Earlg to late Gothic, Vandal and Alani warfare...

[Heathen Storm]

In my quest for knowledge (lol ) and information for a mod I want to create, I was wondering if anyone has any reliable resources, ideas or suggestions on Gothic, Vandal or Alan warfare and how to expand upon/overhaul the current rosters of these factions. From what I have gathered late Visigoths had an excellent use of light cavalry in Spain, and their nobles fought in a fashion much like the late Roman bucellarii. Please discuss

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

If you're looking for sources on Barbarian Warfare, then Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West is your best bet for Germanic warfare. You could also try Twilight of the Goths, but the later Kingdom of Toledo isn't very relevant to the 5th century Vesigetae, albeit it may still prove useful.

As for Alan... frankly I don't know of that much available on the Alans. You can always look at primary sources (Strategikon, the Ektaxis kat Alanon, Tacitus, Ammianus, etc.) which is what I've been doing, but its very difficult to reconstruct Sarmatian and Alan warfare.

[Heathen Storm]

If you're looking for sources on Barbarian Warfare, then Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West is your best bet for Germanic warfare. You could also try Twilight of the Goths, but the later Kingdom of Toledo isn't very relevant to the 5th century Vesigetae, albeit it may still prove useful.

As for Alan... frankly I don't know of that much available on the Alans. You can always look at primary sources (Strategikon, the Ektaxis kat Alanon, Tacitus, Ammianus, etc.) which is what I've been doing, but its very difficult to reconstruct Sarmatian and Alan warfare.

Ahh Magister you always deliver! Thanks for the sources, with any luck I'll find something of use anyone else have anything?

[Charerg]

Tacitus writes the following concerning the Goths, related peoples and the Vandals (the Vandals are thought to be either synonymous with or part of the Lugii):

"All these people inhabit but a small proportion of champaign country; their settlements are chiefly amongst forests, and on the sides and summits of mountains; for a continued ridge of mountains separates Suevia from various remoter tribes. Of these, the Lygian is the most extensive, and diffuses its name through several communities. It will be sufficient to name the most powerful of them—the Arii, Helvecones, Manimi, Elysii, and Naharvali. In the country of the latter is a grove, consecrated to religious rites of great antiquity. A priest presides over them, dressed in woman's apparel; but the gods worshipped there are said, according to the Roman interpretation, to be Castor and Pollux. Their attributes are the same; their name, Alcis. No images, indeed, or vestiges of foreign superstition, appear in their worship; but they are revered under the character of young men and brothers. The Arii, fierce beyond the superiority of strength they possess over the other just enumerated people, improve their natural ferocity of aspect by artificial helps. Their shields are black; their bodies painted: they choose the darkest nights for an attack; and strike terror by the funereal gloom of their sable bands—no enemy being able to sustain their singular, and, as it were, infernal appearance; since in every combat the eyes are the first part subdued. Beyond the Lygii are the Gothones, who live under a monarchy, somewhat more strict than that of the other German nations, yet not to a degree incompatible with liberty. Adjoining to these are the Rugii and Lemovii, situated on the sea-coast—all these tribes are distinguished by round shields, short swords, and submission to regal authority."
(From)

Some possible connections between the Vandals and the Lugii:

1) The word "Vandal" is thought to relate to the Germanic verb "wand" meaning to "wander".

2) The etymology may be connected to worship of "Alcis" as Tacitus calls the deity he identifies as similar to Castor and Pollux. The "Divine twins" were/are the two brightest stars in the constellation of the Gemini. The Germanic deity may have been called "Auriwandalo" (Lombardic, meaning "shining wanderer"), a name likewise linked to a star.

3) The Lugii and the Vandili are decribed as living in the same region (modern Silesia), but are never mentioned simultaneously. Tacitus mentions the name "Vandali" in the following context:

"To Mannus they ascribe three sons, from whose names the people bordering on the ocean are called Ingaevones; those inhabiting the central parts, Herminones; the rest, Istaevones. Some, however, assuming the licence of antiquity, affirm that there were more descendants of the god, from whom more appellations were derived; as those of the Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, and Vandali; and that these are the genuine and original names."

