Sarmatians

[tone]

Links and info:

http://www.answers.com/topic/sarmatia

[cherryfunk]

Interestingly, Osprey's 'Romes Enemies: Horsemen of the Steppes' portrays the Scythians as a blonde Germanic race. Apparently this is one line of thinking among scholars. It would certainly add a unique touch to RS if our Sarmatians were all blonde!

Osprey pic of Scythians:



Another good one:



Here's a cool piece of Scythian artwork that maybe we could use on a shield or banner:



Info on their ethnicity:

Herodotus (4.21) in the 5th century BC placed the Sarmatians of which he knew on the eastern boundary of Scythia beyond the Tanais (Don) on a treeless steppe. Those Sarmatians, being in the early Iranian range of south Russia, were probably Iranian people akin to the Scythians/Saka. The numerous Iranian personal names in the Greek inscriptions from the Black Sea Coast indicate that the Sarmatians there spoke a north-eastern Iranian dialect related to Sogdian and Ossetic.

Herodotus (4.110-117) reports a tale of the origin of the Sauromatae (Sauromates in the Greek of Herodotus), as the descendants of a band of young Scythian men and a group of Amazons. Herodotus' account, in a way, explains the origins of the Sarmatians' north-eastern Iranian language (as an impure form of Scythian). Moreover, it explains the unusual freedoms of Sauromatae women, including participation in warfare, which is deemed as an inheritance from their Amazon ancestors. Later writers call some of them the "woman-ruled Sarmatae" (γυναικοκρατούμενοι). Hippocrates (De Aere, etc., 24) classes them as Scythian.

Herodotus describes the Sarmatians' physical appearance as blond, stout and tanned; in short, pretty much as the Scythians and Thracians were seen by the other classical authors.

Apparently, the Scythians/Sarmatians are also credited by some as being the ancestors of the Picts, the Slavs, and the Poles, among others.

They do seem to have been something of a confederation of peoples, and there is evidence for at least some of them being blonde. I'm not sure how that fits in with the Iranian origin. Maybe some were blonde and some were darker?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Cherryfunk - edit your posts, that was a quadruple post right there

Nice info, though. Yet, weren't we looking for Sarmatians not Scythians? There is a marked difference. Greek authors - like Herodotus - put Sarmatians, as well as many others, under Scythians. However, they are not the same.

For standard purposes, though, should they all be in the same faction? And, say, have mercenary Sarmatians recruitable only in Sarmatia (modern-Ukraine)?

That said, yes, women were commonly used as warriors in Scythia. They were also known to dress like men, aswell. So, maybe women warriors could be used?

[cherryfunk]

I think having a Scythian unit or two in the Sarmatian roster might be cool, it would help create the impression of a confederation of tribes, and the Scythians could be caucasian, to give them a markedly different look.

I'd steer away from a female unit, I think that's getting a bit too fantastical. Yes, they may have had some, but I doubt a significant portion of their force was female warriors...

[removeduser_426582376423734]

It should actually be the other way around. Sarmatia was a very small part of Scythia.

As for the women warriors - they were VERY common in this part of the world.

http://www.csen.org/WomenWarriors/St..._Warriors.html

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/sarmatian.shtml

http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/amazo...romations2.htm

I could go on.

[DR. Hobo. PHD.]

here are some old skins, but i think they are really good for the sarmatians.
this is just to show you how some of my units will look like..
armored lancer and basic horsearcher..

[tone]

These look nice
Would you like me to put a shield boss on for the second unit? Looks like it should have one....also quiver? Or is that the thing down by left leg?

[cherryfunk]

Here are some new Sarmatian images from the DBA wargaming site.

Archer:



Light cavalry (horse archer):



Medium cavalry, note that this is a sword-weilding unit; I like the big round bosses on his and his horse's armor:



Heavy cavalry; note this isn't a cataphract, but a more traditional heavy cav with the rider armored but not the horse:



These next two are actually Alans, but they were related to the Sarmatians so we might consider using them for inspiration.

Alan Axeman:



Alan light cavalry -- a horse archer with a hammer-type weapon for his secondary:

[cherryfunk]

Okay, I've finally got some Osprey pics of Sarmatians (as opposed to Scythians, like the ones posted above). In general they seem to be less colorful, less 'decorated' than the Scythians.

