Talk:Spatha

More information
the spatha is a straight slashing sword used by the roman armies and miletery the sword was over three feet long.

The Spatha was originally used by Iberian-Celtic horsemen. The Romans adapted it after fighting their Iberian Wars.


 * That would be after the 70s BC (Quintus Sertorius); do you have a reference for that? here somebody claims that it was Gallic, and somebody else that it was Germanic. dab (&#5839;) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * from here it would seem you are confusing the Spatha with the Gladius which was adopted in the 3rd century. dab (&#5839;) 13:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

≈== Typology == Should we consider the spatha and all of it's successor's to be of Germanic rather than roman origin? A similar blade typology can be seen in bronze age longswords from the netherlands(the swords are from just before the netherlands came under the germanic sphere of influence) and as far as I am aware the spatha was adopted after conflict with the Germmanic tribes. http://www.angelfire.com/me/ik/pics1.html

maybe Viking sword should become a separate article, and possibly also Migration Age sword/Germanic sword. Plus, we'll need Celtic sword to bridge Bronze Age sword with this article. dab (&#5839;) 13:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ["this is all incorrect, the transition in the later roman empire from gladius to spatha was much more to do with the fact that many of the Roman legionaries at that point had been recruited from the roman provinces and as such were far more accustomed to a longer blade like a spatha. There is no evidence to show that there was a consistent difference of construction between gladii and spatha, and there are at least a few examples of pattern welded Gladii"]
 * I deleted this paragraph as it was clearly a discussion page issue, rather than something that should go in an article. I am, however, not in a position to determine the correctness of the comment. 206.253.219.50 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Nathen

Actually, we have little to no idea what the underlying reason was for the transition from shorter to longer swords amongst the Roman infantry; it's all pretty much guesswork and theories. It remains a very active debating point. The general consesus, though, seems to be that it was gradual and not uniform. Indeed, there is increasing archaeological evidence to suggest the Gladius Hispanicus had quite a long blade when first assimilated in the late Republic, perhaps 27" or so. Thanks for removing the paragraph --M.J.Stanham 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how Vendel, Migrationary and Norse blades are considered spatha. They are certainly somewhat derivative, but the blades are fullered, the fittings advance from wood to metal and changed shape.  Also, "brazil nut pommels" are later than Viking era.
 * Add to that, all the Viking era swords I've handled were about 26" of blade and 6" of hilt section, for 32", not 37". I'd sure like to see one of these fencing length Viking swords everyone alludes to.
 * Also, pattern-welded gladii date back before BCE, per examples in "Swords and Hilt Weapons" ISBN1566192498 --Michael Z. Williamson

Well, Spatha vary in length and 26" of Blade would probably still qualify. My understanding is that Viking Sword Blades could go up to about 30", but were rarely longer. A rough guide to this sort of thing is 12" or less = Dagger / Knife, 12-24" = 'Short Sword' / Gladius / Semi Spatha / etc.. / 24-36" = 'Long Sword' / Spatha / Medieval Sword / etc... Such a system breaks down fairly easily, but it's just a rough guide. I think it's inspired by the Japanese categorising of blades by 'Shaku'. Classifying swords is very difficult, because the terminology is inadequette and means different thing in different times and places to different people. --M.J.Stanham 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the Viking section then. And it doesn't belong here. They're a distant descendant of the spatha, not a spatha. One might as well call the Italians Greeks, since their Latin predecessors were influenced by them...Mzmadmike 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the reasons for adoption of the Spatha, which is limited and based only on one writer, is that it was related to the use of cavalry. A longer blade is needed for a mounted soldier to strike a soldier on foot. It shouldn necessarily be assumed that increased numbers of legionaries being recriuted from the provinces brought about such changes, either (or similar changes seen in the late Empire, such as the adoption of trousers in preference to tunics, or the wearing of socks in northern Europe. These are just as likely to have come about through less direct exposure to non-Roman cultures, as through the direct recruitment of non-Romans as soldiers. Adrian Goldsworthy talks about both of these points in his "The Complete Roman Army", Thames & Hudson 203 Drew Bassett (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links section needs a thorough cleanup
Kindly evaluate and rid the section of double links, dead links and possible SPAM...--The world salutes the Rising Star...Try to be One 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin and use of spatha
Sorry I'm going to have to make some radical changes here. The article does not quote any sources at all and is obviously based on the hoaky Internet articles that all rely on each other and don't quote any sources either. There's a bunch of totally wrong assumptions associated with them. The spatha never was a specifically cavalry weapon. There is no evidence of that. The statement seems to be based on the idea that Roman cavalry were auxilliaries and that auxilliaries were cavalry. Not so. Every legion had alae of native cavalry in it from earliest times. Moreover most auxilliaries were infantry not cavalry. The Germanics had some cavalry that served in the Roman army but there is no evidence that they carried the spatha while the infantry did not. All this is pure speculation and supposition, and it's wrong. And there is all that stuff about the spatha being a slashing sword. There's no evidence of that either. Like the gladius it could be used for cut or thrust. What do you think the long point was for? And then there are the various statements trying to connect Celtic swords and broadswords and all kinds of other swords to the spatha in some sort of line of development. But the sword picture is very complex. Like gladius it came to mean any sort of sword whether two-handed or dagger. I'm going to try to summarize the essence of what there is so bear with me. OR, come up with some evidence to substantiate what looks to me like pure duplicated hoak. Those sword salesmen will tell you anything. Want to buy a genuine cavalry spatha for 400 dollars?Dave 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to it, Dave. You did a great job with the Gladius article. I still have a couple of nits to pick, but it really is a hundred times improved. I will try to find some time to help out where I may.--M.J.Stanham 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

