Talk:Spatha

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links section needs a thorough cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Origin and use of spatha

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Viking swords 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Info requested 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As were thrusting spears, according to Stephenson 2001, among others. Jacob Haller 03:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Specific concerns

message: :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)
thread_title: Latinized Time References

message: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy-edited 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see your point. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim removed