Talk:Iazyges

Comments

Is there any reason why the 1911 version still appears at the end of the page? I see very little info here that is not covered more fully and accurately in the much better main article, apart from only this:

They were divided into freemen and serfs (Sarmatae Limigantes), the latter of whom had a different manner of life and were probably an older settled population enslaved by nomad masters. They rose against them in AD 34, but were repressed by foreign aid.

Codex Sinaiticus 19:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

92

Need to clarify the events of 92. Legio XXI Rapax was destroyed by a coalition of Dacians and Rhoxolani at Tropaeum Traiani.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles Roxolani, Battle_of_Adamclisi_(92_AD) and Legio XXI Rapax state the Roxolani destroyed the Legion along with the Dacians, not the Iazyges. Moreover, the Legio XXI Rapax and Battle of Adamclisi articles cite their source : Bennett, Julian. Traian. ISBN 973-571-583-X. Tehem (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up

As pointed out by the tags, the article needs dire improvement. I hope to do this soon, by adding more history and archaeology and less diatribe about supposed Iazygi - Jasi connection Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Full text I removed.

In 101–105, Trajan finally conquered the Dacians, reducing their lands to a Roman province. In 107, Trajan sent his general Hadrian to force the Iazyges to submit. Trajan also officially allowed the Iazyges to settle there as confederates. In 117, Trajan died, and was succeeded as emperor by Hadrian, who moved to consolidate and protect his predecessor's gains. While the Romans kept Dacia, the Iazyges stayed independent, accepting a client relationship with Rome, following the Roman political doctrine of putting buffer states between them and potential threats such as the Dacians. As long as Rome remained powerful, the situation could be maintained, but in the late second century, the Empire was becoming increasingly overstretched. In the summer of 166, while the Romans were tied down in a war with Parthia, the peoples north of the Danube, the Marcomanni, the Naristi, the Vandals, the Hermanduri, the Lombards and the Quadi, all swept south over the Danube to invade and plunder the exposed Roman provinces.<ref name="Birth of Eurasia 284" /> The Iazyges joined in and killed Calpurnius Proculus, the Roman governor of Dacia. To counter them, the 5th Macedonian Legion, a veteran of the Parthian campaign, was moved from Moesia Inferior to Dacia Superior, nearer the enemy. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius spent the rest of his life trying to restore the situation (see the Marcomannic Wars). In the autumn of 169, Marcus set out from Rome, together with his son-in-law and closest aide Claudius Pompeianus. The Romans had gathered their forces and intended to subdue the independent tribes (especially the Iazyges), who lived between the Danube and the Roman province of Dacia. In 170, the Iazyges defeated and killed Marcus Claudius Fronto, Roman governor of Lower Moesia. Operating from Sirmium (today Sremska Mitrovica, Vojvodina, Serbia) on the Sava river, Marcus Aurelius focused attention on the Iazyges living in the plain of the river Tisza (Expeditio Sarmatica). After hard fighting, and few victories, the Iazyges were pressed to their limits.

Lands of the Iazyges, 2nd–3rd century

The Iazyges came to an agreement after experiencing downfall, and all foremost men came in the company of King Zanticus before Aurelius to accept peace.<ref name=Dio-126>Dio, [https://books.google.com/books?id=D3ZEPZXFKfkC&pg=PA126 p. 126]</ref> The Iazyges had earlier imprisoned their second king Banadaspus for making proposals to Aurelius.<ref name=Dio-126/> At the same time, Aurelius's former friend Avidius Cassius had led a revolt in the East, which greatly upset Aurelius and forced him to come to terms with the Iazyges, contrary to his wishes.<ref>Dio, p. 127</ref> The treaty yielded the Romans some 100,000 Roman captives, which showed the strength that the Iazyges still had and what great harm they were capable of.<ref name=Dio-126/> The treaty was the same as those of the Quadi and Marcomanni, except that the Iazyges were required to live twice as far from the Danube as those two tribes (Aurelius wanted to uproot them).<ref name=Dio-126/> Another stipulation of the treaty was that the Iazyges were allowed to venture through Roman land to trade with the Roxolani, as long as they had permission from the governor of the province. Another few terms were that the Iazyges were not to settle within 10 Roman miles (9.2 modern miles) of the Danube, or on the islands of the Danube, or to own boats; however, these terms were lifted in 179. At once, the Iazyges provided the Romans with 8,000 cavalry to serve in the Roman army as auxiliaries; 5,500 of these were shipped off to serve in the Roman army in Britain, One detachment is known to have been stationed in Ribchester.<ref name="Birth of Eurasia 284" /> Some chose to remain after their service, settling down by the River Ribble in Lancashire, where a grave stela depicting a Sarmatian warrior has been found. <ref name=Dio-126/> Marcus's victory was decisive in that the Iazyges did not again appear as a major threat to Rome.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iazyges/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llammakey (talk · contribs) 01:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• You have Sarmatian linked twice in the lede.