The armored rider on the left seems to have some sort of scale, though it's hard to tell. Definitely a very different look than the Scythians. Note how the legs are unarmored -- this is to give him better control of his horse. The nobleman has three quivers bundled together, so clearly he fights with a bow:




This armored lancer clearly has scale, but again note how they're much less 'flashy' than their Scythian cousins:




The Alans were a sub-tribe of the Sarmatians, so we might want an Alan unit, possibly a lancer or a horse archer that has some distinctive features. Note the interesting way this guy has cut his horse's mane:




The Roxolani were another sub-tribe; again we might represent them with their own unit. These guys are very heavily armored, even the archer is wearing a full coat of scale:




Light horsemen (and woman). Very distinctive saddle on this guy's horse:




These are Sarmatian symbols, which they apparently branded on their horses and put on their weapons. Might be useful, possibly on banners or shields?

[rory o'kane]

one of them looks strangely like the carthaginian symbol for the god Tanit....

[Drtad]

That Scythian in the last picture looks like he is wearing his pajamas. Maybe they caught him in his sleep.

[tone]

We're going to be using EB's Roxolani lancers.

[pseudocaesar]

god can we please get a female whip lancer!!

[rory o'kane]

god that's disturbing, Pseudo!

[cherryfunk]

dvk is thinking of making some changes to the Sarmatians and Parthians to represent their horse-based armies and wide-open environment. Here's an interesting suggestion from the EB forum:

Heinrich von Sachsen:

Do somthing about the nomad's economy. These people were all taught to fight form a very young age and lived inthe saddle, yet sadly the player, even when ruling a decent sized empire must rely of just a few hundred orse-archers to defend his vast domains. Please correct me if I am wrong, but normally the soldiers fought for loot, plunder and glory-not a regular paycheck.

Also, maintence should not be much of an issue because of the indivdual soldiers survival skills. Perhaps this could be modeled by significantly reducing the upkeep, and upkeep only, of nomadic soldiers while also cutting the money gained from capturing an enemy town down to 1/4 or so the represent the leader giving the loot away to keep the loyalty of his followers.
-Please, do something about Selukedid/Ptolemoi expansion. 9 times out of 10 one simly takes the other on over. I once saw a Selukedid empire that stretched from Greece to India, from the Caucuses all the way to Numidia.
While they should in no way be weak, it should be hard for large empires to expand.

[dvk901]

Once again, in the process of researching the locations of these new factions, I've come across things that really make me want to do some things...radical things...to
make it nearly or completely impossible to conquer the Sarmatians.

So here's what I propose doing:

1. I want to give them a higher population than they presently have because I think it's hurting them.

2. More advancement...but here's the twist. I'm wondering if Squid could do with the Sarmatians what he did with the treasury buildings....making the picture and the building descriptions unique. The reason is, if he could, I could then change the descriptions and meaning of many of their 'buildings' to reflect an entirely different type of culture or way of living. For instance, just off the top of my head, a 'barracks' could just become a 'rally area'...or a 'cavalry barracks' a 'Saramtian Horse Training Area'.....with a description that basically describes that a better area has been found for raising and training horses, etc. An archery range would become..a 'group of arrow making women, men..... in the tribe, or the skill acquired. Sewers, bathes, etc. could be finding new wells, springs for fresh drinking water.
Their building tree might be quite abbreviated, but more meaningful and specific to their lifestyle.
Any other ideas?

3. I would not allow them to build ANY walls....but, here's the kicker. You take a Sarmatian region, be prepared to lose it. I will build in a 100% unhappiness factor that will assure you lose the region in a few turns. AND, if I can get this to work right...because regions rarely rebel in RS anyway....I'll have Sarmatia 'shadow' the Germans; Scythians, Bosporans, Armenians and Parthians......so that if any of them take a Sarmatian region, when it rebels it will go right back to the Sarmatians!! In fact, this could even apply to the slave regions in the area...any region with a 'steppes' hidden resource. You take the region from the slaves, it pisses off the Sarmatians, it rebels and goes over to them!!

What I will do is set up...actually, it mostly already is....a buffer zone around Scythia and Borporan, and between Parthia, Armenia and the Sarmatians where you can take a region to the north....but only that one. From there on it's curtains.