The sons of Mannus are the legendary ancestors of the Germanic peoples. Here it is worth noting that Tacitus clearly identifies most of the above names as super-tribal groups comprising numerous tribes.

4) Wikipedia offers the following quote:

According to John Anderson, the "Lugii and Vandili are designations of the same tribal group, the latter an extended ethnic name, the former probably a cult-title."

I think Anderson was very likely correct that the Lugii and the Vandali are basically synonymous. However, it is possible that the word "Vandali" may be the cult-based title, if you accept the argument that the etymology of the name is connected to religious practices. Of course, it is also possible to identify the name as an extended ethnic name, similar to terms such as "the Ingaevones", as Anderson seems to have done.

The above probably isn't very useful if you're attempting to depict Germanic warfare in the 5th century (Tacitus wrote around 100 AD), but may be helpful in understanding the history of these tribes, being some of the oldest mentions of them.

[Heathen Storm]

Tacitus writes the following concerning the Goths, related peoples and the Vandals (the Vandals are thought to be either synonymous with or part of the Lugii):

"All these people inhabit but a small proportion of champaign country; their settlements are chiefly amongst forests, and on the sides and summits of mountains; for a continued ridge of mountains separates Suevia from various remoter tribes. Of these, the Lygian is the most extensive, and diffuses its name through several communities. It will be sufficient to name the most powerful of them—the Arii, Helvecones, Manimi, Elysii, and Naharvali. In the country of the latter is a grove, consecrated to religious rites of great antiquity. A priest presides over them, dressed in woman's apparel; but the gods worshipped there are said, according to the Roman interpretation, to be Castor and Pollux. Their attributes are the same; their name, Alcis. No images, indeed, or vestiges of foreign superstition, appear in their worship; but they are revered under the character of young men and brothers. The Arii, fierce beyond the superiority of strength they possess over the other just enumerated people, improve their natural ferocity of aspect by artificial helps. Their shields are black; their bodies painted: they choose the darkest nights for an attack; and strike terror by the funereal gloom of their sable bands—no enemy being able to sustain their singular, and, as it were, infernal appearance; since in every combat the eyes are the first part subdued. Beyond the Lygii are the Gothones, who live under a monarchy, somewhat more strict than that of the other German nations, yet not to a degree incompatible with liberty. Adjoining to these are the Rugii and Lemovii, situated on the sea-coast—all these tribes are distinguished by round shields, short swords, and submission to regal authority."
(From)

Some possible connections between the Vandals and the Lugii:

1) The word "Vandal" is thought to relate to the Germanic verb "wand" meaning to "wander".

2) The etymology may be connected to worship of "Alcis" as Tacitus calls the deity he identifies as similar to Castor and Pollux. The "Divine twins" were/are the two brightest stars in the constellation of the Gemini. The Germanic deity may have been called "Auriwandalo" (Lombardic, meaning "shining wanderer"), a name likewise linked to a star.

3) The Lugii and the Vandili are decribed as living in the same region (modern Silesia), but are never mentioned simultaneously. Tacitus mentions the name "Vandali" in the following context:

"To Mannus they ascribe three sons, from whose names the people bordering on the ocean are called Ingaevones; those inhabiting the central parts, Herminones; the rest, Istaevones. Some, however, assuming the licence of antiquity, affirm that there were more descendants of the god, from whom more appellations were derived; as those of the Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, and Vandali; and that these are the genuine and original names."

The sons of Mannus are the legendary ancestors of the Germanic peoples. Here it is worth noting that Tacitus clearly identifies most of the above names as super-tribal groups comprising numerous tribes.

4) Wikipedia offers the following quote:

According to John Anderson, the "Lugii and Vandili are designations of the same tribal group, the latter an extended ethnic name, the former probably a cult-title."

I think Anderson was very likely correct that the Lugii and the Vandali are basically synonymous. However, it is possible that the word "Vandali" may be the cult-based title, if you accept the argument that the etymology of the name is connected to religious practices. Of course, it is also possible to identify the name as an extended ethnic name, similar to terms such as "the Ingaevones", as Anderson seems to have done.

