Why did Scythians and Sarmatians disappear from history?

[noi_avorrit]

It's something which I've always wondered, as they seemed to have a strong position in what is now Kazakhstan and eastern Ukraine amid antiquity. They were the closest descendants of the Andronovo culture, where the folk called themselves "Aryan". The Scythians and Sarmatians also called themselves "Aryan" in dialectal versions, but it seemed to be in a very generalized way as they were more loyal to their specific tribe. Still, it seems that a tribe tried to unite both Sarmatians and Scythians under the name "Alans" which also means "Aryans" in a dialectal term, but they seemed to not be very successful and by the late Dark Ages (7th or 8th century maybe) they mixed (and became very diluted) with a group from the Caucasus area which created the Ossetian ethnic group, which speaks a language descended from the Alans but at the same time has grammatical influences from Caucasus languages.

What could have led to their demise? I ween that maybe old Kazakhs, Huns, and other east Asian groups were much more numerous than them and had more children thus colonized them, while in the areas of Ukraine and Russia where they lived maybe Slavic people did something similar. However who really knows what truly happened.

[kathisterima]

How do you know if they had a strong position, we know close to nothing about them. They were probably an amalgamation of nomadic tribes (probably numerous ethnicities) with no cohesion or political stability. 

They inhabited steppes/flatlands on which every 50 years some horde of nomads would invade and plunder/kill everything in sight. It's no surprise that the biggest linguistic clusterfucks are in the Caucasus, a region with conditions in which a language/culture could withstand large geopolitical changes taking place. 

By the way, there were some Iranic people in modern Hungary up until the 1400s, probably descendants of some Scythian tribe, look it up. Also, there's debate on whether Bulgars were Iranian or an amalgamation of tribes among which some were Iranian. It's not like they suddenly ceased to exist.

[noi_avorrit]

How do you know if they had a strong position, we know close to nothing about them. They were probably an amalgamation of nomadic tribes (probably numerous ethnicities) with no cohesion or political stability. 

Yeah you're right, we know next to nothing about them (except for their genetics) but I deduced they used to have a strong position because their ancestors the Andronovo could invade the whole of northern India and modern day Iran, apart from the war that the Persians under Darius had with them, when they were absolutely defeated by Scythians. They were also successful raiders.

Yeah they were an amalgamation of many nomadic tribes who were independent of one another, however they had the term "Aryan" and its dialectal forms as a catch-all term for Sarmatian and Scythian tribes, which later on the Alans (who were likely Massagetae) took advantage of as they started to call themselves that dialectal form of "Aryan" to unify all the tribes.

They inhabited steppes/flatlands on which every 50 years some horde of nomads would invade and plunder/kill everything in sight. It's no surprise that the biggest linguistic clusterfucks are in the Caucasus, a region with conditions in which a language/culture could withstand large geopolitical changes taking place. 

Yeah, what you say is quite true, the nomads were very "barbaric" in general and every once a while would invade territories and just kill and plunder. I think the Huns and old Kazakhs did that to Sarmatians and Scythians, they started going into their territories by raiding and plundering, and they just killed afterwards. Could be that way as Kazakhs are just Siberian plus a bit West Asian (Modern iranian-like) without any Andronovo admixture.

By the way, there were some Iranic people in modern Hungary up until the 1400s, probably descendants of some Scythian tribe, look it up. Also, there's debate on whether Bulgars were Iranian or an amalgamation of tribes among which some were Iranian. It's not like they suddenly ceased to exist.

Yeah true, I knew that folk although I forgot them when I wrote op. I think they eventually forgot their Aryan/Alanic derived language, but still preserve the identity.

[noi_avorrit]

Sorry for tagging you guys ( @RuudVanNistelrooy , @Duncan_ , @"comfortably dumb" , @"зайчик" , @MVP , @Torbik , among others...) but if ye want you could reply if ye find the topic interesting...

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

I know only that there were 10 major tribes that constitute today's European nations (Vizigots, Vandals etc) of whom 3 disappeared, i don't know if those are among them, in the Bible one new nation-state is mentioned as the 4th horn (Vatican).

[noi_avorrit]

I know only that there were 10 major tribes that constitute today's European nations (Vizigots, Vandals etc) of whom 3 disappeared, i don't know if those are among them, in the Bible one new nation-state is mentioned as the 4th horn (Vatican).

Yeah I see, the Vandals disappeared though it seems. But to some extent the west Goths or alternatively called Visigoths also disappeared, they were defeated by Muslim nomadic pastoralists from the North of Africa, and the later Christian realms in the Iberian peninsula don't have much to do with the old Visigoths (Kingdom of Leon, Crown of Castile, Catalan Crown of Aragon, etc.), although truth to be told in the case of Catalonia is different as the earliest catalan nobility descended from Visigoths and there is more borrowing from the Gothic language in Catalan than in Spanish.


So in any case it's we catalans that would be more related to Visigoths than Castilians, but just a bit more, the Visigoths seem to have disappeared for all purposes.

[sub8yetalive]

bbc

[Zeus]

Because they were weak, had no culture and were uncivilized

[Altruist]

because they didn't have it