AH Plausibility: A Surviving Scytho-Sarmatian state in Eurasia

There was a great mess in antiquity concerning the Scythians. First any nomads of somewhat Iranian origin could be called that name by the Greeks. And they were somehow right for they were most probably closely related.
The there was a geographical principle - any(!) tribe who happened to live in 'Scythia' (Northern Black Sea coast very roughly) could be called Scyths (even when the Scyths themselves had been long gone). So the Eastern Romans often called the Goths, the Rus and even some Pechenegs or whatever - 'the Scyths'.
Go figure! :)
Absolutely, it gets a little less confusing when you use non-Greek sources to try to make sense of things but there's a limit as to how much even that helps. The term 'Saka' was used by the Persians to refer to tribes on their northern border that were almost certainly Scythians, and indeed the two are related; as I recall 'Saka' is related to a Persian word for 'archer'. I can't recall whether 'Scythian' is a Greek rendering of the word, or a Greek borrowing of an alternate form of the Persian original.

The Greek names for a couple of tribes help a little more; the 'Massagetai' North of Bactria for instance is almost certainly a Greek transliteration of a term meaning 'Great Saka'.

Between this stuff, it seems likely that 'Saka' or something similar was actually used by people inhabiting areas associated with 'Scythians'. This is important, because it means that it was a conscious identity choice rather than an exonym- a name given to them by others that they themselves didn't use.

Also, to use the later example of Turks and Mongols, though they eventually contracted in terms of the areas they directly controlled they were still spread over a huge area of land at their height, in the case of the Mongols and their successors many of the same areas that the 'Scythians' had previously inhabited. So i'm saying that the Scythians, or Saka, really might have been spread over all the areas they're connected to.
 
Ye, it was the so-called Scyths-plowmen (or whatever it is in English, sorry). But they were Thracian in origin subjected by the Scyths and culturally influenced by them. They did not. They were pure 100% nomads. Maybe some of their subjected peoples did.

You know since 18-th century the Polish toyed with the idea that they originated from the Sarmations . The Russian in their turn pleased themselves that their ancestors were the Scyths.
The reason was simple - it was cool to have such ancient and glorious ancestors. You know that the Slavs were not too 'ancient' and they were hardly glorious in antiquity.

But the 20-th century archeology proved with 100% certainty that it had nothing(!) to do with reality. The nomad peoples of Iranian origin did not move Northward from the Black Sea coast.

There was a great mess in antiquity concerning the Scythians. First any nomads of somewhat Iranian origin could be called that name by the Greeks. And they were somehow right for they were most probably closely related.
The there was a geographical principle - any(!) tribe who happened to live in 'Scythia' (Northern Black Sea coast very roughly) could be called Scyths (even when the Scyths themselves had been long gone). So the Eastern Romans often called the Goths, the Rus and even some Pechenegs or whatever - 'the Scyths'.
Go figure! :)

The Scyths and Sarmatians were one and the same people. The Sarmatians were just a 'wilder' version of the Scyths. And the Sarmatians were extremely closely related to the Alans. And the modern-day Ossetins are the descendants of the Alans.
So we do have a Scythian small state in Eurasia. Though they are not independent states. At least so far. Their two republics are included in Russia and Georgia.

North and South Ossetia, right? If I do remember correctly, Stalin was part Ossetian so he must have some Sarmatian and Scythian ancestry in him, right?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alania

What if we made an ATL out of the Kingdom of Alania, in which the POD is that something happens to make the Alans much more powerful Steppe state, allowing them to dominate the steppe. An 'Alanwank' if you prefer.

You mean an Alanwank that would make them the Caucasian analogue of the Scandinavians and the Slavs and Khazars would become the colonized peoples? That's be nice. An Alanwank would also have to involve either the Alans integrating with both Slavs and Western Gokturk Turkic tribes or an Alanwank that would dominate both Slavs and Armenians.
 
The Finno-Ugorians are like today's Estonians, Finns and Hungarians, right? The Slavs in this case would not be influenced by either Goths or Finno-Ugorians, right?
In my opinion the Slavs would be influenced by both Goths and Finno-Ugorians. They would move (migrate) into the Goths' Empire.
 
In my opinion the Slavs would be influenced by both Goths and Finno-Ugorians. They would move (migrate) into the Goths' Empire.

So would the Balts also be assimilated by the Goths as well? Only the East Slavs might be assimilated, since I'm not sure where the Gothic Empire would be built. Of course, the Goths might play the role of a Gothic Varangian group in this case.
 
Also, the Huns could still potentially form an empire instead of the Goths, and I'm not sure when the Slavs started to migrate westwards but could the Huns be the analogue to the Scandinavians and Mongols to the Slavs? In that case, all hail Slavo-Hungaria!
 
Top