 Done

• Overlink of Black Sea, Pannonia, Quadi and Marcommani.

 Done

• You have Roman triumph linked twice in the Second Dacian War section, and three times overall.

 Done

• Suggest linking Britannia in the After the Dacian Wars section.

 Done

• Suggest placing a comma in 1000 gold pieces to keep it consistent throughout the article.

 Done

• The final sentence of the After the Dacian Wars section, beginning with In 184 AD needs to be rewritten. Something along the lines of "In 184 AD, the 5,500 Iazyges auxiliaries, or else replacements for them, were led by the Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus to put down a revolt in Armorica (Northern Gaul)."

 Done

• In aftermath and legacy, capitalization of pronounced.

 Done

• Just a general comment, but this article reads like a history of Iazyges and the Roman Empire. Just wondering if there is information on the actual tribe itself such as customs, archaeological history, notable settlements and so forth.

Good read, hope this helps. Llammakey (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Llammakey: on the tribe itself part, not much. Very little is known about their culture, or even religion. While the general assumption is that it is very similar to the sarmatians, I couldn't find a reliable source that said such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with writing about most tribes is that they either didn't write much down, or else it got destroyed, in this case we don't even know which is true. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I would pass it as a GA, but you might want someone more experienced to have a look over too, just in case I wasn't thorough enough. Llammakey (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Llammakey: I've had the Wp:GOCE look over it. If you aren't confident, I would recommend making a post on the GAN's talk page, as it externally looks like you are going to reach a close or promote decision, so people are less likely to get involved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed it. Well done! Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Llammakey thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Llammakey (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is ['aɪɯzɪɡeːz] meant as the English pronunciation? If so, I wonder whether ɯ is the correct vowel. The English example cited in Close back unrounded vowel is a California pronunciation of "goose," suggesting something akin to "I-oo-zig-ayz," which seems off. If it's meant as an ancient pronunciation, I'm not familiar with Classical Greek, but the article on that language, at least, does not show ɯ to have been used. Either way, if there's a pronunciation guide that could be cited, that would help. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That pronunciation definitely seems wrong. If I am not mistaken, Ancient Greek Ἰάζυγες (whence Latin Iazyges) should be something like IPA [ja'd͡zyːɡes]. Cagwinn (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lusanaherandraton and Cagwinn: (I'm on a phone so forgive mistakes) it should sound like I (as in Eye) uh (as in Uh) zig (as in ziggurat) e (hard e sound, like the end of wallaby), z (like in ziggurat). I-uh-zig-e-z basically. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds more likely for English. I've updated the article to reflect that for now (moving the stress mark, on the assumption that the "zig" is emphasized), but it would be best to find outside confirmation. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, for the Greek form of the name, I think stress belongs on the accented -a- and the -z- should be -dz-, as per Ancient Greek phonology. The Latin form of the name is properly Ĭāzyges (trisyllabic, according to Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary), with an accented, long -a-; the Latin -y-, which was borrowed from Greek, is close front rounded vowel, both short and long: /y yː/. The -z- should also be /dz/, as per Greek. See: Latin spelling and pronunciationCagwinn (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the Traditional English pronunciation of Latin, which is normally preferred for Roman (EDIT: proper) names in most contexts afaik, the pronunciation should be /aɪ̯ˈæzɪd͡ʒiːz/ for the plural and /ˈaɪ̯əzɪks/ for the singular, i.e. (a) with /aɪ̯/ for word-initial pre-vocalic I (cf. ion, iambic), (b) stress on the antepenultimate syllable (as the penult is open and short), (c) a soft G /d͡ʒ/ because of the following front vowel (cf. general, Gemini etc. etc.), (d) a long /iːz/ as is usual for the plural of the 3rd declination (cf. hypotheses). --Ubel (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the Iazyges article's own citation on the subject, in Classical Latin pronunciation, "Iazgyes" is [ˈjaːzːygeːs]. Since the Classical Latin pronunciation is the _CORRECT_ pronunciation, would the Australians who edit this site kindly place the Classical pronunciation (the pronunciation of actual Classical Latin speakers/readers) as an alternative to the "Traditional Australian-English" mispronunciation of Latin? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:EB7F:E870:1D73:F9B:A0C9:E0B0 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Theoderic the Great fled to Visigoths?

