Sarmatian origins of the spatha?

[Conal]

Two things strike me about the two pictures posted;

(1) the lobbed pommel is of Gallic origin, vie the Hispaniensis

(2) The suspension system is very reminicient of the Gallic chain, later leather belt system.

I would be loathe to use these images to illustrate anyting Sarmaition.

[Nathan Ross]

I had always assumed the spatha would have originated with the Celts, yet the Celts were in Roman service for over a half century before the spatha shows up. Why wasn't the long sword adopted in the latter part of the 1st century BC?

The terms of this argument are a little broad, I think! Spatha was used to denote swords of various lengths at various periods. The Hod Hill sword, for example, is often called a spatha, and has a 700mm blade and Celtic/British styled hilt. It was found in an auxiliary fort dated to cAD50. Swords like this would perhaps have been in common use amongst western auxiliaries, but the blade length is not dissimilar to the later Straubing-Nydam swords from the 3rd century.

The long sword was not adopted by (legionary) infantry during the earlier era as their fighting style involved the use of a shorter blade. The cavalry - first allies, mainly Gallic, and later regular auxiliaries - would have used longer swords from an earlier period. Why the infantry later changed to a longer blade is still, I think, being debated - but by the end of the second century (or whenever this happened), Romans had been in contact with Sarmatians for over a century without feeling the need to change their swords!

Is there any evidence for substantial Alanic/Sarmatian/Iazyge recruitment into the Roman army before the later second century?

As for scale armour, I believe many cultures had used it since the bronze age, and it predated mail. The Romans most likely adopted it from the Greek and Hellenic armies.

[Conal]

As for the spatha, you have a point. Perhaps a good one. I had always assumed the spatha would have originated with the Celts, yet the Celts were in Roman service for over a half century before the spatha shows up. Why wasn't the long sword adopted in the latter part of the 1st century BC? Also the Celtic "longsword" was about 20cm shorter than the Alanic one, somewhere between a gladius and the fully-developed spatha. This whole thing intriques me, as mentioned in an earlier post.

I had assumed that a fully developed spatha was somewhat 75-80cm in blade length, similar to Celtic/Germanic ones and not 100cm as for a two handed sarmation blade.

at AD40-60 to maybe AD100 the Roman gladius reached it's shortest at 45-55cm. Their cavalry must have had something longer than this? Ceasar used Gallic & German cavalry 100 years earlier when a Celtic sword was at 75-80cm on average. They adopted Gallic helmets from this period, the Gallic saddle and not the sword?

[scotti73]

Concise and to the point Nathan. I am in full agreement with you.

[Dan Howard]

The Greeks and then the Romans have had an uninterrupted tradition of wearing scale armour since at least 1400BC. It originated in the Near East, not Central Asia.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I think that first one should look into the Linguistic provenance of the word Spatha which is not Latin nor is it Greek in origin. When you have assessed the origins of this longer sword, then you might get closer to the reality of it.

M.VIB.M.

[Joze Noriker]

Hy,
in Slovenia the Lt III( Lt d2) swords are to 105 cm long but the longest celtic sword comes from Germany and is 115 cm long. They all are classical cavalry swords.
But Alanus - your foto of the spatha from Filippovka is very interesting because the blade of my sword is the same - so was the original item, too. I know many late celtic swords with that blade - from Romania via Danube basin to Germany and of course we know them here in Slovenia, too. But the sword has not the same form - i don't know the correct word on english for that - if you look on the left side by the wooden handle on this point is the celtic sword very different to the later spathas. Well, from Germany are celtic's swords items with the same handle wich are on the later roman spathas, too. Yes, their origins comes from the Galia.
My sword is here i have my own smithy here in Slovenia and is 103,5 cm long so was the orig. item in our river Ljubljanica:

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j409...HWERT1.jpg

Joze

[Alanus]

Hy,
in Slovenia the Lt III( Lt d2) swords are to 105 cm long but the longest celtic sword comes from Germany and is 115 cm long. They all are classical cavalry swords.
But Alanus - your foto of the spatha from Filippovka is very interesting because the blade of my sword is the same - so was the original item, too. I know many late celtic swords with that blade - from Romania via Danube basin to Germany and of course we know them here in Slovenia, too. But the sword has not the same form - i don't know the correct word on english for that - if you look on the left side by the wooden handle on this point is the celtic sword very different to the later spathas. Well, from Germany are celtic's swords items with the same handle wich are on the later roman spathas, too. Yes, their origins comes from the Galia.
My sword is here i have my own smithy here in Slovenia and is 103,5 cm long so was the orig. item in our river Ljubljanica:

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j409...HWERT1.jpg

Joze

Hello Joze and everyone.
We are narrowing down the spatha's origin, and it seems to be Celtic with a steppe influence. First, the Thesaurus Linguae Gallicae (Pierre Henry Billy, 1991) gives "spatha" as a Gallic word.

Conal and others have mentioned that British and Gallic swords ranged upwards to 85cm, long yes but not as long as those found eastward. Joze gives us longer Celtic swords from "Rumania via Danube Basin to Germany." How can we discount a Alano/Sarmat influence of longer blades from this region?

