empire under Hadrian (ruled 117–138), showing the location of the Iazyges in the plain of the Tisza river[2]

The Iazyges (/ˈæzɪz/)[a] were an ancient Sarmatian tribe that traveled westward in c. 200 BC from Central Asia to the steppes of modern Ukraine. In c. 44 BC, they moved into modern-day Hungary and Serbia near the Pannonian steppe between the Danube and Tisza rivers, where they adopted a semi-sedentary lifestyle.

In their early relationship with Rome, the Iazyges were used as a buffer state between the Romans and the Dacians; this relationship later developed into one of overlord and client state, with the Iazyges being nominally sovereign subjects of Rome. Throughout this relationship, the Iazyges carried out raids on Roman land, which often caused punitive expeditions to be made against them.

Almost all of the major events of the Iazyges, such as the two Dacian Wars—in both of which the Iazyges fought, assisting Rome in stopping the Dacians' incursions into Roman conquered territory in the first war and defeating the Dacians in the second—are connected with war. Another such war is the Marcomannic War that occurred between 169 and 175, in which time, the Iazyges fought against Rome but were defeated by Marcus Aurelius and had severe penalties imposed on them.

An ancient map of Dacia showing land in tan, mountains in brown, and water in blue
The Ninth European Map (in two parts) from a 15th-century Greek manuscript edition of Ptolemy's Geography, showing the Wandering Iazyges in the northwest between Pannonia and Dacia[3]

Culture

[edit]

Although the Iazyges were nomads before their migration to the Tisza plain, they became semi-sedentary once there, and lived in towns,[4][5][6][7][8] although they migrated between these towns to allow their cattle to graze.[6][9][10] Their language was a dialect of Old Iranian, which was quite different from most of the other Sarmatian dialects of Old Iranian.[11] According to the Roman writer Gaius Valerius Flaccus, when an Iazyx became too old to fight in battle, they were killed by their sons[12][13] or, according to Roman geographer Pomponius Mela, threw themselves from a rock.[14]

Etymology

[edit]

The Iazyges' name was Latinized as Iazyges Metanastae (Ἰάζυγες Μετανάσται) or Jazyges,[15] or sometimes as Iaxamatae.[16] Their name was also occasionally spelled as Iazuges.[17] Several corruptions of their name, such as Jazamatae,[18] Iasidae,[19] Latiges, and Cizyges, existed.[20] Other modern English forms of their name are Iazyigs, Iazygians, Iasians, and Yazigs.[21] The root of the name may be Proto-Iranian *yaz-, "to sacrifice", perhaps indicating a caste or tribe specializing in religious sacrifices.[22]

According to Peter Edmund Laurent, a 19th-century French classical scholar, the Iazyges Metanastæ, a warlike Sarmatian race, which had migrated during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius, and therefore received the name of "Metanastæ", resided in the mountains west of the Theiss (Tisza) and east of the Gran (Hron) and Danube.[23] The Greek Metanastæ (Greek: Μετανάσται) means "migrants". The united Scythians and Sarmatæ called themselves Iazyges, which Laurent connected with Old Church Slavonic ѩзꙑкъ (językŭ, "tongue, language, people").[24]

Burial traditions

[edit]
Black and white ink drawings of several Iazygian grave sites
Illustration of several Iazygian grave sites[25]

The graves made by the Iazyges were often rectangular or circular,[26] although some were ovoid, hexagonal, or even octagonal.[25] They were flat and were grouped like burials in modern cemeteries.[27] Most of the graves' access openings face south, southeast, or southwest. The access openings are between 0.6 metres (2 ft) and 1.1 m (3 ft 7 in) wide. The graves themselves are between 5 m (16 ft) and 13 m (43 ft) in diameter.[25]

After their migration to the Tisza plain, the Iazyges were in serious poverty.[28] This is reflected in the poor furnishings found at burial sites, which are often filled with clay vessels, beads, and sometimes brooches. Iron daggers and swords were very rarely found in the burial site. Their brooches and arm-rings were of the La Tène type, showing the Dacians had a distinct influence on the Iazyges.[27] Later tombs showed an increase in material wealth; tombs of the 2nd to early 4th centuries had weapons in them 86% of the time and armor in them 5% of the time.[29] Iazygian tombs along the Roman border show a strong Roman influence.[30]

Diet

[edit]
A black and white ink drawn illustration of three barrel-shaped pots.
An illustration of several Iazygian barrel-shaped pots which have been discovered[31]

Before their migration into the Pannonian Basin, while still living north of Tyras, on the north-western coast of the Black Sea, the geographer Strabo states that their diet consisted largely of "honey, milk, and cheese".[32] After their migration, the Iazyges were cattle breeders; they required salt to preserve their meat[33] but there were no salt mines within their territory.[34] According to Cassius Dio, the Iazyges received grain from the Romans.[35]

The Iazyges used hanging, asymmetrical, barrel-shaped pots that had uneven weight distribution. The rope used to hang the pot was wrapped around the edges of the side collar; it is believed the rope was tied tightly to the pot, allowing it to spin in circles. Due to the spinning motion, there are several theories about the pot's uses. It is believed the small hanging pots were used to store fermented alcohol, some of which have been found to contain seeds of touch-me-not balsam (Impatiens noli-tangere), which has led researchers to hypothesize that some of the fermented beverages were infused with the seeds for the purposes of either cultic practices or medicinal use, while the larger hanging pots were likely used to churn butter and make cheese.[31]

Military

[edit]

The Iazyges wore heavy armor, such as sugarloaf helms,[b][37] and scale armor made of iron, bronze, horn, or horse hoof, which was sewn onto a leather gown so the scales would partially overlap.[38][39][40][41] They used long, two-handed lances called contus; they wielded these from horses, which they barded.[c][43] Their military was exclusively cavalry.[44] They are believed to have used saddle blankets on their horses.[45] Although it was originally Gaulish, it is believed the Iazyges used the carnyx, a trumpet-like wind instrument.[46]

Religion

[edit]

One of the Iazygian towns, Bormanon, is believed to have had hot springs because settlement names starting with "Borm" were commonly used among European tribes to denote that the location had hot springs, which held religious importance for many Celtic tribes. It is not known, however, whether the religious significance of the hot springs was passed on to the Iazyges with the concept itself.[47] The Iazyges used horse-tails in their religious rituals.[48]

Economy

[edit]

When the Iazyges migrated to the plain between the Tisza and the Danube, their economy suffered severely. Many explanations have been offered for this, such as their trade with the Pontic Steppe and Black Sea being cut off and the absence of any mineable resources within their territory making their ability to trade negligible. Additionally, Rome proved more difficult to raid than the Iazyges' previous neighbors, largely due to Rome's well-organized army.[28][49][50] The Iazyges had no large-scale organized production of goods for most of their history.[51] As such, most of their trade goods were gained via small-scale raids upon neighboring peoples, although they did have some incidental horticulture.[52] Several pottery workshops have been found in Banat, which was within the territory of the Iazyges, close to their border with Rome. These pottery workshops were built from the late 3rd century and have been found at Vršac–Crvenka, Grădinari–Selişte, Timişoara–Freidorf, Timişoara–Dragaşina, Hodoni, Pančevo, Dolovo, and Izvin şi Jabuca.[53]

The Iazyges' trade with the Pontic Steppe and Black Sea was extremely important to their economy; after the Marcomannic War, Marcus Aurelius offered them the concession of movement through Dacia to trade with the Roxolani, which reconnected them with the Pontic Steppe trade network.[54][55] This trade route lasted until 260, when the Goths took over Tyras and Olbia, cutting off both the Roxolani's and the Iazyges' trade with the Pontic Steppe.[56] The Iazyges also traded with the Romans, although this trade was smaller in scale. While there are Roman bronze coins scattered along the entirety of the Roman Danubian Limes, the highest concentration of them appear in the Iazyges' territory.[57]

Imports

[edit]

Because the Iazyges had no organized production for most of their history, imported pottery finds are sparse. Some goods, such as bronze or silver vessels, amphorae, terracotta wares, and lamps are extremely rare or nonexistent. Some amphorae and lamps have been found in Iazygian territory, often near major river crossings near the border with Rome, but the location of the sites make it impossible to determine whether these goods are part of an Iazygain site, settlement, or cemetery; or merely the lost possessions of Roman soldiers stationed in or near the locations.[58]

The most commonly found imported ware was Terra sigillata. At Iazygian cemeteries, a single complete terra sigillata vessel and a large number of fragments have been found in Banat. Terra sigillata finds in Iazygian settlements are confusing in some cases; it can sometimes be impossible to determine the timeframe of the wares in relation to its area and thus impossible to determine whether the wares came to rest there during Roman times or after the Iazyges took control. Finds of terra sigillata of an uncertain age have been found in Deta, Kovačica–Čapaš, Kuvin, Banatska Palanka, Pančevo, Vršac, Zrenjanin–Batka, Dolovo, Delibata, Perlez, Aradac, Botoš, and Bočar. Finds of terra sigillata that have been confirmed to having been made the time of Iazygian possession but of uncertain date have been found in Timișoara–Cioreni, Hodoni, Iecea Mică, Timișoara–Freidorf, Satchinez, Criciova, Becicherecul Mic, and Foeni–Seliște. The only finds of terra sigillata whose time of origin is certain have been found in Timișoara–Freidorf, dated to the 3rd century AD. Amphorae fragments have been found in Timișoara–Cioreni, Iecea Mică, Timișoara–Freidorf, Satchinez, and Biled; all of these are confirmed to be of Iazygian origin but none of them have definite chronologies.[58]

In Tibiscum, an important Roman and later Iazygian settlement, only a very low percent of pottery imports were imported during or after the 3rd century. The pottery imports consisted of terra sigillata, amphorae, glazed pottery, and stamped white pottery. Only 7% of imported pottery was from the "late period" during or after the 3rd century, while the other 93% of finds were from the "early period", the 2nd century or earlier.[59] Glazed pottery was almost nonexistent in Tibiscum; the only finds from the early period are a few fragments with Barbotine decorations and stamped with "CRISPIN(us)". The only finds from the late period are a handful of glazed bowl fragments that bore relief decorations on both the inside and the outside. The most common type of amphorae is the Dressel 24 similis; finds are from the time of rule of Hadrian to the late period. An amphora of type Carthage LRA 4 dated between the 3rd and 4th century AD has been found in Tibiscum-Iaz and an amphora of type Opaiţ 2 has been found in Tibiscum-Jupa.[60]

Geography

[edit]

Records of eight Iazygian towns have been documented; these are Uscenum, Bormanum, Abieta, Trissum, Parca, Candanum, Pessium, and Partiscum.[23][61] There was also a settlement on Gellért Hill.[62] Their capital was at Partiscum, the site of which roughly corresponds with that of Kecskemét, a city in modern-day Hungary.[63][64] It is believed that a Roman road may have traversed the Iazyges' territory for about 200 miles (320 km),[65] connecting Aquincum to Porolissum, and passing near the site of modern-day Albertirsa.[66] This road then went on to connect with the Black Sea city states.[67]

The area of plains between the Danube and Tisza rivers that was controlled by the Iazyges was similar in size to Italy and about 1,000 mi (1,600 km) long.[68][69] The terrain was largely swampland dotted with a few small hills that was devoid of any mineable metals or minerals. This lack of resources and the problems the Romans would face trying to defend it may explain why the Romans never annexed it as a province but left it as a client-kingdom.[49][50]

According to English cartographer Aaron Arrowsmith, the Iazyges Metanastæ lived east (sic) of the [Roman] Dacia separating it from [Roman] Pannonia and Germania.[70] The Iazyges Metanastæ drove Dacians from Pannonia and Tibiscus River (today known as Timiș River).[70]

History

[edit]

Early history

[edit]
A colored political map of the Black Sea coast with locations shown with numerals and letters.
Location of the Iazyges (J) before they moved westward[71]

In the 3rd century BC the Iazyges lived in modern-day south-eastern Ukraine along the northern shores of the Sea of Azov, which the Ancient Greeks and Romans called the Lake of Maeotis. From there, the Iazyges—or at least some of them—moved west along the shores of the Black Sea into modern-day Moldova and south-western Ukraine.[72][73][74] It is possible the entirety of the Iazyges did not move west and that some of them stayed along the Sea of Azov, which would explain the occasional occurrence of the surname Metanastae; the Iazyges that possibly remained along the Sea of Azov, however, are never mentioned again.[75]

Migration

[edit]
A colored political map of Balkans during the first century.
Roman Balkans in the 1st century AD with the Jazyges Metanastæ between Roman Pannonia and Dacia[76]

In the 2nd century BC, sometime before 179 BC, the Iazyges began to migrate westward to the steppe near the Lower Dniester. This may have occurred because the Roxolani, who were the Iazyges' eastern neighbors, were also migrating westward due to pressure from the Aorsi, which put pressure on the Iazyges and forced them to migrate westward as well.[18][77][78]