"In 472 AD, the Visigothic king, Theoderic the Great, is reported to have conquered the Iazyges and killed their co-kings, Babaï and Benga.[51] In the 5th century they were conquered by the Goths.[52]" Oh, really? Are you kidding, when you cite books from the 19th century? What is the original source of the war with the "Sarmatians" (not Iazyges)? I will tell you: Jordanes, Getica 54,227:

LIV (277) The kings [of the Suavi], Hunimund and Alaric, fearing the destruction that had come upon the Sciri, next made war upon the Goths, relying upon the aid of the Sarmatians, who had come to them as auxiliaries with their kings Beuca and Babai. They summoned the last remnants of the Sciri, with Edica and Hunuulf, their chieftains, thinking they would fight the more desperately to avenge themselves. They had on their side the Gepidae also, as well as no small reënforcements from the race of the Rugi and from others gathered here and there. Thus they brought together a great host at the river Bolia in Pannonia and encamped there. (278) Now when Valamir was dead, the Goths fled to Thiudimer, his brother. Although he had long ruled along with his brothers, yet he took the insignia of his increased authority and summoned his younger brother Vidimer and shared with him the cares of war, resorting to arms under compulsion. A battle was fought and the party of the Goths was found to be so much the stronger that the plain was drenched in the blood of their fallen foes and looked like a crimson sea. Weapons and corpses, piled up like hills, covered the plain for more than ten miles. (279) When the Goths saw this, they rejoiced with joy unspeakable, because by this great slaughter of their foes they had avenged the blood of Valamir their king and the injury done themselves. But those of the innumerable and motley throng of the foe who were able to escape, though they got away, nevertheless came to their own land with difficulty and without glory.

Where is any word about Thedoric the Great? He was only a boy at that time! In fact, he was not even at home, but in Constantinople! Who inserted this mess? The man must have been drunk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Centrum99: That would be me, the main editor of this article. And how does it being a 19th century book affect it? However I do see your point with the Theodoric one, which is obviously mistaken. However the 5th century one I have restored, as nothing I have seen contradicts it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Informal review

User:Iazyges has asked me to provide comments on this article before a potential FAC. I have the following suggestions:

• I'd suggest moving the 'culture' section before the history section, and expanding it. It's hard to engage with this group's history without first knowing who they were.

Done, working on expanding. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• As the history section is patchy, an explanation is needed. I presume that this reflects the limited sources on this tribe. The article really needs a section on the ancient sources and other sources of information covering this topic to reach FA standard.

The problem with that is I have yet to find a source actually saying that little is known of their culture. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Later on, they moved further into Hungary and Serbia, settling near Dacia, in the steppe between the Danube and Tisza rivers" - can a time period be provided for this?

 Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The lead is a bit sparse: how did this tribe evolve, and eventually cease to exist? Can anything be said about their features? (language, customs, etc)

Most of the interesting subject matters (i.e. them killing their fathers when the fathers were too old to fight, their language being very different from other languages, etc.) are too short to be in the lead in any way that wouldn't be copy-pasted, and wouldn't fit in very well, I'm still working on gathering more though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The effects of this migration have been observed in the ruins of burial sites left behind by the Iazyges, in that not only did they not have the standard items of gold being buried alongside a person, they even lacked the gear of a warrior" - this is unclear, and could be clarified by restructuring the sentence so it's not expressing the features of the Iazyges as a negative

 Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The Iazyges found that it was much harder to raid the Romans, due to them often sending an organized punitive response" - this is also unclear: was it more difficult to raid the Romans than the tribe's previous neighbours, or was it more difficult to attack the Romans from their new territory?

 Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The para starting with "In early 92 AD the Iazyges and the Roxolani allied themselves with the Dacians and the Suebi" is difficult to follow.

I believe I have fixed it, tell me if it is still hard to read. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of the para starting with "During the time of Augustus's rule, there were eight legions stationed along the Rhine"? It doesn't seem to directly connect with the topic of this article, and partly duplicates the following paragraph.

I have merged it with the second one.

• "Because the direction of the Danube river changes abruptly, it was much more difficult for the Roman legionaries who were trained in to fight in rectangular formation to defend" - why is the river relevant to Roman battle formations?