The river Ljubljanica is one of our greatest "time-capsules." The number of votives tossed into its waters can be dated back to a long bronze sword that could have been used at Troy (an example, not saying it was). We are looking at everything from proto-Greek, to Celtic, to a remarkably well-preserved gladius scabbard.

But Joze's "Celtic" sword configuration is most interesting. He notes that it's almost exact to the Filippovka sword, with its extremely wide double fullers along a raised central rib. Filippovka reflects the earliest Alanic "cultural frontier," artifacts that are in common with the East and dated to the 4th century BC. This cultural horizon moved rapidly, and I wouldn't discount the blade type as not Alanic but as Celtic, especially considering WHERE these longer Celtic sword have been found-- the Danube basin.

As an aside, slightly off topic, but I can easily disagree with Dan Howard on the origin of scale armor. The oldest form of scale armor came from horse-hoves; it was cavalry armor. The cavalry, the chariot, and horse warfare comes from the steppes, not from the "Near East." It predates the Persians, the Greeks, and whomever else used it as protection. The use of full armor, scale or otherwise, can be traced back to the Massagetae (pre-Alans)and then back to the Altai kurgans (pre-Saka), all of it worn before the Greeks were stuffing linen into padded armor.

The spatha apparently did originate with the Celts-- I always thought of that probability-- but the additional length (and narrower blade, wide fullers, to keep balance) appears to have arrived from the Central Asia. :wink:

[Conal]

The spatha apparently did originate with the Celts-- I always thought of that probability-- but the additional length (and narrower blade, wide fullers, to keep balance) appears to have arrived from the Central Asia. :wink:

I am facinated by this possibility as it is belived that increased use of cavalry (over chariot) was the reason Celtic sword increased. The aquisition of better & bigger horses is given as a possible reason, in that chariots are belived to have used quite small ponies.

I understand that the 80-100cm blades were of various forms including stilletto type blades so any influence may not be universal. There are a bunch of long swords found near Agen in France, the so called Port type swords and I believe date to Ceasars invasion of Gaul. How does this timescale fit with Steppe cultural travel to this area?

[Alanus]

Conal,

I'm not familiar with a "stilleto" type blade, but judging from the phrase I'd think they were simple four-sided, each two edges extending from a raised central ridge. This-- curiously enough-- is the same conformation as the Roman cavalry spatha. The Filippovka type, probably of Oriental origin, shows up on the eastern Celtic swords, as mentioned and illustrated by Joze, above.

The narrow blade found in Caesar-era France could have been influenced through transmission from eastern steppe cultures. Trade played a part, and for instance we know the Aorsi (an Alanic tribe) had a route that went from India, to Aorsi territory between the Black and Caspian seas, and up into the Dniper and Danube. The commonest items were semi-precious gems (Indic garnets found on swords and brooches), but swords may have been traded as well. This trade began before Caeser, around the 2nd to 1st centuries BC.

You have a good point. In moving from chariot warfare to cavalry tactics, the sword-length apparently increased. The Chinese, who borrowed steppe designs, made at least one sword that reached 140cm. That is one long blade! Most of the far eastern blades carried a "clamshell" or 8-sided configuration, thick and narrow. This, in extra-long lengths, would have been a brute to swing. The western spatha had a thinner blade, wider. The anomally of the bunch is the Filippovka style, which appears to be Alano/Sarmat, then reaching eastern Celtic territory. A number of Celtic blades have been found on the Hungarian Plain, where the two cultures met (including Scythians and proto-Celts at an earlier period). But the Filippovka blade did not lend itself to quick production, essentially a time-consuming welding and grinding job. I suppose that's the reason it was phased out. :grin:

Today, we complain about the lack of "old-time" craftmanship. But we see it in the spatha and the immediate swords related to it. Everything becomes simpler, easier to produce; and I don't think it was the sole province of the Roman fabicae. :roll:

[Alanus]

1) The Hod Hill sword, for example, is often called a spatha, and has a 700mm blade and Celtic/British styled hilt. It was found in an auxiliary fort dated to cAD50. Swords like this would perhaps have been in common use amongst western auxiliaries, but the blade length is not dissimilar to the later Straubing-Nydam swords from the 3rd century.

2) Why the infantry later changed to a longer blade is still, I think, being debated - but by the end of the second century (or whenever this happened), Romans had been in contact with Sarmatians for over a century without feeling the need to change their swords!

3) Is there any evidence for substantial Alanic/Sarmatian/Iazyge recruitment into the Roman army before the later second century?

4) As for scale armour, I believe many cultures had used it since the bronze age, and it predated mail. The Romans most likely adopted it from the Greek and Hellenic armies.

Hello, Nathan

No offense, but I don't think your entire posture holds water.

1) Perhaps the Hod Hill sword was found in "fort dated to cAD50," but that does not mean the sword itself dates that early. A flint arrow-tip of the Abenaki native Americans can be found on a Maritime Arcaic site, yet the difference in age is 2,000 years.

Your statements in 2) and 3) contradict themselves. You state that Romans had been in contact with Sarmatians "for over a century" by the late 2nd century. That's about right, but I would roll it back to mid-1st century.