I think this will guarantee that they stay around, and will also make it unnecessary for them to have 'region taking' infantry. They will be historically confined, but also historically horrid to defeat!

[Drtad]

That would be fantastic, and not too difficult to do! Great thinking Dvk. Just one question, they would still be able to attack and take cities themselves right?

[dvk901]

That would be fantastic, and not too difficult to do! Great thinking Dvk. Just one question, they would still be able to attack and take cities themselves right?

Of course....as soon as I convince those damn horses to climb ladders and throw big rocks.

[cherryfunk]

Unique Buildings -- I like the idea, but how does it work if the Sarmatians conquer a new city? Are they unable to build any 'civilized' buildings?

High Unrest -- Yes, another good idea, but I think it SHOULD be possible for some factions at least to conquer the steppes, I'm thinking specifically of the Scythians and the Parthians, also possibly the Bosporans. Remember that at times the Bosporans had close relations with the 'nomads', and Mithridates' plan was to create a unified Greek/nomadic nation that together could challenge Rome. I don't think it should be flat-out 100% impossible for anyone but the Sarmatians to control that territory.

Shadowing -- Again, very interesting idea that might work well. But if non-Sarmatian regions do rebel -- say, if the Germans lose a region in Poland, and it reverts to the Sarmatians -- then you'll have some very odd things happening...

Another thought: Roads. Should we have NO roads in the steppes areas? Would it be possible to give all Sarmatian family members a trait that increases their movement, something like "Nomad -- +25% movement" to represent their greater mobility and counter the lack of roads?

[dvk901]

Unique Buildings -- I like the idea, but how does it work if the Sarmatians conquer a new city? Are they unable to build any 'civilized' buildings?

DVK: A good point, it's just that being able to separate the descriptions and pictures would give us more options.

High Unrest -- Yes, another good idea, but I think it SHOULD be possible for some factions at least to conquer the steppes, I'm thinking specifically of the Scythians and the Parthians, also possibly the Bosporans. Remember that at times the Bosporans had close relations with the 'nomads', and Mithridates' plan was to create a unified Greek/nomadic nation that together could challenge Rome. I don't think it should be flat-out 100% impossible for anyone but the Sarmatians to control that territory.

DVK: Historically speaking, should ANY of those factions be able to conquer that area? The Scythians were driven away by them, Bosporan was constantly pressed by them, and Parthia went south. Maybe 100% is a stretch, but as it stands, Parthia moves into their territory and handles them, Bosporan crushes them, and I have a feeling the Scythians would do the same. The winner of the Bosporan\Scythian tangle gets to feed on Sarmatia....that is, if Scythia doesn't go west and take on Dacia. (Which reminds me, I have to change some 'faction_creator' stuff so they don't take off towards Syracuse!)

As far as the 'unified Greek nation'...I know, but this was a nation envisioned in the wealthy sea-areas of the world, not up in the flat nothingness of the steppes. What I'm proposing to do...in an entirely 'false' way, I guess....is emulate the fact that any nation that tried to conquer that area conquered nothing. The people left, the buildings burned, the crops destroyed (if there were any)...you see, an 'impossible situation' where you can't 'hold' anything because there's nothing to hold. You can't feed an army, because there's no food. You can't fight anyone, because they all hid....or just come out and sabotague or snipe at you. Maybe make it so that if you keep a full stack of your warriors in the city you can hold it, but one by one they're getting sniped off by mauraders and rebels. (rioting, discontent, etc)

Shadowing -- Again, very interesting idea that might work well. But if non-Sarmatian regions do rebel -- say, if the Germans lose a region in Poland, and it reverts to the Sarmatians -- then you'll have some very odd things happening...

DVK: This may be a bit too much, and maybe ill-advised. Just a thought.

Another thought: Roads. Should we have NO roads in the steppes areas? Would it be possible to give all Sarmatian family members a trait that increases their movement, something like "Nomad -- +25% movement" to represent their greater mobility and counter the lack of roads?

No roads would make sense, and denying them to everyone would be even better in that area. The movement trait would be good as well...and make it even more difficult for conquerers with hoplite armies or Legions...even.