The Semispatha and the Saex

[Longovicium]

I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this but I came across a reference online to Carolingian articles prescribing the arms and armour of the cavalry and infantry:

The armament carried by the cavalry was specified in two texts. The Capitulare missorum of 792-793 11 referred to benefice and office holders who were able to possess horses and armor, as well as shield and lance, longsword (spata) and sax (semispatum).12 In the letter sent by Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad in 806, however,13 each horseman was commanded to have a bow and several quivers of arrows in addition to the shield and lance, sword and sax.14

The site is here:

http://asnoc.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/ca...h-century/

I have always wondered about the semispatha mentioned by Vegetius and assumed it was just another term for a short-sword. The quote above however allows the possibility that in fact this is the Roman term for the native Germanic saex, or single-edged short-sword; that in fact, the semi refers not to it size but to the fact that it has only one edged-side and is therefore a semi-sword . . . And that made me wonder if the saex had a Latin name used in Late Roman military writings?

Am I being fanciful here, I wonder? Or has anyone else spotted this later Latin reference to the semispatha as a saex and simply understood it as an anachronistic use of the word?

Any thoughts would be helpful here!

[M. Val. Naso]

Semispatha means halfsword. The sax did not really appear at the time of Vegetius, fruthermore there are no short sword finds in romen contexts apart from the Beroun Závodí sword AFAIK.

Also, this is a ninth c. text, quite far from the 4-5th centuries.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I am inclined to agree with Mark George Little, but I am not against Soldiers of the late 4th or 5th centuries in Britain and North Gaul carrying the langseax (after all there were two Roman-Era ones found in Pouan (450ish) and Blucina (470ish) respectively.)

[Longovicium]

Oh dear, it seems my use of English is leading to confusion here. I do apologise.

I had thought that my reference to the source text as being Carolingian meant that I understood it as being much later than Vegetius. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My apologies there.

Also, I had thought that the fact I referred to the 'semispatha' as a half or short sword made it clear that I understand the consensual meaning of the term. Again, I apologise that my poor use of English meant that you felt you had to point out something that I in fact already understood.

If I understand correctly, is not the term 'Saxon' used by the Romans in this period a direct derivative from 'Saex' and means 'people of the sword', as it were?

My original inquiry is in reference to the curiosity of the later Latin term semispatum being a direct correlation to the saex and if it were possible that this correlation might have happened earlier and hence account for the word 'semispatha' in Vegetius. I suppose what I am really seeking is advice about why the Roman semispatha came to be directly referred to as a saex in the later Carolingian period? If the original semispatha was simply a shorter version of the spatha and not a gladius by another name then why did it later become a different weapon? A seax and a short sword, to me, seem to be different weapons.

Again, my ignorance here is probably speaking volumes!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The reason IMO is that most early Seaxes were Langseaxes (which are... well I think 19 inches was the Pouan Langseax), which are shortsword length. This is AFAIK of course, I'm sure Robert W or Robert V or Mark GL could correct men of course.

[Nathan Ross]

has anyone else spotted this later Latin reference to the semispatha as a saex and simply understood it as an anachronistic use of the word?

This thread has some interesting stuff at the beginning, including a reference to your Carolingian text, and details of what appear to be some later Roman shortsword finds. The possibility that in some cases a semispatha might refer to a single-edged weapon is noted (see also Eduard's post on p.2 about a later Greek translation calling a 'semispathium' a paramèrion).

Trouble is, Vegetius (II.15) is probably thinking of the old gladius and pugio arrangement as described in his source texts (although he gives his 'ancient' soldier plumbatae, so who knows?).

If the word was used, I would imagine it had a rather wide and inexact meaning - no more specific than our own 'shortsword' in fact - and so could refer to all kinds of weapons.

is not the term 'Saxon' used by the Romans in this period a direct derivative from 'Saex' and means 'people of the sword', as it were?

Isn't it more likely to be the other way around? It was called a 'sax' because Saxons used it? Simply because Saxon occurs much earlier in our sources than saex... But if there's a better idea of the etymology of either term I'd be interested to know!

[Thomas V.]

Trouble is, Vegetius (II.15) is probably thinking of the old gladius and pugio arrangement as described in his source texts [..].

You might very likely be right: "Secundus liber ueteris militiae continet morem, ad quem pedestris institui possit exercitus."

So maybe there never was a Roman semispatha? Maybe Vegetius indeed just used the terminology of his time to describe the gladius and pugio arrangement of "the good old days" (in Epitoma Rei Militaris V. glorifies the past, after all) when writing about the spatha and semispatha arrangement?

[Nathan Ross]

Maybe Vegetius indeed just used the terminology of his time to describe the gladius and pugio arrangement of "the good old days" ...?

I suspect so. As in Josephus (BJ, III.5.5) "The footmen... have swords on each side; but the sword which is upon their left side is much longer than the other, for that on the right side is not longer than a span."

Josephus is describing the gladius and pugio here (although reversed!) - Vegetius probably is too. Unless we are to believe that Roman soldiers really went around with two actual swords...

[Renatus]

If the original semispatha was simply a shorter version of the spatha and not a gladius by another name then why did it later become a different weapon?