The views of modern scholars as to how and when the Iazyges entered the Pannonian plain are divided. The main source of division is over the issue of if the Romans approved, or even ordered, the Iazyges to migrate, with both sides being subdivided into groups debating the timing of such a migration. Andreas Alföldi states that the Iazyges could not have been present to the north-east and east of the Pannonian Danube unless they had Roman approval. This viewpoint is supported by János Harmatta, who claims that the Iazyges were settled with both the approval and support of the Romans, so as to act as a buffer state against the Dacians. András Mócsy suggests that Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Augur, who was Roman consul in 26 BC, may have been responsible for the settlement of the Iazyges as a buffer between Pannonia and Dacia. However, Mócsy also suggests that the Iazyges may have arrived gradually, such that they initially were not noticed by the Romans. John Wilkes believes that the Iazyges reached the Pannonian plain either by the end of Augustus's rule (14 AD) or some time between 17 and 20 AD. Constantin Daicoviciu suggests that the Iazyges entered the area around 20 AD, after the Romans called upon them to be a buffer state. Coriolan Opreanu supports the theory of the Iazyges being invited, or ordered, to occupy the Pannonian plain, also around 20 AD.[79] Gheorghe Bichir and Ion Horațiu Crișan support the theory that the Iazyges first began to enter the Pannonian plain in large numbers under Tiberius, around 20 AD.[80] The most prominent scholars that state the Iazyges were not brought in by the Romans, or later approved, are Doina Benea, Mark Ščukin, and Jenő Fitz. Doina Benea states that the Iazyges slowly infiltrated the Pannonian plain sometime in the first half of the 1st century AD, without Roman involvement. Jenő Fitz promotes the theory that the Iazyges arrived en masse around 50 AD, although a gradual infiltration preceded it. Mark Ščukin states only that the Iazyges arrived by themselves sometime around 50 AD. Andrea Vaday argued against the theory of a Roman approved or ordered migration, citing the lack of strategic reasoning, as the Dacians were not actively providing a threat to Rome during the 20–50 AD period.[81]

The occupation of the lands between the Danube and Tisza by the Iazyges was mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia (77–79 AD), in which he says that the Iazyges inhabited the basins and plains of the lands, while the forested and mountainous area largely retained a Dacian population, which was later pushed back to the Tisza by the Iazyges. Pliny's statements are corroborated by the earlier accounts of Seneca the Younger in his Quaestiones Naturales (61–64 AD), where he uses the Iazyges to discuss the borders that separate the various peoples.[79]

From 78 to 76 BC, the Romans led an expedition to an area north of the Danube—then the Iazyges' territory—because the Iazyges had allied with Mithridates VI of Pontus, with whom the Romans were at war.[82][83] In 44 BC King Burebista of Dacia died and his kingdom began to collapse. After this, the Iazyges began to take possession of the Pannonian Basin, the land between the Danube and Tisa rivers in modern-day south-central Hungary.[84] Historians have posited this was done at the behest of the Romans, who sought to form a buffer state between their provinces and the Dacians to protect the Roman province of Pannonia.[85][86][87][88][89][90] The Iazyges encountered the Basternae and Getae along their migration path sometime around 20 AD and turned southward to follow the coast of the Black Sea until they settled in the Danube Delta.[77] This move is attested by the large discrepancy in the location reported by Tacitus relative to that which was earlier given by Ovid.[91] Archeological finds suggest that while the Iazyges took hold of the northern plain between the Danube and the Tisa by around 50 AD, they did not take control of the land south of the Partiscum-Lugio line until the late 1st or early 2nd century.[92]

The effects of this migration have been observed in the ruins of burial sites left behind by the Iazyges; the standard grave goods made of gold being buried alongside a person were absent, as was the equipment of a warrior; this may have been because the Iazyges were no longer in contact with the Pontic Steppe and were cut off from all trade with them, which had previously been a vital part of their economy. Another problem with the Iazyges' new location was that it lacked both precious minerals and metals, such as iron, which could be turned into weapons. They found it was much more difficult to raid the Romans, who had organized armies around the area, as opposed to the disorganized armies of their previous neighbors. The cutting-off of trade with the Pontic Steppe meant they could no longer trade for gold for burial sites, assuming any of them could afford it. The only such goods they could find were the pottery and metals of the adjacent Dacian and Celtic peoples. Iron weapons would have been exceedingly rare, if the Iazyges even had them, and would likely have been passed down from father to son rather than buried because they could not have been replaced.[28]

Post-migration

[edit]
Map showing Iazyges in 125 AD west of Roman Dacia

After the conquest of the Pannonian Basin, the Iazyges appear to have ruled over some measure of the remaining Germanic, Celtic, and Dacian populations, with the hilly areas north of modern-day Budapest retaining strong Germanic traditions, with a significant presence of Germanic burial traditions.[93] Items of Celtic manufacturing appear up until the late 2nd century AD, in the northern area of the Carpathian Basin.[94]

During the time of Augustus, the Iazyges sent an embassy to Rome to request friendly relations.[41] In a modern context, these "friendly relations" would be similar to a non-aggression pact.[95] Around this time, some of the western parts of the land of the Iazyges were occupied, apparently without conflict, by the Quadi, which scholar Nicholas Higham states "suggests long-term collaboration between [them]".[93]

Later, during the reign of Tiberius, the Iazyges became one of many new client-tribes of Rome. Roman client states were treated according to the Roman tradition of patronage, exchanging rewards for service.[96][97] The client king was called socius et amicus Romani Populi (ally and friend of the Roman People); the exact obligations and rewards of this relationship, however, are vague.[98] Even after being made into a client state, the Iazyges conducted raids across their border with Rome, for example in 6 AD and again in 16 AD. In 20 AD the Iazyges moved westward along the Carpathians into the Pannonian Steppe, and settled in the steppes between the Danube and the Tisza river, taking absolute control of the territory from the Dacians.[77] In 50 AD, an Iazyges cavalry detachment assisted King Vannius, a Roman client-king of the Quadi, in his fight against the Suevi.[99][100]

In the Year of Four Emperors, 69 AD, the Iazyges gave their support to Vespasian, who went on to become the sole emperor of Rome.[101] The Iazyges also offered to guard the Roman border with the Dacians to free up troops for Vespasian's invasion of Italy; Vespasian refused, however, fearing they would attempt a takeover or defect. Vespasian required the chiefs of the Iazyges to serve in his army so they could not organize an attack on the undefended area around the Danube.[102][103][104][105][106] Vespasian enjoyed support from the majority of the Germanic and Dacian tribes.[101]

Domitian's campaign against Dacia was mostly unsuccessful; the Romans, however, won a minor skirmish that allowed him to claim it as a victory, even though he paid the King of Dacia, Decebalus, an annual tribute of eight million sesterces in tribute to end the war.[101][107] Domitian returned to Rome and received an ovation, but not a full triumph. Considering that Domitian had been given the title of Imperator—for military victories 22 times, this was markedly restrained, suggesting the populace—or at least the senate—was aware it had been a less-than-successful war, despite Domitian's claims otherwise.[108][d] In 89 AD, however, Domitian invaded the Iazyges along with the Quadi and Marcomanni. Few details of this war are known but it is recorded that the Romans were defeated,[110] it is, however, known that Roman troops acted to repel simultaneous incursion by the Iazyges into Dacian lands.[111]

In early 92 AD the Iazyges, Roxolani, Dacians, and Suebi invaded the Roman province of Pannonia—modern-day Croatia, northern Serbia, and western Hungary.[108][112][113] Emperor Domitian called upon the Quadi and the Marcomanni to supply troops to the war. Both client-tribes refused to supply troops so Rome declared war upon them as well. In May 92 AD, the Iazyges annihilated the Roman Legio XXI Rapax in battle.[108][113][114] Domitian, however, is said to have secured victory in this war by January of the next year.[115] It is believed, based upon a rare Aureus coin showing an Iazyx with a Roman standard kneeling, with the caption of "Signis a Sarmatis Resitvtis", that the standard is taken from the annihilated Legio XXI Rapax was returned to Rome at the end of the war.[116] Although the accounts of the Roman-Iazyges wars of 89 and 92 AD are both muddled, it has been shown they are separate wars and not a continuation of the same war.[117] The threat presented by the Iazyges and neighbouring people to the Roman provinces was significant enough that Emperor Trajan travelled across the Mid and Lower Danube in late 98 to early 99, where he inspected existing fortification and initiated the construction of more forts and roads.[111]

Tacitus, a Roman Historian, records in his book Germania, which was written in 98 AD, that the Osi tribes paid tribute to both the Iazyges and the Quadi, although the exact date this relationship began is unknown.[118]

During the Flavian dynasty, the princes of the Iazyges were trained in the Roman army, officially as an honor but in reality serving as a hostage, because the kings held absolute power over the Iazyges.[119] There were offers from the princes of the Iazyges to supply troops but these were denied because of the fear they might revolt or desert in a war.[120]

Dacian wars

[edit]

An alliance between the Iazyges and the Dacians led the Romans to focus more on the Danube than the Rhine.[121] This is shown by the placement of the Roman legions; during the time of Augustus's rule there were eight legions stationed along the Rhine, four stationed in Mainz, and another four in Cologne. Within a hundred years of Augustus' rule, however, Roman military resources had become centered along the Danube rather than the Rhine,[101] with nine legions stationed along the Danube and only one at the Rhine. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, however, twelve legions were stationed along the Danube.[121] The Romans also built a series of forts along the entire right bank of the Danube—from Germany to the Black Sea—and in the provinces of Rhaetia, Noricum, and Pannonia the legions constructed bridge-head forts. Later, this system was expanded to the lower Danube with the key castra of Poetovio, Brigetio, and Carnuntum. The Classis Pannonica and Classis Flavia Moesica were deployed to the right and lower Danube, respectively; they, however, had to overcome the mass of whirlpools and cataracts of the Iron Gates.[121]

First Dacian War

[edit]

Trajan, with the assistance of the Iazyges, led his legions[e] into Dacia against King Decebalus, in the year 101.[6][122] In order to cross the Danube with such a large army, Apollodorus of Damascus, the Romans' chief architect, created a bridge through the Iron Gates by cantilevering it from the sheer face of the Iron Gates. From this he created a great bridge with sixty piers that spanned the Danube. Trajan used this to strike deep within Dacia, forcing the king, Decebalus, to surrender and become a client king.[123]

Second Dacian War

[edit]

As soon as Trajan returned to Rome, however, Decebalus began to lead raids into Roman territory and also attacked the Iazyges, who were still a client-tribe of Rome.[124][125] Trajan concluded that he had made a mistake in allowing Decebalus to remain so powerful.[123] In 106 AD, Trajan again invaded Dacia, with 11 legions, and, again with the assistance of the Iazyges[122][6]—who were the only barbarian tribe that aided the Romans in this war [f][127] and the only barbarian tribe in the Danube region which did not ally with Dacia.[127] The Iazyges were the only tribe to aid Rome in both Dacian Wars,[6][128] pushed rapidly into Dacia. Decebalus chose to commit suicide rather than be captured, knowing that he would be paraded in a triumph before being executed. In 113 AD Trajan annexed Dacia as a new Roman province, the first Roman province to the east of the Danube. Trajan, however, did not incorporate the steppe between the Tisza river and the Transylvanian mountains into the province of Dacia but left it for the Iazyges.[129] Back in Rome, Trajan was given a triumph lasting 123 days, with lavish gladiatorial games and chariot races. The wealth coming from the gold mines of Dacia funded these lavish public events and the construction of Trajan's Column, which was designed and constructed by Apollodorus of Damascus; it was 100 feet (30 m) tall and had 23 spiral bands filled with 2,500 figures, giving a full depiction of the Dacian war. Ancient sources say 500,000 slaves were taken in the war but moderns sources believe it was probably closer to 100,000 slaves.[130]

After the Dacian Wars

[edit]
A sculpted scene from Trajan's Column of Roman cavalry fighting Sarmatian cavalry.
Roman cavalry (left) fighting Sarmatian cavalry (right)[g][133]
Map showing the Roman border along the Danube with towns, forts and roads. It stretches from Vindobona (modern Vienna) in the north through Aquincum (Budapest) in the centre to Colonia Singidunum (Belgrade) in the south. The later Roman walls of the Limes Sarmatiae are marked on the eastern side of the Danube in the territory of the Iazyges.
The limes (Devil's Dykes) built between Roman territory and the tribes (contours around Iazyges' territory)[134][135]

Ownership of the region of Oltenia became a source of dispute between the Iazyges and the Roman empire. The Iazyges had originally occupied the area before the Dacians seized it; it was taken during the Second Dacian War by Trajan, who was determined to constitute Dacia as a province.[122][136][137] The land offered a more direct connection between Moesia and the new Roman lands in Dacia, which may be the reason Trajan was determined to keep it.[138] The dispute led to war in 107–108, where the future emperor Hadrian, then governor of Pannonia Inferior, defeated them.[122][136][139] The exact terms of the peace treaty are not known, but it is believed the Romans kept Oltenia in exchange for some form of concession, likely involving a one-time tribute payment.[122] The Iazyges also took possession of Banat around this time, which may have been part of the treaty.[140]

