Talk:Rhomphaia

message: The text says: "Michael Psellus writes that all Varangians without exception used what he refers to as a "rhomphaia," but in doing so was referring to the Varangian daneaxe."
It seems like the author put in his own vlaues in this. I do not say that he was infact not referring to the daneaxe - as I dont know anything about that - but most of the Varangians, at least in the beginning, was swedish and in sweden, and maybe the rest of scandinavia, there was a weapon called "Svärdstav" (Swordstaff - most likely simply an old sword mounted on a staff) that are a lot more similar to the "rhomphaia" then the "daneaxe". In the old sagas there is also names like "höggspjót" (similar to "chopping/cuting/biteing spear") and texts like "he cutted and trusted with his spear" wich can be seen as evidence that there was a type of spear in scandinavia that you both could trust and cut/chop with - similar to the "rhomphaia". 
So... It is possible, but not certaint, that what is refferd to as the Varangian "rhomphaia" is not at all referring to a "daneaxe" but to a "Swordstaff" instead.
83.226.118.69 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varangian Rhomphaia = Daneaxe or Swordstaff?? 

message: Found some great Rhomphaia pictures on Flickr. Could be great additions to the article. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some great pictures 

message: In today romanian language the verb "a rupe" means "to tear apart - to rip" (and a whole family of derivation words), while the archaic version "a rumpe" is still used as regionalism. Bigshotnews 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rupe-rumpe 

message: If all the roman helmets found with this reinforcement date from the dacian wars (they don't have to be found in the area, as a soldier who fought against the dacians could then have served in briton), all that you can logically conclude is that the helmets were strengthened at that time. While you could conjecture that the falx was responsible, to state categorically that this was the case would be wrong (unless, of course, someone has found a letter from Trajan ordering such improvements). Any such improved helmets pre-dating the Dacian Wars would, of course, invalidate the claim outright.Glevum (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falx leading to improvements in roman armour 

message: The references to the Byzantine rhomphaia are out of date and incorrect. There is no archaeological evidence for their existence and so I'm going to remove that section. See this article by Dr Timothy Dawson http://www.levantia.com.au/theory/rhomfaia.html Master z0b (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Byzantine references 

message: it is spelled romfea and not rhomphaia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.101.175 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  a notice 

message: It says "attached to a pole", but later it is stated to have a tang through most/all of the grip.
Those completely mutually exclusive statements.
Either it is attached to a pole (with possibly a tang, a little bit into it), or it has a tang going through most/all of the grip, which cannot be said to be a pole.
It's one or the other. Both cannot be true, as that would be logically, physically, and definitionally impossible. The one excludes the possibility of the other ...and given the very long tang, on the surviving examples... 94.255.211.44 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attached to a pole"?