We habitually call this weapon semispatha (I have myself almost certainly been guilty of this in the past) but that is not the word that Vegetius uses. He refers to it twice (Veg. 2.15.4 - semispathia; 2.16.1 - semispathiis), in both cases using words in the plural. Thus, the actual name of the weapon is semispathium. This is second declension neuter, as opposed to spatha which is first declension feminine. The distinction is preserved in the Carolingian text (spata; semispatum). This opens the distinct possibility that the semispathium is not simply a smaller spatha but another type of sword altogether.

[Thomas V.]

He refers to it twice (Veg. 2.15.4 - semispathia; 2.16.1 - semispathiis), in both cases using words in the plural. Thus, the actual name of the weapon is semispathium. This is second declension neuter, as opposed to spatha which is first declension feminine. The distinction is preserved in the Carolingian text (spata; semispatum). This opens the distinct possibility that the semispathium is not simply a smaller spatha but another type of sword altogether.

Good observation! BUT: In the De Gladiis part of his Etymologiae Isidor writes: "Semispatium gladium est a media spatae longitudine appallatum, non, ut inprudens vulgus dicit, sine spatio, dum sagitta velicior sit."

[Renatus]

In the De Gladiis part of his Etymologiae Isidor writes: "Semispatium gladium est a media spatae longitudine appallatum [..]"

There are some highly questionable etymologies in Isidore. Do we really believe that gladius is so-named "because it divides the throat" (quod gulam dividit)? It is quite likely that Isidore simply took what seemed to him to be the obvious derivation and assumed that semispathium meant 'half a spatha'. Actually, as your quotation shows, the words he uses are semispatium and spatae, although he uses spatha in the preceeding paragraph. His etymology for spatha also seems pretty dubious; he believes that it comes from the Greek pathein, 'to suffer'.

[Thomas V.]

I have found a German translation of the whole De Gladiis part. Isidor's etymologies indeed seem very far-fetched and hence are probably not the best source in terms of the terminology of Roman weapons.

[Thomas V.]

I suppose what I am really seeking is advice about why the Roman semispatha came to be directly referred to as a saex in the later Carolingian period? If the original semispatha was simply a shorter version of the spatha and not a gladius by another name then why did it later become a different weapon? A seax and a short sword, to me, seem to be different weapons.

In the individual Germanic languages sax mainly means "knive" and "small sword" (cf. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Band 26, 2004, p. 539). So it's not suprising that culter ("knive") and semispathium ("small spatha") are among the Latin euqivalents for sahs (cf. Waffenbezeichnungen in althochdeutschen Glossen: Sprach- und kulturhistorische Analysen und Wörterbuch, 2013, p. 220).


EDIT

Isn't it more likely to be the other way around? It was called a 'sax' because Saxons used it? Simply because Saxon occurs much earlier in our sources than saex... But if there's a better idea of the etymology of either term I'd be interested to know!

The term seax stems from the Indo-European root *sÁk- ("to cut").

[Learningcurve]

Nathan Ross wrote:
Isn't it more likely to be the other way around? It was called a 'sax' because Saxons used it? Simply because Saxon occurs much earlier in our sources than saex... But if there's a better idea of the etymology of either term I'd be interested to know!

The term seax stems from the Indo-European root *sÁk- ("to cut").

Agreed -- seax has a very solid Proto Indo European pedigree, with *sek- being the same PIE root that gives us various modern English words ("section," "segment" and "saw" for instance). It is also the same root that yielded contemporary or earlier Latin words like sicarius. I think as a demonym, Saxon is an indigenous term, rather than an externally applied one (by the Romans or other Germanic tribes), but it's based on a pretty commonplace word that probably was an unremarkable term. Romans were probably exposed to the term seax as a generic term among German tribes before they had any dealings of note with Saxons.

[XorX]

It must be noted that the early "schmale Langsaxe" what means long narrow seax clearly derive from steppe / hunnic weapons of the late 4th. century. There are some finds of them in hunnic contexts in Romania. Their appearence in the rich late-5th-century graves of Pouan, Blucina, Tournai IMO is part of the widespread use of a general eastern clothing and weapons style of the germanic "nobility" which includes cloisonnée stuff, gold spatha hilts etc.
Finds of schmale Langsaxe are really rare in normal lower status warrior graves between Romania and France. I know of three or so: one quite late example in Westheim / Bavaria (~530) and two mentioned in the Westheim publication from Thuringia.
The typical merovingian (better: central european) sax is a developement from "big knives": early examples ("Schmalsax" = narrow seax) from ca. 500-580 normally are much shorter than the Pouan /Blucina/.pieces and normally have less elaborate handles and fittings. They are followed by the "breitsax" or broad seax (~580-630), longer and heavier, the "schwerer Breitsax" or heavy broad seax (~630-680) and finally by the "Langsax" or long seax (~680-~800) which confusingly has nearly the same name as the early pieces, but is a weapon of another ancestry and much bigger dimension (up to 85cm in length). This is the type of weapon mentioned in the carolingian sources as semispatum.
I don`t really know about the chronology of seaxes on the British Isles, but, as far as I know, there are neither "big knives" which could be classified as seax in the 4th and 5th century saxon graves on the continent (for example the really rich grave with the "throne" from the Fallward near Bremerhafen from ~400-450 which contains a spatha, elaborate late roman pelt plates,...; but no "seax") nor in the early graves in Britain. The seax seems to appear in the 6th century in these regions as a mass "weapon" or better tool ( as it did on the continent).