In 117, the Iazyges and the Roxolani invaded Lower Pannonia and Lower Moesia, respectively. The war was probably brought on by difficulties in visiting and trading with each other because Dacia lay between them. The Dacian provincial governor Gaius Julius Quadratus Bassus was killed in the invasion. The Roxolani surrendered first, so it is likely the Romans exiled and then replaced their client king with one of their choosing. The Iazyges then concluded peace with Rome.[141] The Iazyges and other Sarmatians invaded Roman Dacia in 123, likely for the same reason as the previous war; they were not allowed to visit and trade with each other. Marcius Turbo stationed 1,000 legionaries in the towns Potaissa and Porolissum, which the Romans probably used as the invasion point into Rivulus Dominarum. Marcius Turbo succeeded in defeating the Iazyges; the terms of the peace and the date, however, are not known.[142]

Marcomannic Wars

[edit]
The 174–175 Roman offensive onto Iazigi

In 169, the Iazyges, Quadi, Suebi, and Marcomanni once again invaded Roman territory. The Iazyges led an invasion into Alburnum in an attempt to seize its gold mines.[143] The exact motives for and directions of the Iazyges' war efforts are not known.[144] Marcus Claudius Fronto, who was a general during the Parthian wars and then the governor of both Dacia and Upper Moesia, held them back for some time but was killed in battle in 170.[145] The Quadi surrendered in 172, the first tribe to do so; the known terms of the peace are that Marcus Aurelius installed a client-king Furtius on their throne and the Quadi were denied access to the Roman markets along the limes. The Marcomanni accepted a similar peace but the name of their client-king is not known.[146]

In 173, the Quadi rebelled and overthrew Furtius and replaced him with Ariogaesus, who wanted to enter into negotiations with Marcus. Marcus refused to negotiate because the success of the Marcomannic wars was in no danger.[146] At that point the Iazyges had not yet been defeated by Rome. having not acted, Marcus Aurelius appears to have been unconcerned, but when the Iazyges attacked across the frozen Danube in late 173 and early 174, Marcus redirected his attention to them. Trade restrictions on the Marcomanni were also partially lifted at that time; they were allowed to visit the Roman markets at certain times of certain days. In an attempt to force Marcus to negotiate, Ariogaesus began to support the Iazyges.[147] Marcus Aurelius put out a bounty on him, offering 1,000 aurei for his capture and delivery to Rome or 500 aurei for his severed head.[148][h] After this, the Romans captured Ariogaesus but rather than executing him, Marcus Aurelius sent him into exile.[150]

In the winter of 173, the Iazyges launched a raid across the frozen Danube but the Romans were ready for pursuit and followed them back to the Danube. Knowing the Roman legionaries were not trained to fight on ice, and that their own horses had been trained to do so without slipping, the Iazyges prepared an ambush, planning to attack and scatter the Romans as they tried to cross the frozen river. The Roman army, however, formed a solid square and dug into the ice with their shields so they would not slip. When the Iazyges could not break the Roman lines, the Romans counter-attacked, pulling the Iazyges off of their horses by grabbing their spears, clothing, and shields. Soon both armies were in disarray after slipping on the ice and the battle was reduced to many brawls between the two sides, which the Romans won. After this battle the Iazyges—and presumably the Sarmatians in general—were declared the primary enemy of Rome.[151]

The Iazyges surrendered to the Romans in March or early April of 175.[152][153][154] Their prince Banadaspus had attempted peace in early 174 but the offer was refused and Banadaspus was deposed by the Iazyges and replaced with Zanticus.[i][147] The terms of the peace treaty were harsh; the Iazyges were required to provide 8,000 men as auxiliaries and release 100,000 Romans they had taken hostage,[j] and were forbidden from living within ten Roman miles (roughly 9 miles (14 km) of the Danube. Marcus had intended to impose even harsher terms; it is said by Cassius Dio that he wanted to entirely exterminate the Iazyges[157] but was distracted by the rebellion of Avidius Cassius.[147] During this peace deal, Marcus Aurelius broke from the Roman custom of Emperors sending details of peace treaties to the Roman Senate; this is the only instance in which Marcus Aurelius is recorded to have broken this tradition.[158] Of the 8,000 auxiliaries, 5,500 of them were sent to Britannia[159] to serve with the Legio VI Victrix,[160] suggesting that the situation there was serious; it is likely the British tribes, seeing the Romans being preoccupied with war in Germania and Dacia, had decided to rebel. All of the evidence suggests the Iazyges' horsemen were an impressive success.[159] The 5,500 troops sent to Britain were not allowed to return home, even after their 20-year term of service had ended.[161] After Marcus Aurelius had beaten the Iazyges; he took the title of Sarmaticus in accordance with the Roman practice of victory titles.[162]

A quad-colored map, showing the Iazyges in yellow, Roman pannonia in grey, Roman Dacia in green, and the land of the Cotini in peach.
The land of the Iazyges in the 2nd–3rd century[163]

After the Marcomannic Wars

[edit]

In 177, the Iazyges, the Buri, and other Germanic tribes[k] invaded Roman territory again.[55] It is said that in 178, Marcus Aurelius took the bloody spear from the Temple of Bellona and hurled it into the land of the Iazyges.[164] In 179, the Iazyges and the Buri were defeated, and the Iazyges accepted peace with Rome. The peace treaty placed additional restrictions on the Iazyges but also included some concessions. They could not settle on any of the islands of the Danube and could not keep boats on the Danube. They were, however, permitted to visit and trade with the Roxolani throughout the Dacian Province with the knowledge and approval of its governor, and they could trade in the Roman markets at certain times on certain days.[55][165] In 179, the Iazyges and the Buri joined Rome in their war against the Quadi and the Marcomanni after they secured assurances that Rome would prosecute the war to the end and not quickly make a peace deal.[166]

As part of a treaty made in 183, Commodus forbade the Quadi and the Marcomanni from waging war against the Iazyges, the Buri, or the Vandals, suggesting that at this time all three tribes were loyal client-tribes of Rome.[167][168] In 214, however, Caracalla led an invasion into the Iazyges' territory.[169] In 236, the Iazyges invaded Rome but were defeated by Emperor Maximinus Thrax, who took the title Sarmaticus Maximus following his victory.[170] The Iazyges, Marcomanni, and Quadi raided Pannonia together in 248,[171][172] and again in 254.[173] It is suggested the reason for the large increase in the amount of Iazyx raids against Rome was that the Goths led successful raids, which emboldened the Iazyges and other tribes.[174] In 260, the Goths took the cities of Tyras and Olbia, again cutting off the Iazyges' trade with the Pontic Steppe and the Black Sea.[56] From 282 to 283, Emperor Carus lead a successful campaign against the Iazyges.[173][175]

The Iazyges and Carpi raided Roman territory in 293, and Diocletian responded by declaring war.[176] From 294 to 295, Diocletian waged war upon them and won.[177][178] As a result of the war, some of the Carpi were transported into Roman territory so they could be controlled.[179] From 296 to 298, Galerius successfully campaigned against the Iazyges.[175][180] In 358, the Iazyges were at war with Rome.[181] In 375, Emperor Valentinian had a stroke in Brigetio while meeting with envoys from the Iazyges.[l][183] Around the time of the Gothic migration, which led the Iazyges to be surrounded on their northern and eastern borders by Gothic tribes, and most intensely during the reign of Constantine I, a series of earthworks known as the Devil's Dykes (Ördögárok) was built around the Iazygian territory,[184][185] possibly with a degree of Roman involvement. Higham suggests that the Iazyges became more heavily tied to the Romans during this period, with strong cultural influence.[185]

Late history and legacy

[edit]
Iazyges in the 4th century at left bank of Danube (Gepids, Hasdingi), neighboring Gotini are replaced with Suebic Quadi

In late antiquity, historic accounts become much more diffuse and the Iazyges generally cease to be mentioned as a tribe.[186][187] Beginning in the 4th century, most Roman authors cease to distinguish between the different Sarmatian tribes, and instead refer to all as Sarmatians.[188] In the late 4th century, two Sarmatian peoples were mentioned—the Argaragantes and the Limigantes, who lived on opposite sides of the Tisza river. One theory is that these two tribes were formed when the Roxolani conquered the Iazyges, after which the Iazyges became the Limigantes and the Roxolani became the Argaragantes.[186][187] Another theory is that a group of Slavic tribesmen who gradually migrated into the area were subservient to the Iazyges; the Iazyges became known as the Argaragantes and the Slavs were the Limigantes.[189] Yet another theory holds that the Roxolani were integrated into the Iazyges.[190] Regardless of which is true, in the 5th century both tribes were conquered by the Goths[191][192][193][194] and, by the time of Attila, they were absorbed into the Huns.[195]

Foreign relations

[edit]

The Roman Empire

[edit]

The Iazyges often harassed the Roman Empire after their arrival in the Pannonian Basin, but they never rose to become a true threat.[196] During the 1st century, Rome used diplomacy to secure their northern borders, especially on the Danube, by way of befriending the tribes, and by sowing distrust amongst the tribes against each other.[197] Rome defended their Danubian border not just by way of repelling raids, but also by levying diplomatic influence against the tribes and launching punitive expeditions.[198][199][200] The combination of diplomatic influence and swift punitive expeditions allowed the Romans to force the various tribes, including the Iazyges, into becoming client states of the Roman Empire.[200] Even after the Romans abandoned Dacia, they consistently projected their power north of the Danube against the Sarmatian tribes, especially during the reigns of Constantine, Constantius II, and Valentinian.[201] To this end, Constantine constructed a permanent bridge across the middle Danube in order to improve logistics for campaigns against the Goths and Sarmatians.[200][202]

Another key part of the relationship between the Roman Empire and the Sarmatian tribes was the settling of tribes in Roman lands, with emperors often accepting refugees from the Sarmatian tribes into nearby Roman territory.[203] When the Huns arrived in the Russian steppes and conquered the tribes that were there, they often lacked the martial ability to force the newly conquered tribes to stay, leading to tribes like the Greuthungi, Vandals, Alans, and Goths migrating and settling within the Roman Empire rather than remaining subjects of the Huns.[204] The Roman Empire benefited from accepting these refugee tribes, and thus continued to allow them to settle, even after treaties were made with Hunnic leaders such as Rugila and Attila that stipulated that the Roman Empire would reject all refugee tribes, with rival or subject tribes of the Huns being warmly received by Roman leaders in the Balkans.[205]

Archeology

[edit]

Around the time of Trajan, the Romans established routes between Dacia and Pannonia, with evidence of Roman goods appearing in Iazygian land occurring around 100 AD, largely centered near important river crossings. Additionally, a small number of Roman inscriptions and buildings were made during this period, which scholar Nicholas Higham states suggests either a high degree of Romanization or the presence of diplomatic or military posts within Iazygian territory. Roman goods were widespread in the second and early third century AD, especially near Aquincum, the capital of Roman Pannonia Inferior, and the area east to the Tizsa valley.[206]

Roxolani

[edit]

The Iazyges also had a strong relationship with the Roxolani, another Sarmatian tribe, both economically and diplomatically.[55][139][165][200] During the second Dacian War, where the Iazyges supported the Romans, while the Roxolani supported the Dacians, the Iazyges and Roxolani remained neutral to each other.[207] After the Roman annexation of Dacia, the two tribes were effectively isolated from each other, until the 179 peace concession from Emperor Marcus Aurelius which permitted the Iazyges and Roxolani to travel through Dacia, subject to the approval of the governor.[55][165][200] Because of the new concession allowing them to trade with the Roxolani they could, for the first time in several centuries, trade indirectly with the Pontic Steppe and the Black Sea.[54] It is believed the Iazyges traveled through Small Wallachia until they reached the Wallachian Plain, but there is little archeological evidence to prove this.[208] Cypraea shells began to appear in this area in the last quarter of the 2nd century.[209]

Quadi

[edit]

The scholar Higham suggests that there was some degree of "long-term collaboration" between the Iazyges and the Quadi, noting that they were allied in the late 2nd century AD, and that the Iazyges ceded the western portions of their land to them shortly after arriving in the Pannonian Basin, apparently without conflict.[93]

List of princes

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Primary sources

[edit]

Modern sources

[edit]

