06-09-2007, 01:08 AM
Here is a picture from the same source, again found lurking within the depths of my hard drive, of two small straight rhomphaia.
Note how the grips lack the small projections at the end and how there is no flange along the spine of the blade and how there are no flanges on the top and bottom of the tang. As I mentioned before, those are key differences between the long rhomphaia and the short rhomphaia.
![[Image: rhom.jpg]](http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l126/cnaeusvalerius/rhom.jpg)
As to why this is so...well...there are two possible reasons:
1. The short rhomphaia were used differently than the long rhomphaia and where therefore not subjected to the same stresses or,
2. The long rhomphaia pushed Thracian metallurgy to its limits and so they required the reinforcing features of the T-shaped blade and I-beam shaped tang in order to limit breakage while keeping the overall weigth of the weapon down. The short rhomphaia on the otherhand were well within the limits of their metallurgy and needed no such reinforcement or could be reinforced by the much simpler expedient of making them somewhat thicker.
The small rhomphaia is definitely light enough to be used with one hand and I noticed that if you slip your grip back towards the end of the hilt the blade has very similar handling characteristics to my Oakeshott Type XIIa. The Type XIIa in generally considered to have been used one handed while mounted and two handed while dismounted. I know I am putting myself out on a limb here, but I think perhaps the short rhomphaia were the back up weapon for mounted Thracians. You would have a pretty good reach with it while on horseback and when dismounted (probably because you fell off the horse seeing as you had no stirrups) you could switch to a two handed grip. I imagine it would be something like half-swording without the need to take hold of the blade since the weapon is already half blade and half grip.
Note how the grips lack the small projections at the end and how there is no flange along the spine of the blade and how there are no flanges on the top and bottom of the tang. As I mentioned before, those are key differences between the long rhomphaia and the short rhomphaia.
As to why this is so...well...there are two possible reasons:
1. The short rhomphaia were used differently than the long rhomphaia and where therefore not subjected to the same stresses or,
2. The long rhomphaia pushed Thracian metallurgy to its limits and so they required the reinforcing features of the T-shaped blade and I-beam shaped tang in order to limit breakage while keeping the overall weigth of the weapon down. The short rhomphaia on the otherhand were well within the limits of their metallurgy and needed no such reinforcement or could be reinforced by the much simpler expedient of making them somewhat thicker.
The small rhomphaia is definitely light enough to be used with one hand and I noticed that if you slip your grip back towards the end of the hilt the blade has very similar handling characteristics to my Oakeshott Type XIIa. The Type XIIa in generally considered to have been used one handed while mounted and two handed while dismounted. I know I am putting myself out on a limb here, but I think perhaps the short rhomphaia were the back up weapon for mounted Thracians. You would have a pretty good reach with it while on horseback and when dismounted (probably because you fell off the horse seeing as you had no stirrups) you could switch to a two handed grip. I imagine it would be something like half-swording without the need to take hold of the blade since the weapon is already half blade and half grip.
Dan Zeidler
Legio XX
Legio XX