The above probably isn't very useful if you're attempting to depict Germanic warfare in the 5th century (Tacitus wrote around 100 AD), but may be helpful in understanding the history of these tribes, being some of the oldest mentions of them.

Well that is certainly a wealth of information which may certainly help to improve my understanding of the very early beginnings of the tribes. Thank you!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You could try Bachrach's book "A History of the Alans in the West" but it's dated. I haven't read it all myself even.

Nikoronov wrote a paper on Hun warfare, albeit its limited in its scope and confined to Roman sources:

https://www.academia.edu/1264349/Lik...rary_Tradition

[Nikaa47]

You could try Bachrach's book "A History of the Alans in the West" but it's dated. I haven't read it all myself even.

Nikoronov wrote a paper on Hun warfare, albeit its limited in its scope and confined to Roman sources:

https://www.academia.edu/1264349/Lik...rary_Tradition

Bachrach's isnt bad but it doesnt handle the warfare that much and the most books about the alans are dated cant tell why.

But for the Vandals "The Vandals" by Andrew H. Merrils (2010) or "The Huns and the Vandals" by Thomas Hodgkin (2001).

[Darios]

Horse archery wasn't nearly as important for the Alans as it was for their Scythian cousins. Alanic cavalry prowess focused on heavily armed lancers who were also armed with long swords. I also know that the use of the lasso was important in Alan warfare. This continued even into medieval times where a 10th century Arab writer stated that the Alani king was capable of mustering up to 30,000 horsemen. As they ultimately made their home in the northern Caucasus, one can imagine that foot archers and foot spearmen/axemen could probably also be found in their armies. Not everyone could afford a horse, and medieval Alania was a pretty "settled" place.

There were no Germanic warbands

[Charerg]

Another quote from Tacitus that may be useful for the Alans describes a failed raid into the province of Moesia by the Roxolani that occurred in 68/69 AD:

"On this occasion, however, the day was wet and the snow melting: they could not use their pikes or the long swords which they wield with both hands, for their horses fell and they were weighted down by their coats of mail. This armour is the defence of their princes and all the nobility: it is made of scales of iron or hard hide, and though impenetrable to blows, nevertheless it makes it difficult for the wearer to get up when overthrown by the enemy's charge; at the same time they were continually sinking deep in the soft and heavy snow. The Roman soldier with his breast-plate moved readily about, attacking the enemy with his javelin, which he threw, or with his lances; when the situation required he used his short sword and cut down the helpless Sarmatians at close quarters, for they do not use the shield for defensive purposes."

And the same in Latin (from):

"Sed tum umido die et soluto gelu neque conti neque gladii, quos praelongos ultraque manu requnt, usui, lapsantibus equis et catafractarum pondere. Id principus et nobilissimo cuique tegimen, ferreis lamminis aut praeduro corio consertum, ut adversus ictus impenetrabile ita impetu hostium provolutis inhabile ad resurgendum; simul altitudine et mollitia nivis hauriebantur. Romanus miles facilis lorica et missili pilo aut lanceis adsultans, ubi res posceret, levi gladio inermem Sarmatam (neque enim scuto defendi mos est) comminus fodiebat, donec pauci qui proelio superfuerant paludibus abderentur"

This is from the 1st century, but Sarmatian warfare is described as largely centered around lancers of noble birth, armoured in scale (either iron or hide).

The Alani tactics are described as similarly centered around a charge of heavy cavalry in the "Ektaxis kata Alanoon" (written in the 2nd century by Arrian). Some relevant quotes (with the original Greek term for weapon types in parentheses):

"And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen (kontophoroi), whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The following ranks should be of the javelineers (lonchophoroi). ...

And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles. If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause. ...