Books

[edit]
  • Academia România (1980). Bibliotheca historica Romaniae: Monographs. Academia Republicii Socialiste România. Secția de Științe Istorice. OCLC 1532822.
  • Arrowsmith, Aaron (1839). Grammar of Ancient Geography: Compiled for the Use of King's College School. S. Arrowsmith et al. ISBN 978-1-377-71123-2. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
  • Ash, Rhiannon; Wellesley, Kenneth (2009). The Histories (Rev. ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-194248-3.
  • Bacon, Edward; Lhote, Henri (1963). Vanished Civilizations of the Ancient World. McGraw-Hill. LCCN 63014869. OCLC 735510932.
  • Bârcă, Vitalie (2013). Nomads of the Steppes on the Danube Frontier of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century CE. Historical Sketch and Chronological Remarks. Dacia. OCLC 1023761641.
  • Bârcă, Vitalie; Cociş, Sorin (2013). Sarmatian Graves Surrounded By Flat Circular Ditch Discovered At Nădlac. Ephemeris Napocensis. OCLC 7029405883.
  • Bârcă, Vitalie; Simonenko, Oleksandr (2009). Călăreţii stepelor: sarmaţii în spaţiul nord-pontic (Horsemen of the steppes : the Sarmatians in the North Pontic region). Editura Mega. ISBN 978-606-543-027-3.
  • Barkóczi, László; Vaday, Andrea H. (1999). Pannonia And Beyond: studies In Honour of László Barkóczi. Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. OCLC 54895323.
  • Beard, Mary (2009). The Roman triumph. Belknap. ISBN 978-0-674-02059-7.
  • Beckmann, Martin (2011). Column of Marcus Aurelius the Genesis and Meaning of a Roman Imperial Monument. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-7777-7.
  • Boak, Arthur Edward Romilly (1921). A History of Rome to 565 A. D. Macmillan. OCLC 1315742.
  • Boardman, John; Palaggiá, Olga (1997). Greek offerings: essays on Greek art in honour of John Boardman. Oxbow Books. ISBN 978-1-900188-44-9.
  • Bolecek, B. V. (1973). Ancient Slovakia: Archeology and History. Slovak Academy. OCLC 708160.
  • Brogan, Olwen (1936). "Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans". Journal of Roman Studies. 26 (2). Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies: 195–222. doi:10.2307/296866. JSTOR 296866. S2CID 163349328.
  • Bunson, Matthew (1995). A Dictionary of the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510233-8.
  • Bunson, Matthew (2002). Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. Facts On File. ISBN 978-1-4381-1027-1.
  • Bury, J. B. (2013). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Edited in Seven Volumes with Introduction, Notes, Appendices, and Index. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-05073-9.
  • Carnap-Bornheim, Claus von (2003). Kontakt, Kooperation, Konflikt : Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus; internationales Kolloquium des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars der Philipps-Universität Marburg, 12. – 16. Februar 1998. Wachholtz. ISBN 978-3-529-01871-8.
  • Castellan, George (1989). A History of the Romanians. East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-154-8.
  • Chadwick, H. Munro (2014). The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-64287-4.
  • Cichorius, Conrad (1988). Trajan's Column: A New Edition of the Chicorius Plates (New ed.). Sutton. ISBN 978-0-86299-467-9.
  • Constantinescu, Miron; Pascu, Ștefan; Diaconu, Petre (1975). Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the Territory of Romania: A Collection of Studies. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. OCLC 928080934.
  • Cook, S. A.; Adcock, Frank (1965). The Cambridge Ancient History: The Imperial peace, A.D. 70-192, 1965. Cambridge University Press. OCLC 3742485.
  • Coppadoro, John (2010). Antonio Maria Viani e la facciata di Palazzo Guerrieri a Mantova (in Italian). Alinea. ISBN 978-88-6055-491-8.
  • Corson, David (2003). Trajan and Plotina. iUnivserse. ISBN 978-0-595-28044-5.
  • Cunliffe, Barry (2015). By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-968917-0.
  • Daicoviciu, Constantin (1960). Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu Prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani. București. OCLC 186919895.
  • Daicoviciu, Constantin; Condurachi, Emil (1971). Romania. Barrie and Jenkins. ISBN 978-0-214-65256-1.
  • Dise, Robert L. (1991). Cultural Change And Imperial Administration: The Middle Danube Provinces Of The Roman Empire. P. Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-1465-2.
  • Dowden, Ken (2013). European Paganism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-81022-2.
  • Drăgan, Iosif Constantin (1985). Dacia's Imperial Millennium. Nagard Publishing. OCLC 17605220.
  • Du Nay, Alain; Kosztin, Árpád (1997). Transylvania and the Rumanians. Corvinus. ISBN 978-1-882785-09-4.
  • Dudley, Donald R. (1993). The Civilization of Rome. Penguin Group Inc. ISBN 978-0-452-01016-1.
  • Duruy, Victor (1887). History of Rome, and of the Roman People, from Its Origin to the Establishment of the Christian Empire. D. Estes ad C. E. Lauriat. OCLC 8441167.
  • Dzino, Danijel (2010). Illyricum in Roman Politics, 229 BC–AD 68. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-48423-7.
  • Eggers, Martin; Beck, Heinrich; Hoops, Johannes; Müller, Rosemarie (2004). Saal – Schenkung. De Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-017734-X.
  • Elton, Hugh (1996). Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-33111-3.
  • Erdkamp, Paul (2007). A Companion to the Roman Army. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-2153-8.
  • Fehér, Alexander (2017). Vegetation History and Cultural Landscapes: Case Studies from South-west Slovakia. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-60267-7.
  • Frere, Sheppard Sunderland; Hartley, Brian; Wacher, J. S. (1983). Rome and her northern provinces : papers presented to Sheppard Frere in honour of his retirement from the Chair of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire, University of Oxford, 1983. A. Sutton. ISBN 978-0-86299-046-6.
  • G.G. Lepage, Jean-Denis (2014). Medieval Armies and Weapons in Western Europe: An Illustrated History. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6251-3.
  • Găzdac, Cristian (2010). Monetary circulation in Dacia and the provinces from the Middle and Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106-337). Ed. Mega. ISBN 978-606-543-040-2.
  • Giurescu, Dinu C.; Fischer-Galaţi, Stephen A. (1998). Romania: a Historic Perspective. East European Monographs. OCLC 39317152.
  • Giurescu, Constantin C.; Matei, Horia C. (1974). Chronological history of Romania. National Commission of the Socialist Republic of Romania for UNESCO. OCLC 802144986.
  • Goffart, Walter (2010). Barbarian Tides the Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-0028-7.
  • Goldsworthy, Adrian (2009). How Rome fell death of a superpower. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15560-0.
  • Goodyear, F. R. D. (2004). The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman:, Volume 2; Volumes 1897–1914. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60696-7.
  • Grainger, John D. (2004). Nerva and the Roman Succession Crisis of AD 96–99. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-34958-1.
  • Groenman-Van Waateringe, Willy (1997). Roman frontier studies: proceedings of the ... International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Oxbow Books. ISBN 978-1-900188-47-0.
  • Grumeza, Ion (2009). Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe. Hamilton Books. ISBN 978-0-7618-4466-2.
  • Grumeza, Laviana (2016). Settlements From The 2nd–Early 5th Century AD In Banat. West University of Timișoara. doi:10.14795/j.v2i4.144.
  • Gutkind, E.A. (1964). Urban development in Western Europe, France and Belgium. Free Press. OCLC 265099.
  • Habelt, Rudolf (1967). Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. JSTOR. OCLC 1466587.
  • Harmatta, J. (1970). Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians. Acta Universitatis de Attila József Nominatae. Acta antique et archaeologica. University of Szeged Press. OCLC 891848847.
  • Hastings, James; Selbie, John Alexander; Gray, Louis Herbert (1921). Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Sacrifice-Sudra. T. & T. Clark. OCLC 3065458.
  • Helmolt, Hans Ferdinand (1902). The World's History: The Mediterranean nations. W. Heinemann. OCLC 621610.
  • Henderson, Bernard William (1927). Five Roman emperors: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, A.D. 69-117. CUP Archive. OCLC 431784232.
  • Higham, Nicholas (2018). King Arthur: The Making of the Legend. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21092-7.
  • Hildinger, Erik (2001). Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to 1700 A.D. Da Capo. ISBN 978-0-306-81065-7.
  • Hinds, Kathryn (2009). Scythians and Sarmatians. Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-7614-4519-7.
  • Hoddinott, Ralph F. (1963). Early Byzantine churches in Macedonia and southern Serbia: a study of the origins and the initial development of East Christian art. Macmillan. OCLC 500216.
  • Hornblower, Simon (2012). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954556-8.
  • Hoyos, Dexter (2013). A companion to Roman imperialism. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-23646-2.
  • Johnston, Alexander Keith (1867). School Atlas of Classical Geography: Comprising, in Twenty-three Plates. William Blackwood and Sons. OCLC 11901919.
  • Jones, Henry Stuart (1908). The Roman Empire, B.C.29-A.D.476, Part 476. G.P. Putnam's Sons. OCLC 457652445.
  • Jones, Brian W. (1993). The Emperor Domitian (New ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-10195-0.
  • Kardulias, Nick P. (1998). World-Systems Theory in Practice Leadership, Production, and Exchange. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4616-4743-0.
  • Kean, Roger Michael; Frey, Oliver (2005). The complete chronicle of the emperors of Rome. Thalamus. ISBN 978-1-902886-05-3.
  • Kemkes, Schriftleitung: Martin (2000). Von Augustus bis Attila: Leben am ungarischen Donaulimes : [erschienen anlässlich der gleichnamigen Sonderausstellung des Ungarischen Nationalmuseums, Budapest] (in German). Limesmuseum. ISBN 978-3-8062-1541-0.
  • Kleywegt, A.J. (2005). Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, Book I: a commentary. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-13924-4.
  • Korkkanen, Irma (1975). The peoples of Hermanaric: Jordanes, Getica 116. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. ISBN 978-951-41-0231-8.
  • Kramer, Norbert; Reitz, Christiane (2010). Tradition and Renewal: Medial strategies in the time of the Flavians. De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-024715-2.
  • Krebs, Steven A. (2000). Settlement in Classical Dobrogea. Indiana University. OCLC 46777015.
  • Kuiper, Kathleen (2011). Ancient Rome: From Romulus and Remus to the Visigoth Invasion. Britannica Educational Publications. ISBN 978-1-61530-107-2.
  • Kulikowski, Michael (2007). Rome's Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60868-8.
  • Lacy, Christabel (1976). The Greek View of Barbarians in the Hellenistic Age: As Derived from Representative Literary and Artistic Evidence from the Hellenistic Period. University of Colorado. OCLC 605385551.
  • Lambrechts, Pierre (1949). Prof. Dr. Hubert van de Weerd; een vooraanstaand figuur der Gentse Universiteit (in German). De Tempel. OCLC 5222953.
  • Laurent, Peter Edmund (1830). An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Geography (2nd ed.). Henry Slatter. OCLC 19988268. Copy at Google books (searching Metanastae)
  • Le Beau, Charles (1827). Histoire du Bas-Empire (in French). Desaint [et] Saillant. OCLC 6752757.
  • Lebedynsky, Iaroslav (2014). Les Sarmates amazones et lanciers cuirassés entre Oural et Danube (VIIe siècle av. J.-C. – VIe siècle apr. J.-C.). Éd. Errance. ISBN 978-2-87772-565-1.
  • Leisering, Walter (2004). Historischer Weltatlas (in German). Marix. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-3-937715-59-9.
  • Lengyel, A.; Radan, G.T. (1980). The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-963-05-1886-4.
  • Leslie, Alan (1999). Theoretical Roman archaeology & architecture : the third conference proceedings. Cruithne Press. ISBN 978-1-873448-14-4.
  • Levick, Barbara M. (2014). Faustina I and II: imperial women of the golden age. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-970217-6.
  • Loetscher, Lefferts A.; Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1977). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Baker Book House. ISBN 978-0-8010-7947-4.
  • Luttwak, Edward N. (1981). The Grand Strategy of the Roman empire: From the First Century A.D. to the third. Hopkin. ISBN 978-0-8018-2158-5.
  • MacKendrick, Paul (1975). The Dacian stones speak. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-1226-6.
  • Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J.; Knight, Max (1973). The World of the Huns: Studies in their History and Culture. University of California. ISBN 978-0-520-01596-8.
  • Malcor, Linda A.; Littleton, C. Scott (2013). From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-77771-7.
  • Marks, Geoffrey; Beatty, William K. (1976). Epidemics. Scribnerś Sons. ISBN 978-0-684-15893-8.
  • Master, Jonathan (2016). Provincial Soldiers and Imperial Instability in the Histories of Tacitus. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11983-7.
  • Mattingly, H. (2010). Agricola and Germania. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-14-196154-5.
  • Matyszak, Philip (2014). The Roman Empire. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-78074-425-4.
  • McLaughlin, Raoul (2016). The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: The Ancient World Economy and the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia and Han China. Casemate Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4738-8982-8.
  • McLynn, Frank (2010). Marcus Aurelius: A Life. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81916-2.
  • Mellor, Ronald (2012). The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-22261-0.
  • Merrills, Andy; Miles, Richard (2010). The Vandals. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-1808-1.
  • Mócsy, András (April 8, 2014). Pannonia and Upper Moesia (Routledge Revivals): A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-75425-1.
  • Mode, Markus; Tubach, Jürgen (2006). Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: the Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. Reichert. ISBN 978-3-89500-529-9.
  • Mulvin, Lynda (2002). Late Roman Villas in the Danube-Balkan Region. Archaeopress. ISBN 978-1-84171-444-8.
  • Murison, Charles Leslie (1999). Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian; an Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 64 - 67 (A.D. 68 – 96). Scholars Press. ISBN 978-0-7885-0547-8.
  • Neusner, Jacob (1990). History of the Jews in the second through seventh centuries of the Common Era. Garland Pub. ISBN 978-0-8240-8179-9.
  • Parkin, Tim G. (2003). Old age in the Roman world: a cultural and social history. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7128-3.
  • Perenyi, Imre (1973). Town Centres. Planning and Renewal. Akademiai Kiado. ISBN 978-0-569-07702-6.
  • Petit, Paul (1976). Pax Romana. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-02171-6.
  • Piotrovsky, Boris (1976). From the Lands of the Scythians: Ancient Treasures From The Museums of the U.S.S.R., 3000 B.C.-100 B.C. New York Graphic Society. ISBN 978-0-87099-143-1.
  • Pop, Ioan Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (2006). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.
  • Pounds, N.J.G. (1993). An historical geography of Europe. Cambridge University. ISBN 978-0-521-31109-0.
  • Preble, George Henry (1980). The Symbols, Standards, Flags, and Banners of Ancient and Modern Nations. Flag Research Center. ISBN 978-0-8161-8476-7.
  • Quigley, Carroll (1983). Weapons Systems and Political Stability: a History. University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5.
  • Regenberg, W. (2006). Bullettino dell'Instituto archeologico germanico, Sezione romana (112 ed.). Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. OCLC 1566507.
  • Ricci, Giuseppe A. (2015). Nomads in Late Antiquity: Gazing on Rome from the Steppe, Attila to Asparuch (370–680 C.E.). Princeton University. OCLC 953142610.
  • Ridgeway, William (2015). The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-50223-9.
  • Ryberg, Inez Scott (1967). Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius. Archaeological Institute of America. OCLC 671875431.
  • Sabin, Philip; Wees, Hans van; Whitby, Michael (2007). The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78274-6.
  • Saddington, D.B. (1982). The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces From Caesar to Vespasian: 49 B.C.–79 A.D. University of Zimbabwe. ISBN 978-0-86924-078-6.
  • Salway, Peter (1982). Roman Britain. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-821717-6.
  • Sands, P.C. (2016). The Client Princes of the Roman Empire Under the Republic. Palala Press. ISBN 978-1-355-85963-5.
  • Scheidel, Walter (2019). Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvg25294.13. JSTOR ctvg25294.13. S2CID 243226679.
  • Sedgwick, Henry Dwight (1921). Marcus Aurelius; a Biography Told as Much as May be by Letters: Together with Some Account of the Stoic Religion and an Exposition of the Roman Government's Attempt to Suppress Christianity During Marcus's Reign. Yale University Press. OCLC 153517.
  • Sedov, Valentin Vasiljevič (2012). Sloveni u dalekoj prošlosti (in Serbian). Akademska knjiga. ISBN 978-86-6263-022-3.
  • Smith, William (1873). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (2nd ed.). J. Murray. OCLC 2371051.
  • Snyder, Christopher A. (2008). The Britons. Blackwell Pub. ISBN 978-0-470-75821-2.
  • Stover, Tim (2012). Epic and empire in Vespasianic Rome: a new reading of Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-964408-7.
  • Strong, Eugénie (2015). Roman Sculpture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-07810-8.
  • Summer, Graham; D'Amato, Raffaele (2009). Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier. Frontline Books. ISBN 978-1-84832-512-8.
  • Swan, Peter Michael (2004). The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55-56 (9 B.C.-A.D. 14). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534714-2.
  • Sydenham, Edward Allen; Sutherland, Carol Humphrey Vivian; Carson, Robert Andrew Glendinning (1936). The Roman Imperial Coinage. Spink. OCLC 10528222.
  • Syme, Ronald (1971). Emperors And Biography: Studies In The 'Historia Augusta'. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-814357-4.
  • Ţentea, Ovidiu; Opriș, Ioan C.; Popescu, Mariana-Cristina (2009). Near and Beyond the Roman Frontiers: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in Târgoviște. National History Museum of Romania. OCLC 909836612.
  • Todd, Malcolm (2002). Migrants & invaders: the movement of peoples in the ancient world. Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1437-9.
  • Tschen-Emmons, James B. (2015). Artifacts from Medieval Europe. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-61069-622-7.
  • Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. (2001). North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12041-9.
  • Ulanowski, Krzysztof (2016). The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome: Ancient Warfare Series (1st ed.). BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-32476-3.
  • Vagalinski, Lyudmil Ferdinandov (2007). The lower Danube in antiquity (VI C BC – VI C AD) : international archaeological Conference, Bulgaria-Tutrakan. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, National Institute of Archaeology and Museum. ISBN 978-954-90387-8-1.
  • Várdy, Steven Béla (1991). Attila: King of the Huns. Chelsea House. ISBN 978-1-55546-803-3.
  • Venning, T.; Harris, J. (2006). Chronology of the Byzantine Empire. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-50586-5.
  • von Hesberg, Henner (1990). Bullettino dell'Instituto archeologico germanico, Sezione romana. Philipp von Zabern Verlag. OCLC 637572094.
  • Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European peoples (2nd ed.). Facts On File. ISBN 978-0-8160-4964-6.
  • Watson, Paul Barron (1884). Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Harper & brothers. ISBN 9780836956672. OCLC 940511169. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
  • Wellesley, Kenneth (2002). Year of the Four Emperors. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-56227-5.
  • Wijsman, Henri J.W. (2000). Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, Book VI : a commentary. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-11718-1.
  • Wilkes, John (1984). The Roman Army: Cambridge Introduction to the History of Mankind. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-07243-4.
  • Williams, Gareth D. (1994). Banished Voices: Readings in Ovid's Exile Poetry. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45136-9.
  • Williams, Derek (1997). The Reach of Rome: a History of the Roman Imperial Frontier 1st-5th centuries AD. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-15631-2.
  • Zahariade, Mihail (1998). The Roman Frontier at the Lower Danube, 4th-6th centuries. Romanian Institute of Thracology. ISBN 978-973-98829-3-4.