so whats the origin then??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:F400:6120:CC0:30C3:4FBD:BAC4 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Viking swords
So I actually didn't get it, will these two pages (Spatha and Viking sword) be separated? I wanted to suggest this topic for discussion, but I've seen that the word "Viking" has already been used here, but unfortunately only used, and I haven't seen any signs of a decision.


 * These swords are not absolutely and totally different, but they are different enough that Viking sword to deserve it's own article and page in an encyclopedia. Siliconov 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is intended that such will be the eventual outcome. It depends how this page progresses. There is certainly a lot more to be said about the swords that developed from the Roman Spatha. Whether it is best to refer to them as Viking or Viking Age Swords is another matter. The Arming sword / Knightly sword Article presents a cut off point. --M.J.Stanham 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the pages will be separate eventually, but I would prefer writing the material first and separating later, otherwise we'll just have a content-less stub sitting around for the next year or so. As soon as somebody is willing to write a full article on the Viking sword, be my guest and separate it! dab (𒁳) 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Length
Some sources measure blade length; other sources measure total length. When discussing sword length, it is very important (1) to specify whether you mean blade length or total length and (2) not to read others' references to the one as references to the other. It is sometimes helpful to provide both figures, though many more finds have broken hilts than broken blades. The article as written does not explain which length it refers to. The figures are somewhat too narrow for total length and far too high for blade length. Starting with Newstead, (Pit 14) is 77 cm total and 62 cm blade, (Pit 16) is 76 total, 63 blade. Kostolna (Grave 37) is 74 cm total. One of the spathae from Nawa is 71 cm total. Others push the upper bounds. Rottweil is 102 cm total, 87 cm blade. Jacob Haller 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely true. This article is in a transitional stage and the more data that can be collated regarding extant Spatha examples the better. Both Imperial and Metric Measurements need eventually to be included, since both are current in the English speaking world. As I understand it, most Spatha blades range from around 24" (approximately 60 cm) to around 30" (approximately 75 cm), whilst the Grip, Guard and Pommel range from around 5" (12.5 cm) to 7" (17.5 cm). The Rottweil sounds like an exceptional find, but it's not surprising to find examples with blade lengths pushing 36" (90 cm). Blade shape, supposed date and find location would be useful for the purposes of this article, as the more citations we can provide the more stable the article is likely to be; the Gladius article is a good example of this approach. --M.J.Stanham 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only extensive list I'm aware of hasn't been peer-reviewed. Jacob Haller 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
The word spatha derives from Ancient Greek σπάθη (spathe) "any broad blade, of wood or metal" (Liddell and Scott). Someone add this in the article nicely. Also the word remains today in Greek σπάθη (spathe), fem. and σπαθί (spathi), neut. Helladios 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide sources? My understanding was that the term only appears in late classical Greek, and late classical Latin, both in the 2nd century and after. Moreover, that Spatha does not come from a Greek root. This suggests that both Greek and Latin borrowed the term from another language. Jacob Haller 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

σπάθη derives from εις-πάθη which literary means in-suffer. Learn a language first before you make comments that a term was borrowed by "another language". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.202.91 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the term appears in early classical Greek in works such as: Herodotus The Histories, 7.69, Aeschylus Libation Bearers 232, Plato Lysis 208d etc., so it was used in Greek since at least the 5th century BCE. Helladios 07:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some sources for the above etymology apart from the one I already mentioned (Liddell and Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon) are: Lewis and Short: A Latin Dictionary, Valpy: Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language and www.etymonline.com . I’ll wait for a couple of days and if no one else does it, then I’ll add the correct etymology myself. Helladios 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Info requested
More info on the Spatharius (carrier of the Spatha), is requested. Who knows more than is on that article allready? Randalph P. Williams 11:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * Length. If we are counting blade length, instead of blade+hilt length, then these figures are too high.
 * Presumed Germanic auxiliaries. Could be Celtic auxiliaries or even legionaries. It's one hypothesis, but we don't know much for sure about differences between legionary and auxiliary equipment. It is, however, associated with cavalry sites (e.g. Newstead) before it is common at infantry sites.
 * Gladius as light infantry weapon. The gladius completely disappears after the 1ate 1st/early 2nd century. After that it was gone, not relegated to light infantry.
 * Gladius as shorter. Gladius length dropped sharply between the late Republic and the early Empire, but there was certainly overlap in the former period.
 * Gladius as leaf-shaped. Gladii varied in shape. The "Mainz type" were more leaf-shaped than the "Pompeii type." Jacob Haller 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the Gladius does not completely disappear forever during the 2nd Century. For some diagrams of extant Roman Swords see this website: http://romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk/figures.htm There is, however, a question as to how you determine what is and is not a Gladius. This received lengthy discussion in the preperation of the Gladius Article, but essentially we have a disconnect between how the Romans used the word Gladius (generically to mean Sword) and how we have come to use the word Gladius in modern English (Roman 'Short' Sword). By way of example, we can point to Vegetius who uses the word Gladius as a general word for Spatha and Semi Spatha (whatever he precisely meant by those terms). It is probably more accurate to speak in terms of 'types' of Gladius, but even that is not without problems. Regardless, it is true that there is no evidence that the Gladius became a Light Infantry Weapon, only that the Spatha was increasingly adopted by the Infantry. M.J.Stanham 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As were thrusting spears, according to Stephenson 2001, among others. Jacob Haller 03:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On your third point, the gladius appears on Trajan's Column. As that was finished in 113, the gladius was in no way "gone" by that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.241.196 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Latinized Time References