These things should happen if they are put to flight after the first charge. If they about-face and circle around the flanks, the flanking bodies of lightly armed archers should extend formation to the high ground. .... Should they overcome one or either of the flanks the horses would necessarily expose their flanks, their spears (kontous) at a right angle. In that case the cavalrymen must attack not with a missile shower but with swords and axes. The Scythians being lightly armed and having unprotected horses"

I interpret this passage as implying that the Alans aim to close with the main body of the Roman infantry (8 ranks deep of legionaries, first 4 described as "kontophoroi", the last 4 as "lonchophoroi"). Clearly Arrian seems to expect his formation to receive a powerful charge, rather than a swarm of skirmishing horse archers. Of course, horse archers would have been a component in all steppe armies, but for the Sarmatians their most feared force is clearly the lancers. Here it is worth noting that Arrian describes their horses as unarmoured. It is also interesting to note that Arrian uses "kontos" as a term for both the Sarmatian lance and the Roman pilum, and that the Pilum is described as being wielded as a traditional spear against cavalry rather than thrown.

On a note unrelated to the main topic, is the translation accurate concerning "Romanus miles facilis lorica et missili pilo aut lanceis adsultans" to "The Roman soldier with his breast-plate moved readily about, attacking the enemy with his javelin, which he threw, or with his lances"? My understanding is that "lancea" tends to refer to a javelin (greek longche) rather than a "lance", and if lancea means javelin the translation would also coincide with Arrian's text describing the Roman legionaries as armed with either Kontos (Pilum) or Longche (Lancea).

[Nikaa47]

On a note unrelated to the main topic, is the translation accurate concerning "Romanus miles facilis lorica et missili pilo aut lanceis adsultans" to "The Roman soldier with his breast-plate moved readily about, attacking the enemy with his javelin, which he threw, or with his lances"? My understanding is that "lancea" tends to refer to a javelin (greek longche) rather than a "lance", and if lancea means javelin the translation would also coincide with Arrian's text describing the Roman legionaries as armed with either Kontos (Pilum) or Longche (Lancea).

A Lancea is a Lancea its a short javelin with leather straps. The word Lancea itself is adapted out of the iberian language in some books its also said to be "suevisch/suebian".

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Lancaea means Javelin, yes. It is often mistranslated.

Yes, the Ektaxis Kat Alanon is an invaluable source for the warfare of the Alans (and of the Romans too).

On this occasion, however, the day was wet and the snow melting: they could not use their pikes or the long swords which they wield with both hands, for their horses fell and they were weighted down by their coats of mail. This armour is the defence of their princes and all the nobility: it is made of scales of iron or hard hide, and though impenetrable to blows, nevertheless it makes it difficult for the wearer to get up when overthrown by the enemy's charge; at the same time they were continually sinking deep in the soft and heavy snow. The Roman soldier with his breast-plate moved readily about, attacking the enemy with his javelin, which he threw, or with his lances; when the situation required he used his short sword and cut down the helpless Sarmatians at close quarters, for they do not use the shield for defensive purposes.

Yes, these were the Iazyges IIRC. They were in fact more famous for their cavalry armed with Javelins than for their Cataphracts. Alanus on RAT would know more.

[Charerg]

Lancaea means Javelin, yes. It is often mistranslated.

Yes, the Ektaxis Kat Alanon is an invaluable source for the warfare of the Alans (and of the Romans too).

Yes, these were the Iazyges IIRC. They were in fact more famous for their cavalry armed with Javelins than for their Cataphracts. Alanus on RAT would know more.

Tacitus calls them the Roxolani. However, in his Natural History Pliny described the Iazyges as situated between the Danube and the Tisza (having driven out the Dacians). Tacitus is believed to have completed his Historiae in 105 AD, whereas the Natural History is (approximately) dated to 77 AD.

The Iazyges perhaps seem more likely because their Geographical location as detailed by Strabo in his Geography is east of the Tyregetae (who lived along the Dniester, or Tyras), whereas Strabo places the Roxolani between the Dnieper (Borysthenes) and the Don (Tanais). In Strabo's time, the land between the Danube and the Tisza was called "the Desert of the Boii", as the Dacians had destroyed the Celtic tribes of the Boii and the Taurisci who previously lived in the area.

However, Strabo wrote about 0 AD, so his work is dated when compared to Pliny and Tacitus. Personally, I think Tacitus is probably the most reliable of these sources.

The date of the raid was 68/69 AD, and the target province Moesia, which according to wikipedia basically encompassed the southern bank of the Danube. So I suppose either tribe is possible, depending on which part of Moesia was invaded.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Try this:



This is based on Tacitus and Ptolemy who are just before and Just after the Dacian wars. This is 125 AD.