Websites

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

The Iazyges were a Sarmatian tribe of eastern Iranian nomadic origin that migrated westward from the Pontic-Caspian steppes around 200 BC, eventually settling in the Great Hungarian Plain between the Danube and Tisza rivers by the early 1st century AD, where they transitioned toward a semi-sedentary pastoralist society. Known for their elite heavy cavalry equipped with long lances and scale armor, the Iazyges maintained a warrior aristocracy that dominated the region through military prowess and tribute extraction from local Celtic and Dacian populations. Their interactions with the Roman Empire were marked by repeated raids across the Danube frontier, prompting punitive campaigns, yet also alliances as auxiliaries, culminating in decisive defeats during the Marcomannic Wars (166–180 AD) under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who imposed harsh terms including the surrender of 8,000 cavalrymen and hostages dispatched to Britain. By the 3rd century AD, Iazygian power waned amid Gothic invasions and internal fragmentation, leading to the absorption of remnants into Roman forces or subsequent barbarian confederations like the Huns. Archaeological evidence, including flat inhumation graves and distinctive pottery, underscores their cultural synthesis of steppe traditions with local influences, distinguishing them from more purely nomadic Sarmatian kin.

Etymology and Origins

Linguistic and Cultural Affiliation

The Iazyges were linguistically affiliated with the , a of eastern Iranian-speaking nomadic peoples originating from the Eurasian s. Their language belonged to the Scytho-Sarmatian branch of Eastern Iranian dialects, distinct from or Persian varieties but sharing phonological and morphological features traceable to Proto-Iranian. This affiliation is evidenced by anthroponyms and ethnonyms preserved in classical sources, such as the tribal name Iazyges, potentially deriving from Iranian roots like yazuka- ("youthful" or "young"), as reconstructed through comparative analysis with Ossetic and cognates. Similarly, leader names like Banadaspos exhibit Iranian etymologies, with elements analyzable as compounds involving terms for "similar" or locative suffixes akin to those in modern Kurdish and ancient , underscoring a continuity from steppe Iranian nomadism. Culturally, the Iazyges embodied core Sarmatian traits, including equestrian nomadism, heavy cavalry tactics with scale-armored cataphracts, and a emphasizing archery and lances, as depicted in Roman reliefs and corroborated by archaeological finds of gear and weapons in the Carpathian Basin. Their featured steppe-derived elements like tamgas (tribal brands) on artifacts, limited to elite Sarmatian subgroups, and practices with rich reflecting social hierarchy and mobility, distinct from neighboring Celtic or Dacian sedentary traditions. While interactions with Romans introduced some hybrid elements, such as fortified settlements by the 2nd century CE, primary cultural markers—, in elite strata, and Iranian-derived —persisted, affirming their Sarmatian identity over local assimilations. This continuity is supported by genetic and isotopic studies showing steppe ancestry dominance in Iazygian , aligning with Iranian nomadic heritage rather than substantial admixture until .

Genetic and Archaeological Evidence for Eastern Roots

analyses of Sarmatian-period remains from the Carpathian Basin, where the Iazyges settled, reveal genetic continuity with eastern populations. A 2025 study sequencing 156 genomes from 1st- to 5th-century CE burials in and surrounding foothills found that these individuals, associated with Iazyges and related groups, possessed a predominantly European ancestry profile augmented by minor East Asian components, consistent with origins among Sarmatians from the Ural and regions east of the Pontic .00559-8) This admixture pattern traces back to earlier nomadic interactions in the eastern steppes, distinguishing them from local Celtic or Germanic populations. Among the earliest migrants in the CE, specific individuals displayed identity-by-descent (IBD) segments and genetic markers matching Sarmatian burials near the Urals, indicating direct migration pulses from these eastern territories rather than solely local admixture. Such findings refute notions of purely western Pontic development, affirming an eastern cradle for Iazyges ancestry before their westward movements. Archaeological correlates reinforce these genetic links, with Sarmatian cultural elements—including kurgan mound burials, horse gear, and akinakes daggers—emerging from eastern innovations traceable to the 7th century BCE in regions east of the Don River. In Iazyges contexts, the introduction of ditched enclosures and specific artifact assemblages mirrors eastern Sarmatian prototypes, appearing progressively westward through the Pontic steppe. While direct migration trails lack dense material traces due to nomadic mobility, the stylistic and typological continuity of grave goods, such as barrel-shaped vessels and weaponry, underscores derivation from Ural-Volga Sarmatian heartlands.

Migration and Settlement

Westward Movements from the Pontic Steppe

The Iazyges, a branch of the Sarmatian nomadic confederation, inhabited the Pontic Steppe—encompassing regions north of the and around the —from at least the BCE, where they engaged in and mounted warfare typical of Iranian-speaking steppe peoples. Archaeological assemblages from this period, including burials with horse gear and composite bows, link early Sarmatian across the , though specific Iazygian attribution remains challenging due to tribal fluidity. Genetic analyses of steppe remains indicate a shared eastern Pontic-Caspian ancestry for western-migrating groups, supporting continuity in Iazygian origins without evidence of large-scale replacement by non-steppe populations. Westward movements intensified in the late 1st century BCE, driven by inter-tribal pressures among , including competition with eastern groups like the and , prompting the Iazyges to shift toward the Dacian steppes east of the Carpathians. By approximately 20 CE, they advanced along the northern Carpathian foothills into the , crossing via passes or riverine routes to occupy the plain between the and rivers, displacing or assimilating local Celtic and Dacian elements. This migration, spanning roughly 10 BCE to 50 CE, involved contingents estimated in the tens of thousands based on later Roman treaty stipulations limiting Iazygian forces to 13,000–15,500 warriors. Archaeological evidence for the transit phase is sparse but includes transitional —such as early types and scabbards with motifs—appearing in Dacian sites from the Augustan era onward, marking the Iazyges' gradual infiltration rather than a singular . No pre-1st century CE Iazygian artifacts definitively predate this window in the target regions, corroborating a directed movement from Pontic territories rather than indigenous development. Roman sources, including Ptolemy's Geographia, later delineate their settled extent, reflecting stabilization post-migration by the mid-1st century CE.

Establishment in the Carpathian Basin

The Iazyges, an eastern branch of the Sarmatian nomadic confederation, established their presence in the Carpathian Basin during the early decades of the , migrating westward from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. Archaeological and genetic evidence from burial sites in the northern and central parts of the basin indicates their initial entry around this period, with the tribe occupying the lowland plains suited to their pastoral economy.00559-8.pdf) This settlement followed their displacement of earlier Celtic and Dacian groups in the region between the and rivers, marking a shift from pure nomadism toward semi-sedentary herding practices. Historical accounts from Roman sources, including and later , document the Iazyges' consolidation in the Dacian and Hungarian Plain by the late to early AD, with their numbers estimated at around 100,000 individuals upon arrival. Roman diplomatic interactions facilitated this establishment, as the empire provided subsidies to stabilize the Iazyges as a buffer against other groups, evidenced by early contributions noted in epigraphic records. The tribe's military prowess, characterized by tactics, enabled them to secure territory despite Roman frontier pressures, with fortified settlements emerging near key river confluences. By the mid-1st century AD, the Iazyges had formalized control over the interfluvial zone, as confirmed by auxiliary troop levies supplied to Roman legions and depictions in Trajanic . Genetic analyses of skeletal remains from this era reveal a distinct Iranian ancestry, with minimal admixture initially, underscoring the rapid and dominant nature of their demographic implantation in the basin. This establishment laid the foundation for subsequent Roman-Sarmatian conflicts and alliances, shaping the provincial boundaries of Pannonia.00559-8.pdf)

Geography and Territory

Primary Regions Between Danube and Tisza

The primary regions of Iazyges settlement lay in the , encompassing the interfluve between the River to the west and the River to the east, within the broader Carpathian Basin. This flat, steppe-like terrain, known historically as part of the , provided ideal conditions for the characteristic of Sarmatian tribes. Archaeological evidence, including and settlement remains, clusters densely in this area, confirming its role as the core territory from the early CE onward. In the northern and central sectors of this plain, particularly in modern central and southeastern , the Iazyges established their main presence, with expansions occasionally reaching southward toward the and northward into adjacent uplands during periods of stability. Key archaeological sites, such as those yielding Sarmatian personal ornaments and tamgas, underscore the uniformity of across this zone, indicative of a cohesive tribal domain. The region's southern boundaries aligned closely with Roman along the , where interactions—often treaty-bound—shaped territorial limits without full incorporation into provincial structures. This territory, spanning approximately 100-150 kilometers east-west in its densest occupation, supported a semi-nomadic lifestyle reliant on horse herding, with evidence of seasonal camps rather than fixed urban centers. Ptolemaic coordinates and Roman itineraries, corroborated by modern excavations, delineate sub-regions like the vicinity of modern and the lower valley as focal points for elite burials and artifacts, reflecting hierarchical organization within the plain's expanse. Roman diplomatic agreements, such as those under and later emperors, formalized Iazyges control here, preserving autonomy east of the limes until pressures from migrations in the 2nd-4th centuries CE.