 * In an article dealing with distinctly Roman concepts, the use of latinized time references is both appropriate and necessary for cultural integrity. Further, this article was originally written using AD/BC time references that were subsequently (and improperly) edited out.  In my opinion and based on the original text of this article, the recent "undoing" of my correction to AD/BC from the CE/BCE time references is both hypocritical and improper.  I invite a conversation on this matter.Jpetersen46321 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image
I find it questionable to display a $129.95 replica made in India as the main, or indeed only, illustration of the article. Especially seeing that this particular replica is a "late Roman spatha" sporting a double fuller. Now I don't know if there are any known Roman spathae with double fullers, but unless we are able to substantiate that there are, even as exceptions, it is extremely misleading to show this image. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing
There seem to be confusions in the article between the word "spatha" and the thing it describes. Presumably this is an article primarily about swords, the etymology of the word should be relegated to a paragraph at most.

There is too much "German stuff," the Germans from the period 100BC-600AD were not at the forefront of metallurgical/weapons development, they reacted to influences. As the Nydam and other weapon hoards testify they largely used Roman gladius-type swords when Roman influence was at its height. Later, they adopted longer swords due to Sarmatian and Alan influence, as did the Romans (to be accurate they extended the use of longer swords). The bar-like guard common to most post 400AD swords was a steppe-Iranian development, first seen on the Eurasian steppes. Both the Germans and the Romans adopted this form of hilt from the Sarmatian peoples. This type of sword can be seen c.400AD on ivory plaques, being worn by the Roman general Stilicho and the Roman emperor Honorius.

The Viking Age stuff doesn't mention that most of the blades, even the ones with Scandinavian hilts, were forged in the Rhineland. Many were inlaid with the the words ULFBEHRT FECIT, which was a bit like the running wolf mark in the 17th and 18th centuries, a claim to good quality.

I don't think the Varangian comment can really stand, the Byzantine emperor Manuel I (1143-1180) is recorded as saying he thought that Western European swords were based on Byzantine models, not the reverse.

Urselius (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be very interested in references to establish that This being the general "spatha" article, its scope spans the entire first millennium, but emphasis should be on the Roman era spatha (i.e. the first half of the millennium), as we have dedicated sub-articles on the Migration period sword (450-700) and the Viking sword (700-1100). --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bar-like guard common to most post 400AD swords was a steppe-Iranian development
 *  most of the [Viking Age] blades, even the ones with Scandinavian hilts, were forged in the Rhineland

There is a lot of confusion in this article.

If the this type of a sword was in use since the first century AD then how come that etymology of the word we find from greek written word from IV century AD when this word wasn't in use before in greek language. yllbardh 13:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edited
I have generally cleaned up grammar (and a few instances of spelling). However, not knowing much about the subject there were a few things which did not sound correct but I could not change without altering the meaning. Could someone have a quick glance through and then confirm that the copy-edit tag can be removed. Thanks Jamioe (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim removed
I removed unsourced claim "The predecessor of the spatha is the 3rd century BC (La Tène) Celtic sword". It's at least dubious, considering the sourced since 6th century BC σπάθη as the actual predecessor of spatha. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is just the origin of the Greek word. You have to distinguish the origin of the word from the origin of the actual Roman sword that came to be known as spatha. You might as well claim that it is incorrect that the first guitars date to the Renaissance period because the word kithara is already ancient Greek. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * However sources (see LSJ) stating that σπάθη was defined as a "broad blade of a sword" since 6th century BC . The Cat and the Owl (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Your point being? σπάθη is just a Greek word for "blade, paddle, spoon, etc." This is not ancient Greek Wikipedia, and this article is not about blades or paddles in general, but about the Roman sword that happened to be called spatha in Latin. The Greek word is just the etymology. You will be hard put to dig up 6th century BC swords in Greece that can be argued to be the morphological predecessor of the Roman spatha. The morphological predecessor is La Tène, even if the word is Greek. There is a difference between words and things. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)