I have removed it is as I couldn't find a way to rephrase it well, and it wasn't massively important. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please combine the sections on the Dacian wars, and rephrase to avoid starting a para with "but".

By the Dacian wars, do you mean the header paragraph of just "dacian wars" or all 3 sections into one? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After the Iazyges and other Sarmatians invaded Roman Dacia, in 123," - why did they do this? In the previous para they'd made peace

Merged & explained. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please combine or expand the single sentence paragraphs: these aren't FA standard prose.
• The religion section is a bit confusing: I was expecting to see material about this tribe's beliefs, but the content is very partial.

Yes, religion is also very minimally covered (though of course their is no ref that says that.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Presumably the list of princes is also partial?

Yes, I have been working on finding more. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please work the connections to the Roman limes and Sigynnae into the article: the link isn't clear at present, and see also sections are best avoided in FAs. Nick-D (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the see-also section as all directly related subjects should be linked. I have been unable to find any direct connection between the Sigynnae and the Iazyges. The limes also appear to only exist as mentioned in the article already, as having been fortifications built to contain the Iazyges. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: I have responded to all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References for map

User:Iazyges, why you deleted referenced map from the article? Reference for this map is a book written by notable Russian archaeologist and historian Valentin Vasilyevich Sedov. This is name of the book: Valentin Vasiljevič Sedov, Sloveni u dalekoj prošlosti, Novi Sad, 2012. (published in 2012 in Novi Sad, Serbia). And this is a scanned page from that book: https://s21.postimg.org/falyiw9hj/Pict0001447.jpg It is obvious that borders and descriptions in map from this scanned page are matching ones in a map which you removed from the article. If you cannot read Russian then I am sure that you can find someone to translate this for you. Lack of linguistic skills should not be an excuse for this kind of behavior (deletion of useful and referenced material from the article). Now, when references are clarified, why you do not tell me is there some other reason why you deleted this map? Do you claim that map is inaccurate in some way? Do you have some references which contradicting to this map? I want to understand your position here. 109.121.32.27 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is also additional reference where Iazyges lived on even larger territory: http://admw.ru/books/Tadeush-Sulimirskiy_Sarmaty--Drevniy-narod-yuga-Rossii/sarmat45.1.jpg 109.121.32.27 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

More references: http://imtw.ru/uploads/imperiall/imgs/total_war1383213563_sarmat451.jpg http://www.plam.ru/cultur/sarmaty_drevnii_narod_yuga_rossii/i_062.png http://historylib.org/historybooks/Igor-Kolomiytsev_Slavyane-vykhod-iz-teni/1378047071_fd9e.png 109.121.32.27 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

109.121.32.27, for book sources I need ISBN and page number, and for website, it cannot just be the image, as the page needs to show some knowledge of the subject, in order to be used as a ref, another user has given me some suggestions I'll be looking through. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What? This is first time in Wikipedia ever that somebody is raising objection about reference based on lack of an ISBN (and I am editing Wikipedias in various languages for many years). However, I have that book in my home, so this is very easy task for me to find. So, again, book: Valentin Vasiljevič Sedov, Sloveni u dalekoj prošlosti, Novi Sad, 2012. publisher: Akademska knjiga. Page number: 322. ISBN 978-86-62630-22-3. Do you have any other objection about this map? I see that you have not objected to map accuracy, so I hope that there are no more problems that map is included into article? 109.121.46.39 (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

None, thank you 109.121.46.39! The reason I wanted to cite it was that I'm working on getting this article to featured class, so all the images need a citation. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

English singular

Can the singular form of the Iazyges (with pronunciation) be mentioned? The image description reads "an Iazyx", yet there is no mention if it's right or wrong (aside from the Greek variant).--Adûnâi (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Done. It is mentioned within body as well. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note

The dynamic IPs that have been hitting this article are probably the Perun editor, who is banned. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It would seem so; I have reverted it to before he began to edit the article. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sugarloaf helms

Sugarloaf helms, are a type of high medival greathelm that appeared centuries later. I assume what the author ment, is that they used conic shaped helmat, maybe simmilar to those worn by the sarmatian on the trajan column. I would theirfor replace sugarloaf helms with conic helms and remove the nonsensical link to the medival  greathelm article

Partiscum is Szeged, not Kecskemét!

The article says that the capital of the Iazyges was Partiscum, which is now Kecskemét. This is false. Partiscum is the old name of Szeged. So which of them was the capital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.153.176 (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)