Expansions and Contractions of Controlled Areas

The Iazyges underwent significant territorial expansions during their westward migration from the Pontic-Caspian steppes, reaching the Dacian steppe in the Carpathian Basin around 44 BC, where they began transitioning from pure nomadism toward semi-sedentary pastoralism in modern southern Hungary. By AD 20, they consolidated control over the Pannonian Steppe between the Danube and Tisza rivers, spanning approximately 1,600 kilometers in length and comparable in area to Italy, establishing this as their core domain in present-day southern Hungary and northern Serbia. Initial attempts to settle east of the Tisza were thwarted by pressure from the Roxolani, another Sarmatian group, forcing a contraction to the narrower band west of the Tisza and east of the Danube. During the early Roman era, the Iazyges briefly expanded influence eastward through alliances, notably aiding Emperor in the Dacian Wars (AD 101–106) in hopes of securing the and regions east of the previously held by ; however, Rome's annexation of denied them permanent gains, confining them to client status without territorial concessions. Punitive Roman campaigns under (AD 92) further checked their raiding forays across the into , reinforcing the river as a western boundary. In the (AD 166–180), the Iazyges allied with the and , launching incursions deep into and even , temporarily occupying settlements east of the and demonstrating capacity for trans-Danubian expansion. Roman victories under culminated in decisive defeats in AD 173–175, including battles on the frozen ; the subsequent compelled Iazyges kings Zanticus and Banadaspus to evacuate all holdings east of the , surrender 8,000 and 100,000 women and children as hostages, pay massive indemnities, and accept prohibitions on independent or maintaining more than 13,000 fighting men—effectively contracting their operational range and demographic base while granting Rome auxiliary troops and veto power over their movements. Subsequent centuries saw further contractions amid internal divisions and external pressures: by the AD 330s, Gothic migrations boxed in their eastern flanks, limiting grazing lands; Sarmatian civil strife in AD 334 between the Argaragantes (nobles) and Limigantes (commoners) invited Roman intervention under Constantine I, resulting in mass enslavements and dispersal of populations, with Iazyges remnants absorbed into units or scattered. By the mid-4th century, Hunnic incursions accelerated their decline, eroding coherent control over the and leading to the tribe's effective dissolution as a political entity.

Society and Culture

Social Organization and Nomadic Lifestyle

The Iazyges practiced a semi-nomadic pastoralist focused on extensive of horses, cattle, and sheep, which enabled seasonal migrations across the for while maintaining mobility essential for their cavalry-based warfare. This adaptation persisted after their settlement in the region around 20 AD, blending with emerging fixed habitations, as the fertile environment supported large-scale without full . Socially, the Iazyges formed a tribal with evident , as demonstrated by archaeological finds of burials containing differentiated : elite males interred with iron weapons, horse harnesses, and occasionally Roman imports like glassware or vessels, signaling a distinguished by wealth and martial status from common herders. Lower strata likely included dependent pastoralists and captives, with funerary assemblages reflecting kinship-based clans organized under chieftains who coordinated raids and diplomacy. Governance centered on powerful leaders, often termed kings in Roman accounts, who commanded loyalty through prowess and control of herds; for instance, treaties with in the 2nd century AD involved negotiations with Iazygian rulers exercising centralized authority over dispersed groups. Ptolemy's Geography (2nd century AD) enumerates eight poleis—such as Uscenum and Bormanum—in their territory, interpreted as semi-permanent encampments or proto-towns serving administrative and functions amid the nomadic framework. This structure facilitated resilience against Roman pressures, with social cohesion reinforced by shared equestrian traditions and oral customs rather than written laws.

Burial Customs and Funerary Practices

The Iazyges, as a Sarmatian tribe, primarily practiced inhumation burials, with the deceased interred in extended positions and oriented towards the south, distinguishing their rites from later Sarmatian groups who favored northern orientations upon arriving in the Hungarian Plain around the late AD. These burials were often placed in flat graves or under low tumuli (kurgans), reflecting their nomadic heritage adapted to the Carpathian Basin's semi-sedentary . Many Iazygian graves featured circular or ditched enclosures surrounding the burial pit, a common element in their territory spanning the Pannonian Plain and adjacent regions, serving possibly ritual or territorial marking functions. In some cases, wooden coffins or funerary timber structures were employed, as evidenced by discoveries in Romania's Western Plain, indicating localized variations in construction techniques during the 1st to 3rd centuries AD. Grave goods typically included vessels, personal ornaments such as fibulae and beads, and weapons like swords or arrowheads, particularly in warrior burials that highlighted and roles, with women occasionally equipped akin to combatants. Animal sacrifices accompanied the rites, with remains of horses, rams, or other livestock deposited in or near the grave, underscoring the centrality of pastoralism and equestrian prowess in Iazygian worldview; horse burials or disarticulated equine elements symbolized mobility and afterlife provisions. Elite kurgans occasionally revealed richer assemblages, including imported Roman items, suggesting status differentiation and cultural interactions. Cremation appears rare, with inhumation dominating, though transitional influences from neighboring cultures may have introduced hybrid elements in peripheral sites.

Diet, Subsistence, and Material Culture

The Iazyges maintained a primarily centered on mobile of horses, , sheep, and goats, which provided the foundation for their nomadic lifestyle prior to and during early settlement in the Carpathian Basin. Following their arrival in the around the 1st century AD, they rapidly transitioned toward a mixed agro- system, incorporating crop cultivation alongside continued livestock rearing. Archaeological evidence from settlements indicates cultivation of , , , and millet, with archaeobotanical remains confirming these grains' role in local production, though yields were limited by and conditions. Dietary patterns reflected this subsistence base, emphasizing products such as and from herd animals, supplemented by meat from slaughtered and processed grains into porridges or breads. Isotopic analyses of skeletal remains from Iazyges burials suggest a protein-rich intake dominated by sources, with minimal reliance on or despite proximity to rivers like the and . Seasonal likely optimized , with and soils supporting crops and early agricultural plots. Material culture artifacts, recovered from settlements and graves, highlight adaptations to semi-sedentary life, including hand-built forms like characteristic barrel-shaped vessels, which served for storage, cooking, or of or products. These ceramics, often coarse and undecorated, evolved from traditions but incorporated local clays and firing techniques suited to the Hungarian Plain. Tools such as awls, iron sickles for harvesting, and quern stones for grinding grains underscore the integration of farming implements, while wooden structures and hide tents persisted for mobility. Roman introduced glassware and metal utensils in contexts, but indigenous and implements dominated everyday use.

Religious Practices and Beliefs

The religious practices of the Iazyges, a Sarmatian tribe of eastern Iranian nomadic origin, aligned with pre-Zoroastrian clan-tribal cults typical of steppe pastoralists, emphasizing personified deities tied to natural forces and societal functions. These included a sky god, fire god, earth god, war god, and hearth god, reflecting a polytheistic worldview where divine entities embodied cosmic and martial elements central to nomadic life. Direct textual accounts of Iazyges-specific rituals are absent, but comparative evidence from broader Sarmatian contexts suggests veneration through offerings and symbolic acts, with scant ethnographic detail preserved in Greco-Roman sources. Archaeological findings from Iazyges burials in the Carpathian Basin, often flat graves rather than tumuli, reveal funerary customs indicative of afterlife beliefs, including grave goods such as weapons, jewelry, and pottery deposited with the deceased to equip them for posthumous existence. Traces of charcoal and ashes in these interments point to fire cult practices, possibly involving ritual burning or purification ceremonies akin to those in eastern Sarmatian sites. The prevalence of martial artifacts underscores a warrior ethos intertwined with religious veneration, where arms symbolized status and divine favor in both life and death. Special rituals concerning body treatment, such as selective cranial deformation observed in some Sarmatian groups including western variants like the Iazyges, may have held symbolic or cultic significance, potentially denoting elite status or , though interpretations remain speculative without corroborating texts. Overall, Iazyges beliefs prioritized continuity between the earthly and otherworldly realms, with nomadic mobility and equestrian prowess likely informing devotional expressions, evidenced indirectly through rather than monumental temples or inscriptions.

Economy

Pastoral Economy and Herding Practices

The Iazyges sustained a economy reliant on mobile of , which underpinned their semi-nomadic existence in the between the and rivers from the 1st to 4th centuries CE. formed the dominant component of herds, providing , , hides, and draft power, while sheep and supplied , , and additional ; , essential for transport and warfare, were selectively bred and managed alongside these. Faunal remains from Iazyges-associated settlements, such as Gyoma 133 (dated 150–250 CE), reveal over 9,695 identifiable bone fragments, with representing 47% of the assemblage by fragment count and up to 60.5% by estimated live weight or minimum number of individuals, followed by sheep/ at 20–45.5% and at approximately 19%. Pigs appeared in lower proportions (10–20%), indicating supplementary rather than primary focus.
Livestock TypePercentage in Faunal Assemblage (Gyoma 133)Primary Uses
47–60.5%, , hides, draft
Sheep/Goats20–45.5%, dairy,
~19%, warfare,
Pigs10–20% (supplementary)
Herding practices emphasized seasonal , with groups exploiting grasslands for summer and potentially riverine or forested edges for winter shelter, managed by mounted riders to control large flocks amid limited fixed settlements. Semi-subterranean houses and storage pits at sites like Gyoma 133 suggest localized stabling or reserves, blending nomadic mobility with adaptive influenced by proximity to Roman . Roman accounts, such as those by and Fronto, depict —including the Iazyges—as living directly from herds without permanent villages, using oxen for across frozen rivers during migrations. Excessive likely contributed to environmental strain on the plain's . Livestock trade augmented subsistence, with surplus cattle and young stock exchanged at Roman military markets along the Danube limes, granting provincial authorities leverage over Iazyges autonomy—evident in post-Marcomannic War treaties (circa 180 CE) regulating such exchanges. This commerce, alongside plunder as described in Lucian's Toxaris, integrated pastoral output into broader networks, though faunal profiles showing selective slaughter ages (e.g., fewer mature cattle) support export-oriented husbandry over purely local consumption. While some Iazyges engaged in limited agriculture per Strabo's observations of partial sedentism among nomads, pastoralism remained the economic core, evidenced by the absence of intensive crop remains relative to animal bones in archaeological contexts.

Trade Networks and Roman Imports

The Iazyges engaged in trade networks centered on the frontier, facilitating exchanges with Roman provinces such as and . Pastoral products like , hides, and formed key exports, leveraging their nomadic to supply Roman demands for mounts and raw materials. In return, Roman imports included luxury and utilitarian goods, with archaeological evidence from burials across the Hungarian Plain and adjacent regions documenting the influx of these items from the 1st to 3rd centuries CE. Prominent among imports was terra sigillata pottery, a red-slipped wheel-made ware produced in Roman centers and distributed widely beyond imperial borders, appearing frequently in Iazyges elite graves as status markers. Specific production adapted for barbarian trade, including variants from workshops in Gaul and the Rhineland, reached Sarmatian territories via riverine routes and frontier markets. Glass vessels, bronze tableware, and amphorae for wine transport also feature in funerary assemblages, indicating sustained demand for Mediterranean-style commodities that supplemented local handmade ceramics. Trade volume remained modest compared to Germanic frontiers but grew post-conflict through treaties regulating access to Roman emporia. During the (166–180 CE), imposed embargoes on Iazyges commerce, yet peace settlements in 175 CE restored limited exchanges, including permissions for cross-Danubian dealings with eastern Sarmatian groups like the . This dynamic reflects 's strategic use of trade to stabilize client relations, with imports reinforcing elite hierarchies among the Iazyges while exposing them to imperial .