Correcting a few discrepencies:

1. The Antes were a slavic people who split off from the Venedi so should not be on this map.
2. the Aorsi and Alani were the same people. The Alans had a Kingdom north of the Caspian called Yancai or Alanliao.

[Darios]

Correcting a few discrepencies:

1. The Antes were a slavic people who split off from the Venedi so should not be on this map.

As far as I understand (and from what I have seen from local museums in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine), the Antes were a Slavic people who were ruled by an Iranian ruling class. During the 4th-6th century AD they had cavalry/horse archer skills that were unknown to other Slavic groups at the time. The name "Antae" sounds very Iranic so I guess that's where the confusion of them being Iranian on the map stems from.

Correcting a further discrepancy - the Carpi and Costobocii were undoubtedly Dacian. Their material culture had a higher degree of sophistication compared to the Dacians of Burebista's period but that was largely due to influences of trade with the Romans west and south of the Carpathians as well as the "union" of Dacian, Sarmatian, and Germanic elements in the Chernyakhov archaeological culture. Even Roman writers referred to the Carpi as "Karpodakai"

[Charerg]

Speaking of the map, there probably are some discrepancies in the names of the Germanic tribes as well. Tacitus tells that the Naharvali were a sub-tribe within the broader Lugii people, for example, but does not specify their location.

Also I'm sceptical whether the 'Teutones' were a tribe in this time (or whether they even had ever existed as a separate tribe). The Latinized version comes from the same root as modern 'Deutschland' ("Germany"), the Proto-Indo-European word for 'people' ("teuta"). They are also only mentioned by early Roman writers, with the exception of Ptolemy, who puts them in Jutland. But I find it suspicious that Tacitus makes no mention of them. In any case, Ptolemy is probably less reliable concerning the placement of Germanic tribes, as he places the Angles on the Middle Elbe and the Langobards on the Rhine (both locations seem unlikely when compared with Tacitus and the later history of these tribes).

On a more on-topic note, the helmet carvings of Germanic helmets from the Merovingian period may provide some info on Germanic warfare:

Sutton Hoo:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vendel helm:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note the use of Angons in the last picture. It seems that at least during the Merovingian era, the barbed Angon was more widespread than I realized. I just read a book about Finnish Pre-history by Matti Huurre (stretches well into the Middle-Age). It detailed that grave findings from Finland during the Merovingian era included Angons. Unfortunately, the book doesn't specify the number of findings. The one finding of which there is a picture shows a spearhead, sword, Angon and a horse bit. Probably a rather wealthy person. In any case, this would imply that Angons were probably used in some capacity by the more well-to-do warriors all along the coast of the Baltic Sea (the book states that the Baltic played a major role in exporting Germanic weapons to Finland).

[Nikaa47]

Speaking of the map, the probably are some discrepancies in the names of the Germanic tribes as well. Tacitus tells that the Naharvali were a sub-tribe within the broader Lugii people, for example, but does not specify their location.

Also I'm spectical whether the 'Teutones' were a tribe in this time (or whether they even had ever existed as a separate tribe). The Latinized version comes from the same root as modern 'Deutschland' ("Germany"), the Proto-Indo-European word for 'people' ("teuta"). They are also only mentioned by early Roman writers, with the exception of Ptolemy, who puts them in Jutland. But I find it suspicious that Tacitus makes no mention of them. In any case, Ptolemy is probably less reliable concerning the placement of Germanic tribes, as he places the Angles on the Middle Elbe and the Langobards on the Rhine (both locations seem unlikely when compared with Tacitus and the later history of these tribes).

The problem with Tacitus is that he was a writer which was an art so it doesnt wonder that a lot of stuff he writes is internally inconsistent. Thats also the point why opinions about him are often split up. I often mention it at the university that people love him or hate him but no one says he is ok.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

As far as I understand (and from what I have seen from local museums in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine), the Antes were a Slavic people who were ruled by an Iranian ruling class. During the 4th-6th century AD they had cavalry/horse archer skills that were unknown to other Slavic groups at the time. The name "Antae" sounds very Iranic so I guess that's where the confusion of them being Iranian on the map stems from.

