Spatha, cAD300

[Nathan Ross]

Sword typology and morphology is far from my strong point, and I don't have a copy of Miks, which seems to be the bible in these things. So I was wondering whether somebody better-informed could give me an idea of the most likely common sword forms, and particularly hilt forms, in use at the beginning of the 4th century?

I've seen plenty of illustrations of the Straubing/Nydam/Illerup blades, but the hilts seem to vary between the more familiar lobate forms in the 3rd century and later versions - a flatter type, like two discs sandwiching the grip, and something like an hourglass... Were all of these hilt forms in use at the same sort of time? Is it possible to establish a chronology of development? What type of hilt might have been most widely used cAD300?

Thanks! mile:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

This is the one Deepeeka Tried to do, the Cologne Blade, but this one is made by Patrick Barta. It dates to roughly 300 AD.

http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/119-ro.../a19av.jpg

[Nathan Ross]

Yes, I've seen that one before. It's a nice looking sword, but I'd always though the Koln spatha was a 3rd century type - it looks like a very obvious progression from earlier Roman forms.

Most of the discussions I've found about this revolve around the length and shape of the blade, presumably because the Danish bog deposits are mainly lacking hilts. But it's the hilt form I'm principally concerned with.

[Sextus Saturninus]

The spatha seems to have kept its hilt form all the way up to the very late period, when the sword seems to have transitioned into the early medieval swords. Spathas were very well forged and decorated nicely, while the swords that succeeded it were much poorer quality. The grip looks a lot like a later form of gladius, keeping the connection between the two swords, predecessor and successor.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The original:



Always check out Comitatus:

http://www.comitatus.net/galleryweaponry.html

Their blades are more Late 4th/5th century than Early 4th Century, but nevertheless useful.

I'm sure Robert Wimmers will come along eventually and post all about Spathas, he's basically an expert on them

[Nathan Ross]

Ah yes, that's a nice gallery on the Comitatus site.

But what might the date difference be between these two swords?:

[attachment=11195]swords.jpg[/attachment]

At what point do we move from this to this, and this, and then on to this and this (a Nydam sword dated '200-500CE', which seems to allow for a wide latitude!)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

This is a Lauriacum Hromovka type, 2nd Century AD.



Hard to tell what this is, looks like a fancier Germanic Type-I.



Don't know the name but this is of a type seen around 350 AD.



Nydam Blade, 3rd Century, maybe 4th. Not quite sure on the dating.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Nathan,

The age difference is not the only factor that differs in these swords. They appear to be from different cultures. The top one looks like a later Germanic pattern, around 400 ad. The other sword looks more Roman, around 250-300ad. The pommels and grips are very different, telling which one is Germanic (top one) and which one is Roman (bottom one).

[Nathan Ross]

telling which one is Germanic (top one) and which one is Roman (bottom one).

I'm sure that's the accepted view - but how certain can we be about the 'ethnic' identity of artifacts in this period, with so much cultural interpenetration going on?

[Sextus Saturninus]

You are right, it could also have been used by a Roman, my guess would be an Foederati soldier. The cultures were mixing, the result being the early medieval period and the swords were used by anyone who had one.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The two blades on the Comitatus website you posted Nathan are a Germanic Type-I Spatha, which is a pretty generic typology that ranges over several centuries, and the bottom one is Roman, of the same type as the 4th century Cologne example but with lenticular blade and a simpler hilt.

The Germanic Type-I is what eventually became the standard Roman Spatha: we can see this in Roman blades like the Feltwell, a Roman munitions blade dating to about 400 AD, which is very similar to a Germanic Type-I. The later Pouan example appears to be basically the same as the Feltwell, but far fancier and better made. By the time of Justinian, the Germanic Type-I is the standard Roman Spatha.

So yes, either of these blades could be used interchangeably: the Germanics ended up with quite a bit of Roman equipment circulating through Barbaricum, and the Romans sometimes adopted foreign influences in their military paraphernalia.

[Sextus Saturninus]

The Romans were known to see that their enemies' gear was better than theirs and then adopt it after some modifications to make it more
" Roman ". That was the case with the spatha, gladius, pugio, montifortino, gallic helmets, and many other pieces of Roman equipment. Those crafty Romans!

[Dan D'Silva]

But isn't the Germanic type itself a modification of the Roman type? Or perhaps a mixing of Roman and late La Tene styles?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'd say yes, but honestly I don't know how early the Germanic Type-I appears.

[Sextus Saturninus]

I thought that the spatha was developed by Celts, used by Roman cavalry, then used by Roman infantry, and then the Germans adopted the pattern. Tacitus records auxiliaries using it early in the first century A.D. in Britain, suggesting a western European development by Romans, Germans, or Celts.