Military Organization

Cavalry Tactics and Warfare Style

The Iazyges warfare style centered on mounted forces, leveraging their equestrian expertise for rapid maneuvers and decisive engagements typical of Sarmatian nomadic traditions. Their tactics emphasized charges, where armored riders and horses—often configured as cataphracts—delivered devastating impacts against lines, prioritizing breakthrough over prolonged skirmishing. This approach contrasted with the horse-archery feints of earlier , favoring direct lance assaults to exploit the kinetic force of massed horsemen. In conflicts with Rome, particularly during the (166–180 AD), the Iazyges exploited their mobility for cross- raids into and Italia, striking vulnerable settlements before withdrawing to the plains where Roman legions struggled to pursue. Pitched battles showcased flanking tactics; for example, circa 173 AD on the frozen , Iazyges forces under King Tarbus divided into a central column and two wings to envelop Roman squares, with trained to traverse confidently to close distances rapidly. Such formations aimed to disrupt cohesion through simultaneous assaults, though Roman testudo and disciplined volleys often countered the initial momentum. The ferocity of Iazyges charges could shatter less steady foes, as their heavy horsemen burst through lines with slashing swords and lances, but vulnerabilities emerged against entrenched positions or when mobility faltered, as in subsequent guerrilla phases where Roman adaptations—fortified camps and pursuit detachments—eroded their raiding efficacy. By 175 AD, terms compelled the Iazyges to furnish 8,000 auxiliaries to , reflecting tactical integration rather than outright conquest, with 5,500 dispatched to Britain. This auxiliary role later disseminated Sarmatian doctrines, influencing Roman and emphasizing the tribe's enduring impact on heavy mounted warfare.

Armament, Armor, and Horse Gear

The Iazyges, like other Sarmatian tribes, primarily relied on cavalry armament suited to nomadic warfare, including composite bows for ranged combat, javelins, and the long two-handed lance (contus) for charges, with archaeological evidence from related Sarmatian sites indicating arrowheads, spear points, daggers, quivers, and occasional swords in male burials. Weapons were present in approximately 86% of warrior graves across Sarmatian contexts from the 2nd to 4th centuries AD, underscoring their ubiquity compared to protective gear. Armor usage among Iazyges warriors was limited, with only about 5% of burials from the 2nd–4th centuries AD yielding defensive equipment such as scale or lamellar types made from iron plates, , or other materials, reflecting a tactical emphasis on mobility over heavy protection in earlier periods. By the mid-4th century AD, however, Iazyges horsemen increasingly adopted armor, including scale constructions, as noted in later archaeological assessments. Shields, possibly or influenced by neighboring designs, appear in 2nd-century contexts but were not predominant. Horse gear for Iazyges included harness elements like bits and decorative fittings, frequently recovered from burials alongside weaponry, indicating the centrality of mounted warfare; full horse armor such as scale is hypothesized from narrative sources for but lacks direct Iazyges attestation in graves. These finds, often comprising silver or ornaments, highlight both functional and status-oriented aspects of equestrian equipment in Iazyges society.

Recruitment and Auxiliary Service

The Iazyges primarily contributed to Roman auxiliary forces through compulsory levies imposed via peace treaties following defeats, rather than voluntary individual typical of provincial peregrini. These contingents consisted of warriors drawn from tribal and warriors, leveraging the Iazyges' nomadic equestrian expertise in exchange for client status and subsidies. Such arrangements aligned with Rome's practice of utilizing frontier nomads as , where entire groups supplied cohesive units under their own leaders, preserving internal cohesion while serving imperial needs. A pivotal instance occurred in 175 AD, after Emperor subdued the Iazyges during the ; the treaty mandated the provision of 8,000 cavalrymen as auxiliaries, with severe penalties for non-compliance, including further territorial concessions. Approximately 5,500 of these horsemen were immediately transferred to Britain under provincial governor Virius Lupus to reinforce defenses against northern unrest, where they were likely organized into numeri or irregular ala-style formations stationed at sites like Bremetennacum (Ribchester) and Galava (). These troops, equipped with scale armor, long lances (contus), and composite bows, supplemented forces by providing shock capabilities absent in core Roman units. Service terms for Iazygian auxiliaries mirrored standard auxiliary durations of 25 years, granting () and land grants upon honorable discharge, though high casualty rates in frontier campaigns often shortened effective tenure. Tribal levies ensured cultural continuity, with units retaining Sarmatian tactics like massed charges, influencing later Roman . Post-175 AD deployments included ongoing patrols and eastern fronts, with Iazygian nobles occasionally integrated into regular alae for leadership roles. By the AD, after further defeats under Constantine I around 323-334 AD, surviving Iazygian elites were absorbed into imperial cavalry , marking a shift from tribal contingents to dispersed professional service.

History

Early Interactions Pre-Dacian Wars

The Iazyges, an eastern branch of the Sarmatian nomads originating from the Pontic steppes, migrated westward across the Carpathians into the —between the and rivers—sometime in the late or early AD. Archaeological evidence, including early graves with characteristic Sarmatian artifacts like arrowheads and horse gear, supports this timeline, though debates persist on the exact onset due to sparse pre-settlement finds. Roman authorities in neighboring and appear to have tolerated or even facilitated this influx, viewing the Iazyges as a potential to Dacian expansion westward under kings like and . , writing in the mid-1st century AD, described the Iazyges Sarmatae as having displaced from mountainous regions into the plains along the Pathissus () River, reflecting Roman awareness of their disruptive role in the Transdanubian balance. This positioning established the Iazyges as an informal buffer, reducing direct Dacian pressure on the limes without requiring immediate Roman conquest or fortification of the plain. By the early to mid-1st century , under emperors like and , the Iazyges maintained a loose client-like arrangement with , involving nominal tribute and restraint from raiding provincial territories, though specifics remain undocumented in surviving sources. Interactions were primarily diplomatic and economic, with Iazygian pastoralists trading hides, slaves, and for Roman goods like metalwork, as evidenced by imported fibulae and vessels in early settlements. No major Roman campaigns targeted them prior to the 80s , suggesting a policy of containment rather than confrontation, leveraging their presence to monitor Dacian movements. Tensions escalated in the late under (r. 81–96 AD), as the Iazyges allied with Suebic groups like the against Roman-supported , prompting retaliatory strikes by Roman legions that humbled the tribe without full subjugation. These skirmishes, tied to broader Dacian frontier instability following 's 85–89 AD wars, tested the buffer dynamic but preserved Iazygian autonomy east of the , setting the stage for their selective alignment with Rome in Trajan's campaigns.

Role in the Dacian Wars

The Iazyges, a nomadic Sarmatian tribe settled in the east of the , allied with during Emperor Trajan's campaigns against the Dacian kingdom under King , spanning the First Dacian War (101–102 AD) and Second Dacian War (105–106 AD). This alliance stemmed from prior Dacian expansion into Iazyges territory, notably the seizure of around 85–86 AD during Decebalus's consolidation of power, which displaced Iazyges settlements and created a mutual enmity with . By siding with , the Iazyges sought to reclaim these lands and acted as a strategic buffer, preventing Dacian reinforcements from the east while Roman legions focused on the Carpathian crossings. Iazyges forces, renowned for their equipped with lances, scale armor, and composite bows, contributed contingents that supported Roman in flanking maneuvers and reconnaissance along the frontier. Ancient historian notes their opportunistic alignment, as leveraged Iazyges dissatisfaction to isolate diplomatically; in 102 AD, following the first war's , Decebalus's envoys protested Roman favoritism toward the Iazyges, highlighting the tribe's active role in pressuring Dacian borders. This contrasted with the hostile stance of neighboring Sarmatian , whom Rome subdued separately in 106 AD to secure the eastern flanks. The Iazyges' involvement expedited Roman logistics, with their knowledge of the Pannonian plains aiding supply lines from bases like (modern ). Post-victory in 106 AD, rewarded the Iazyges by restoring portions of and establishing a client kingdom in the and regions under their nominal control, though Roman garrisons ensured oversight; this arrangement stabilized the province of but sowed seeds for later Iazyges grievances when withheld fuller territorial concessions despite their wartime service. Archaeological evidence from Iazyges sites near the River, including Roman-style imports dated to circa 100–110 AD, corroborates heightened interactions and probable tribute exchanges during the wars.

Conflicts in the Marcomannic Wars

The Iazyges joined the as key allies of the Germanic and , initiating cross-Danube incursions into Roman and neighboring provinces from approximately 166 AD onward, exacerbating the frontier crisis triggered by eastern distractions. Their nomadic cavalry exploited mobility to raid deeply, contributing to the coalition's pressure on Roman defenses amid the Parthian War's aftermath. In 169 AD, Iazyges warriors participated in assaults that defeated and killed the of Lower , Marcus Claudius Fronto, underscoring their role in disrupting Danube legions. , arriving in the theater by late 168 AD, prioritized Germanic foes initially but shifted focus to the Iazyges after subduing the , launching the expeditio Sarmatica targeting their River strongholds between 172 and 175 AD. Repeated envoys from Iazyges sought peace, but records Marcus' distrust of their perfidious nature, leading to prolonged engagements marked by harsh winter pursuits and ambushes. A pivotal clash unfolded in 173 AD when Iazyges forces, attempting retreat across the frozen , faced Roman pursuit; legionaries overtook and shattered them on the ice, leveraging disciplined formations against Sarmatian . This victory, commemorated in Roman medallions, crippled Iazyges cohesion, with Marcus exploiting their alliance fractures—such as king Ariogaesus' incitement of further Iazyges resistance, prompting a Roman bounty of 1,000 aurei for his capture. By 175 AD, cumulative defeats compelled Iazyges submission under king Zanticus, who returned a large number of Roman captives and pledged cavalry auxiliaries, though conflicts lingered until ' accession in 180 AD imposed final terms restricting their Dacian crossings. These wars inflicted severe losses on the Iazyges, estimated in ancient accounts as tens of thousands slain or enslaved, reshaping their semi-independent status along the limes.

Post-War Subjugation and Client Status

Following decisive Roman victories in the , Emperor imposed a on the Iazyges in 175 AD, marking their subjugation and transition to client status. The terms, as recorded in historical accounts, required the Iazyges to release 100,000 Roman prisoners of war, surrender 8,000 cavalrymen for auxiliary service in the , and provide 100 noble hostages as guarantees of compliance. These stipulations severely curtailed Iazygian autonomy, prohibiting them from entering into alliances with other barbarian groups or crossing the without Roman permission, while allowing limited supervised crossings into for trade or migration. As clients, or , the Iazyges were obligated to supply troops and maintain border security, contributing to the fortification of the Limes Sarmatiae along their eastern frontiers to deter incursions from other Sarmatian tribes like the . Marcus Aurelius assumed the victory title to commemorate the subjugation, reflecting Rome's strategic preference for a buffered client kingdom over direct annexation, which preserved Iazygian societal structures under Roman oversight. This arrangement ensured a steady flow of nomadic expertise to Roman forces, with Iazygian units deployed across the empire, including potentially to Britain, bolstering imperial defenses without the administrative burdens of provincialization. The client relationship, however, proved tenuous, as Iazygian factions periodically violated treaty terms through raids into Roman , prompting renewed military responses that reinforced subjugation without altering the formal status. Archaeological evidence from fortified sites and auxiliary inscriptions corroborates the integration of Iazygian horsemen into Roman service, underscoring the pragmatic forged in the treaty's aftermath.

Final Decline Under Later Roman Emperors

Following the , the Iazyges maintained a precarious client status under Roman oversight, but recurrent raids during the Crisis of the Third Century eroded their autonomy. In 236 AD, Iazyges forces invaded Roman , only to suffer defeat at the hands of Emperor , who captured significant numbers of prisoners and imposed tribute. This setback temporarily curbed their aggression, though internal Roman instability allowed periodic resurgence. By the late 3rd century, renewed incursions prompted harsher Roman responses. In 282 AD, Carus campaigned against the Iazyges, securing a decisive victory that further weakened their military capacity and led to increased recruitment as Roman auxiliaries. The tribe's alliance with the Carpi in raiding in 293 AD triggered Diocletian's ; his forces triumphed in campaigns from 294 to 295 AD, resulting in mass deportations and resettlement of Iazyges groups within imperial provinces to dilute their cohesion. Diocletian's reforms, including fortified limes along the , systematically constrained Sarmatian mobility in the region. The early marked the Iazyges' effective political dissolution under Constantine I. Amid civil wars and frontier threats, Sarmatian remnants—including Iazyges elements—raided in the 320s AD, prompting Constantine's interventions around 322–324 AD; these culminated in the subjugation of their leadership, absorption of nobles into units, and widespread settlement as coloni (tenant farmers) across the and beyond. This forced integration, combined with external pressures from Gothic migrations, extinguished the Iazyges as an independent entity, transitioning them into Roman provincial society by mid-century.