From Wikipedia:

"The name Antes itself does not appear to be Slavic, but is often held to be an Iranian word. Pritsak, citing Max Vasmer, argues that anta- means "frontier, end" (in Saskrit), thus *ant-ya could mean frontier-man.^[8]
Although the first unequivocal attestation of the tribal Antes in the 6th century AD, scholars have tried to connect the Antes with a tribe rendered An-tsai in a 2nd-century BC Chinese source (Hou Han-shu, 118, fol. 13r).^[9] Pliny the Elder (Natural History VI, 35) mentions some Anti living near the Azov shores; and inscriptions from the Kerch peninsula dating to the third century AD bear the word antas.^[10] Based on documentation of "Sarmatian" tribes inhabiting the north Pontic region during the early centuries of the Common Era, presumed Iranian loanwords into Slavic, and Sarmatian 'cultural borrowings' into the Penkovka culture, scholars such as Robert Magosci,^[11] Valentin Sedov^[12] and John Fine Jr.^[13] maintain earlier proposals by Soviet-era scholars such as Boris Rybakov, that the Antes were originally a Sarmatian-Alan frontier tribe which become Slavicized, but preserved their name.^[11]
Bohdan Struminskyj highlights, however, that the etymology of Antes remains unproven and is nevertheless "irrelevant".^[14] Struminskyj analysed the personal names of Antean chiefs and offered Germanic etymological alternatives to the commonly accepted Slavic etymology (first proposed by Stanislaw Rospond)^[15]
However, recent perspectives view the tribal entities named by Graeco-Roman sources as fluctuant political formations which were, above all, etic categorizations based on ethnographic stereotypes rather than first-hand, accurate knowledge of barbarian language or 'culture'. Szmoniewski summarizes that the Antes were not a "discrete, ethnically homogeneous entity" but rather "a highly complex political reality".^[9] Linguistically, contemporary evidence suggests that Slavic was widely spoken over a large area (from the eastern Alps to the Black Sea) by various ethnic, including those Roman provincial, "Germanic" (such as Gepids and Lombards), and Oghuric (Avars, Bulgars) populations.^[16][17] It has further been proposed that the Sklaveni were not distinguished from others on the basis of language or culture, but the type of their military organization. If compared to the Avars, or 6th century Goths, the Sklaveni were numerous, smaller disunited groups, one of which - the Antai- became foederati constituted by a treaty.^[18][19]"

[Charerg]

To add to the subject, according to wikipedia, the "Suebi" who participated in the 406 "Crossing of the Rhine", along with the Vandals and the Alans (and probably the Burgundians), were a tribal alliance consisting of the Marcomanni, the Quadi and the Burii. Considering the fact that early Roman authors consider the "Suebi" a loose super-tribal grouping rather than an actual tribe, this seems very likely. This view is also supported by archaeological evidence. From wikipedia:

"After about 400, the old cremation burials typical of Suevians like the Quadi disappear in Bohemia."

This would imply that the migration was relatively thorough. It seems the tribes departed in massive numbers. After the migration, their former territories were largely taken over by the Rugii, the Langobardi and the Gepids.

As for the "Alans" of Western Europe, who took part in this crossing, I question if they were directly linked with the Eastern Alans who were the vassals of the Huns at this stage. If you look at the geographical location of the migrating tribes, the Suebi confederation occupied modern Checkoslovakia and the Vandals were located northeast of them, in Silesia. The Alans who were part of the alliance probably came from the Hungarian Plain.

Now, we do know that the Iazyges had previously occupied this area. In a thread in RomanArmyTalk, Alanus states the following:

"Iazyge culture changed at the end of the 2nd century when the Roxolani moved onto the Hungarian Plain; and both tribes, now intermixed, were given the designation of "Sarmatians," a name which lasted into the latter 4th century. According to Harmatta, the Roxolani introduced the longer Alanic sword."

As the name "Roxolani" means "White Alans", it isn't unlikely that this tribe (along with the former "Iazyges" as the two groups had melded together) formed the western "Alans" of the early 5th century. Although it is likely that scattered elements of the eastern Alani had joined their western cousins, the western Alans were definitely a different political entity than their kinsmen under Hunnic domination.