Foreign Relations

Alliances and Conflicts with Rome

Following their settlement in the region between the and rivers around 20 BC, the Iazyges established a client relationship with , functioning as a buffer against Dacian expansion eastward of the of . This arrangement positioned them as nominal allies, with Roman diplomatic efforts encouraging their relocation to create a strategic zone separating imperial territories from Dacian threats. During (101–102 and 105–106 AD), the Iazyges provided military support to Rome, motivated by aspirations to reclaim the region previously seized by Dacian king . Their alignment contrasted with the hostile , aiding Roman conquest efforts despite not securing territorial gains post-victory. Tensions escalated after Dacia's annexation, as the Iazyges invaded in 117 AD, prompting retaliatory campaigns that culminated in a under delineating their frontier along the . The (166–180 AD) marked a shift to open conflict, with the Iazyges allying alongside the and in invasions of Roman provinces, including raids reaching as far as . Roman forces under inflicted decisive defeats, forcing Iazygian surrender in 175 AD and imposing stringent peace terms: the release of 100,000 Roman captives and the conscription of 8,000 , 5,500 of whom were dispatched to distant frontiers like Britain. Commodus's subsequent treaty in 180 AD permitted limited cross-Danube trade with the , reflecting pragmatic Roman efforts to stabilize the border amid ongoing vulnerabilities. Recurrent hostilities persisted into the , as the Iazyges violated agreements during civil wars, leading to further subjugation under emperors like , though diplomatic incentives like subsidies intermittently secured nominal loyalty. These cycles of alliance and antagonism underscored the Iazyges' strategic value as a power, with alternating coercion and accommodation to mitigate nomadic incursions without full .

Interactions with Roxolani and Other Sarmatians

The Iazyges encountered territorial pressures from the Roxolani during the late 1st century BC, as Roxolani expansions into eastern Sarmatian territories likely displaced Iazyges populations, prompting their migration westward across the Carpathians into the Great Hungarian Plain by approximately 20 BC. This displacement reflected broader nomadic dynamics among Sarmatian tribes, where stronger groups like the Roxolani, noted for their numerical superiority, absorbed or pushed out weaker neighbors. During (101–106 AD), the Iazyges provided auxiliary cavalry to Roman forces, aligning against Dacian King , while the fought alongside the , resulting in Roman defeats of contingents numbering up to 40,000 warriors near the . This opposition positioned the tribes indirectly against each other within the Roman-Dacian conflict, highlighting divergent strategic choices amid Roman expansion. By the 2nd century AD, with Iazyges settled west of and Roxolani east of the River, direct military clashes diminished, though both tribes periodically raided Roman provinces independently. In the (166–180 AD), both joined Germanic coalitions against , suggesting temporary alignments against common foes rather than inter-tribal hostilities. The 175 AD peace treaty following Roman victory over the Iazyges explicitly permitted economic exchanges with the , indicating prior imperial restrictions on such interactions to avert Sarmatian unification threats. Interactions with other , including eastern groups like the , remained sparse in records, as the Iazyges' western position isolated them from steppe-wide confederations. Shared Iranian linguistic roots and nomadic traditions fostered cultural parallels, but tribal autonomy prevailed.

Relations with Quadi and Germanic Groups

The Iazyges, occupying the east of the , shared a with the , a Suebian Germanic tribe based in and along the northern bank, leading to frequent interactions marked by territorial disputes, raiding, and opportunistic alliances against common foes like . Early evidence of cooperation dates to circa AD 50, when the Iazyges provided military support to Vannius, the Roman client king of the , aiding him against internal rivals and potentially facilitating efforts to revive a broader Suebian confederation that included Marcomannic elements; Roman intervention ultimately deposed Vannius to curb this threat. By the late 1st century AD, relations shifted toward joint aggression against Roman interests. In AD 89, campaigned against the Iazyges in coordination with operations against the and , suggesting a temporary coalition among these groups that strained Roman defenses along the . This pattern escalated around AD 92, when Iazyges cavalry, allied with and Marcomannic forces, invaded Roman Pannonia and contributed to the annihilation of near Lugio, demonstrating effective coordination in cross-river incursions despite their ethnic and cultural differences. During the (AD 166–180), the reinforced Iazyges raids into Roman territory, notably joining an Iazyges-led incursion deep into at the close of AD 173, which prompted a decisive Roman response on the frozen that crushed the combined force. records that the not only fought alongside the Iazyges during these campaigns but had done so in prior engagements, highlighting a pragmatic driven by shared opposition to Roman expansion rather than enduring solidarity. Post-war dynamics revealed underlying rivalries, as Roman successes fragmented the coalition. After subduing the Iazyges in AD 175, faced persistent resistance, and by AD 179, Iazyges envoys urged the emperor to prosecute the war against the to prevent their own encirclement by unsubdued Germanic neighbors north of the . The subsequent treaty under in AD 183 explicitly barred the and from hostilities against the Iazyges, Buri, or , underscoring Rome's role in enforcing a fragile amid lingering border frictions.

Leadership and Rulers

Known Princes and Kings

Banadaspus served as king of the Iazyges until 174 AD, during the height of the , when he led tribal forces across the frozen Danube River in an invasion of Roman Pannonia. Attempting to negotiate peace terms with Emperor to end the conflict, Banadaspus was rejected by the Romans and subsequently deposed—and imprisoned—by factions within the Iazyges who favored continued warfare. Zanticus, described as a more bellicose leader representing the "war party" among the Iazyges, overthrew Banadaspus in 174 AD and assumed kingship. Under his rule, the Iazyges faced decisive Roman defeats, culminating in surrender to in 175 AD; Zanticus personally submitted as a suppliant, agreeing to return 100,000 Roman prisoners and supply 8,000 to the , with 5,500 of these later stationed in Britain. No earlier Iazyges rulers are named in surviving Roman historical accounts, such as those of , despite the tribe's documented alliances and conflicts with from the AD onward; Banadaspus is explicitly termed the "second king" in these sources, implying an unnamed predecessor but providing no further details. Post-175 AD leadership remains unattested, as the Iazyges transitioned to client status under Roman oversight, with internal dynamics likely shifting toward oligarchic or elective rule rather than .

Dynamics of Rule and Succession

The Iazyges were governed by a monarchical system typical of Sarmatian nomadic and semi-nomadic societies, with kings (known as reges in Roman sources) leading tribal confederations through prowess and with external powers. centered on a who commanded forces and directed raids or alliances, supported by subordinate chieftains who selected warriors for hire or battle. This structure emphasized martial authority, as Sarmatian chiefs were renowned for mobilizing , with decisions often collective among nobles rather than strictly autocratic. Succession lacked formalized hereditary rules in surviving records, appearing instead to rely on acclamation by tribal assemblies or kin groups, vulnerable to deposition amid military setbacks or unpopular policies. For instance, during the , King Banadaspus, who had led raids across the frozen circa 173 CE, was overthrown by his own people for attempting to negotiate peace with , reflecting the primacy of warlike consensus in retaining power. He was promptly replaced by Zanticus, who in 175 CE submitted to Emperor , surrendering 100,000 prisoners and providing 8,000 cavalry auxiliaries, thereby stabilizing Iazyges rule under Roman oversight. Similarly, Ariogaesus, an earlier Iazyges king allied with the against around 172 CE, was captured and exiled, underscoring how defeat could end a reign without evident familial continuity. Roman subjugation after 175 CE introduced external dynamics, transforming Iazyges kingship into a clientage model where emperors influenced or appointed rulers to maintain border stability. In 334 CE, installed Zizais as king over displaced Iazyges subgroups (Argaragantes), bypassing internal processes to enforce loyalty and suppress revolts. This pattern of imperial intervention eroded autonomous succession, as defeated kings like Furtius (expelled in favor of rivals) highlight tribal volatility compounded by Roman non-recognition of unapproved leaders. Overall, Iazyges rule balanced internal tribal endorsement with external pressures, prioritizing leaders who sustained raiding economies and alliances until assimilation diminished independent kingship by the .

Legacy and Influence

Assimilation and Dispersal

Following the defeat of the Iazyges in the , their king Zanticus concluded a with in 175 AD, under which the tribe supplied 8,000 to Roman forces, with approximately 5,500 of these troops dispatched to Britain and other frontier provinces. This compulsory military service dispersed Iazyges warriors across the empire, exposing them to Roman military discipline, Latin language, and urban settlements, which accelerated through intermarriage, adoption of Roman equipment, and integration into like the ala Sarmatarum. In the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, ongoing raids prompted Emperor to campaign against the Iazyges and resettle significant portions of their population within Roman territories south of the , particularly in and along the empire's borders. His successor, Constantine I, further incorporated Sarmatian (including Iazyges) groups as during campaigns against remaining steppe elements north of the around 323–334 AD, stationing them as border defenders and cavalry reinforcements, which deepened their entanglement in Roman administrative and economic systems. Archaeological evidence from Iazyges settlements in the reveals a shift from to semi-sedentary lifestyles by the , with increased adoption of Roman pottery, coinage, and fortified vici (villages), indicating economic integration via and . Genetic analyses of 1st- to 5th-century burials in the Carpathian Basin confirm steppe-derived ancestry admixed with local Celtic and Romanized populations, supporting gradual demographic assimilation rather than mass replacement. The Hunnic invasions commencing around 370 AD overwhelmed the diminished Iazyges remnants in the Pontic-Caspian region and , leading to their subjugation, incorporation into Hunnic confederations under , or flight westward with Gothic and Alan groups. By the 5th century, as Roman control over collapsed amid barbarian migrations, distinct Iazyges identity dissolved through absorption into successor Slavic, Avar, and Magyar populations, with lingering influences traceable in regional toponyms and equestrian traditions but no evidence of independent political continuity.

Impact on Roman Military and Successor Cultures

The Iazyges exerted a notable influence on the Roman military through their enforced provision of auxiliary following defeats in the (166–180 AD). Under the terms of the 175 AD peace treaty imposed by Emperor , the Iazyges supplied 8,000 troopers to Roman service, of whom 5,500 were stationed in Britain to reinforce defenses amid ongoing shortages in equine units. These contingents, drawn from a nomadic warrior tradition emphasizing mobility and shock tactics, operated as alae ( wings) integrated into legions, enhancing Rome's capacity for rapid strikes and pursuit in diverse theaters from the limes to northern provinces. Sarmatian Iazyges cavalry, clad in scale armor (lorica squamata) and armed with the long kontos lance for charging in formation, directly shaped late Roman heavy cavalry doctrines, foreshadowing the evolution of cataphractarii and clibanarii—fully armored horsemen that became staples by the 3rd century AD. Their tactical emphasis on massed lance charges and possibly early stirrup-like aids (though debated) addressed Roman vulnerabilities against steppe nomads, with Iazyges units participating in campaigns as far as Persia under later emperors like Galerius in 297 AD. Veterans received diploma grants of land, fostering settlements that embedded Sarmatian equestrian expertise into provincial garrisons, particularly along the Pannonia-Dacia frontier where the Limes Sarmatiae fortifications relied on such hybrid forces for containment. In post-Roman successor cultures, Iazyges military legacies persisted through dispersed auxiliaries and assimilated remnants. In Britain, where 20,000–25,000 Iazyges kin likely accompanied the 5,500 warriors in the 2nd century AD, archaeological and epigraphic evidence reveals cultural continuity—such as dragon motifs on standards and matrilineal customs—extending into the 5th century AD amid provincial fragmentation. This endurance suggests indirect transmission to sub-Roman warbands, potentially informing early medieval cavalry traditions in Celtic and Anglo-Saxon contexts. On the Continent, Iazyges elements integrated into the late Empire's comitatenses (field armies), with nobles absorbed into cavalry regimenta post-282 AD defeats under Emperor Carus; their techniques influenced Byzantine kataphraktoi and, via veteran colonies in Pannonia, contributed to the hybrid warrior ethos of invading Gepids and Lombards by the 6th century AD. However, direct archaeological traces in Pannonia remain sparse, limited to occasional steppe-style grave goods amid broader Romanization and subsequent migrations.

Modern Archaeological Insights

Recent genetic analyses of 156 individuals from 1st- to 5th-century burials in and the Carpathian Basin foothills have illuminated the Iazyges' origins and population dynamics, revealing predominant Eastern steppe ancestry consistent with Iranian nomadic groups, alongside admixture from local Celtic and later Germanic populations. These studies identify multiple migration waves into the Pannonian Plain, with early Iazyges arrivals around the CE showing closer affinities to Volga-Don , supporting historical accounts of their westward expansion. Archaeological surveys and excavations in the southwestern limes of and the have documented over 100 Iazyges-associated grave sites east of the River, featuring mounds, horse sacrifices, and warrior burials with iron swords, scale armor, and imported Roman goods indicative of interactions. Recent digs at sites like in have refined chronologies through and artifact seriation, placing initial settlements in the mid-1st century CE and revealing a shift from nomadic to semi-sedentary lifestyles by the , evidenced by timber-framed coffins and domestic . Analysis of artifacts such as tamga-marked golden plaques from Dunaharaszti graves and metal pyxides from the Hungarian Plain underscores elite status symbols and limited tribal use of nomadic , while beakers with applied decoration from highlight networks extending to the . Comprehensive syntheses, including Istvánovits and Kulcsár's archaeological overview, integrate these findings to depict Iazyges as hierarchically structured with pronounced roles in burials—females often equipped with mirrors and jewelry, males with weaponry—challenging earlier assumptions of uniform nomadism.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.