In game terms, if you're looking to recreate the historical situation of 395, the Suebi should probably be settled where the Quadi currently are, and represent the confederation of the Marcomanni, Quadi and Burrii. The Roxolani and the Iazyges should be merged into one faction, south of where the Quadi are now, and a separate entity from the eastern Alans (either make them the playable "Alans" or use the name "Roxolani"). The Lugii should probably be replaced by the Vandals (since the two were the same entity), who were still settled at this point.

This would leave the "Marcomanni" location free to be occupied by another Germanic tribe (probably the Burgundians, at this date). Ultimately the map isn't going to be perfectly historical since the provinces and regions are fixed as CA made them, and it won't be possible to accurately represent the location and territory of every tribe, as many of them were in reality occupying territories smaller than an in-game "region" and you'd have to put several tribes in the same region.

[Heathen Storm]

To add to the subject, according to wikipedia, the "Suebi" who participated in the 406 "Crossing of the Rhine", along with the Vandals and the Alans (and probably the Burgundians), were a tribal alliance consisting of the Marcomanni, the Quadi and the Burii. Considering the fact that early Roman authors consider the "Suebi" a loose super-tribal grouping rather than an actual tribe, this seems very likely. This view is also supported by archaeological evidence. From wikipedia:

"After about 400, the old cremation burials typical of Suevians like the Quadi disappear in Bohemia."

This would imply that the migration was relatively thorough. It seems the tribes departed in massive numbers. After the migration, their former territories were largely taken over by the Rugii, the Langobardi and the Gepids.

As for the "Alans" of Western Europe, who took part in this crossing, I question if they were directly linked with the Eastern Alans who were the vassals of the Huns at this stage. If you look at the geographical location of the migrating tribes, the Suebi confederation occupied modern Checkoslovakia and the Vandals were located northeast of them, in Silesia. The Alans who were part of the alliance probably came from the Hungarian Plain.

Now, we do know that the Iazyges had previously occupied this area. In a thread in RomanArmyTalk, Alanus states the following:

"Iazyge culture changed at the end of the 2nd century when the Roxolani moved onto the Hungarian Plain; and both tribes, now intermixed, were given the designation of "Sarmatians," a name which lasted into the latter 4th century. According to Harmatta, the Roxolani introduced the longer Alanic sword."

As the name "Roxolani" means "White Alans", it isn't unlikely that this tribe (along with the former "Iazyges" as the two groups had melded together) formed the western "Alans" of the early 5th century. Although it is likely that scattered elements of the eastern Alani had joined their western cousins, the western Alans were definitely a different political entity than their kinsmen under Hunnic domination.

In game terms, if you're looking to recreate the historical situation of 395, the Suebi should probably be settled where the Quadi currently are, and represent the confederation of the Marcomanni, Quadi and Burrii. The Roxolani and the Iazyges should be merged into one faction, south of where the Quadi are now, and a separate entity from the eastern Alans (either make them the playable "Alans" or use the name "Roxolani"). The Lugii should probably be replaced by the Vandals (since the two were the same entity), who were still settled at this point.

This would leave the "Marcomanni" location free to be occupied by another Germanic tribe (probably the Burgundians, at this date). Ultimately the map isn't going to be perfectly historical since the provinces and regions are fixed as CA made them, and it won't be possible to accurately represent the location and territory of every tribe, as many of them were in reality occupying territories smaller than an in-game "region" and you'd have to put several tribes in the same region.

A wonderful post sir! While I would love to change the StartPos I as a player do not enjoy having no starting intro that the playable factions have, so I would probably not change any of the playable factions in that regard. But an excellent post nonetheless and I will definitely take that information in

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well the fact of the matter is that we know the Alans in the Rhine crossing of 406 were Alans because they immediately defected to the Roman Empire and began supplying trained cavalrymen to the Roman army. Contemporary accounts show they were Cataphracts.

It's likely some Alans came into the Hungarian and Wallachian plain with the Roxolani and eventually they all assimilated into "Alani."

Other than that, excellent post Chareg.