I don't think we need a "substantial" influx of Alano/Sarmats into Roman ranks to effect a change in weaponry. It takes ONE tank, ONE submarine, to change warfare. The man who shows up on the front with a superior weapon will get noticed, especially by the enemy. In that instance, he would not even be in Roman ranks.

4) We agree on this point. Scale armor might even pre-date the bronze age. But it's origin cannot be contested. It arrived from the steppes with the horse. :grin:

What we are doing here is pinpointing origins of the spatha, but in most arguements above I see no physical evidence, noting carved in stone. To discount Sarmatian influence on the early Roman cavalry is folly. We have, for instance, the four-horned "Roman" saddle depicted on stones in the Crimean Bosphorus for over a century before they show up on Roman horses. Who lived in 2nd century BC Crimea, a Pontic state run by Aorsi and Alani?

Yes, it does appear that the immediate predecessor, linguistically and physically, was the Celtic spatha, but we cannot say the Celtic spatha was not influenced by Alanic swords, especially when we view Jose's magnificent example and compare it to the Filippovka one. ;-)

[diegis]

I have another hypothesis, that spatha has its origin in older so called Naue II type of swords, originating in south-eastern Europe and belonging to proto-Thracian/proto-Dacian most probably

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9G...AlSCoh8YHA

Its a long sword (usualy around 70-80 centimeters long) originating in Bronze Age but who was kept a long period (as shape and dimensions) in Iron Age as well

This type of sword might be spread all over by this proto Thraco-Dacians during last period of II milenium BC, when they started a series of invasions in Europe and even Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples...hypothesis

"Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[56]"

"according to Finley:[57]
A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. ... It appears ... to have been ... pushing in different directions at different times."

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ane...00120.html

"It has been argued that the wetland societies of the central Po Plain, the Alpine palafitte, and the terremare of the plain show evidence of contact with the Danubian-Carpathian region. Artifacts underlying this theory include antler horse bits and sword burials (as at Povegliano). What is certain is that the terremare of Emilia show a dramatic increase in settlement density, reaching levels of up to 1 site per 25 square kilometers"

Those swords buried there are the same Naue II type, originating in Danubian-Carpathian area

It is very possible that proto-Celtic (and Iranic as proto-Scythians or Sarmatians) peoples encounter or was hit by this wave of invasions or was dragged or pushed by them and adopted this type of swords from those invaders (or even mixed with them, as its possible in case of Masagetae or Tysagetae, and adopted some of their weapons).

[Nathan Ross]

Perhaps the Hod Hill sword was found in "fort dated to cAD50," but that does not mean the sword itself dates that early.

The Hod Hill fort had a very short span of occupation - only a few decades from soon after the invasion to the early flavian period I think. So the sword can be dated with some accuracy to the mid 1st century.

Your statements in 2) and 3) contradict themselves. You state that Romans had been in contact with Sarmatians "for over a century" by the late 2nd century... It takes ONE tank, ONE submarine, to change warfare.

I think it's you who's being contradictory here, Alan! :wink:

If the long Sarmatian sword had the battlefield impact of a tank or submarine, you'd expect the Romans to notice it immediately and probably adopt it (or adapt to it) at once. Yet, as you say, we have over a century of hostile contact and no changes in Roman weaponry...

To discount Sarmatian influence on the early Roman cavalry is folly.

I'm not claiming there wasn't influence, at some point and in some way, and I'm always open to evidence. But I'm a bit dubious about the idea of that influence being significant, or outweighing other, more obvious ones from an early date. In the formative years of the Roman imperial army (late 1st BC to 1st AD), the auxiliary cavalry were principally drawn from the Gallic and Germanic peoples, and would have adopted the equestrian traditions and (so an extent) equipment of those peoples. Over the following years, we have vast numbers of troops joining the Roman army from other cultures across the empire, from Syrians to Lusitanians, Britons to Thracians. Many of these cultures brought their own styles of fighting and weaponry, and some of these were in turn digested into the combined culture of the Roman army itself. There was also long and vigorous conflict with the Parthians, Armenians, Germans and others throughout this period.

There was, by contrast, comparatively little Roman contact with the Sarmatians/Alanic peoples during the two centuries BC-AD. There were, I think, no auxiliary formations of Sarmatian or Alanic origin before the late second century (which was the point I was trying to make above). Why should it be, then, that the Sarmatian influence was so very significant, over and above all these many others?

Once again, I'm not saying there was no influence at all, and one could argue that changes in Roman cavalry formations, armament and tactics during the second century in particular reflected contact with steppe peoples of one sort or another. The four-horned saddle may indeed have originated on the steppe, and found its way west via Germany and Gaul. But the idea that direct Sarmatian influence can be traced to the very source of the Roman cavalry tradition, or in the early development of Roman swords, would need some very weighty evidence to be convincing, I think!

One thought - Spartacus was supposedly a Thracian auxiliary of some sort before 70BC. Might steppe influence have passed indirectly via the Thracians, who did indeed contribute to early Roman cavalry formations, and possibly development? {edit: cross-posted with Razvan here!}

[Conal]

I'm not familiar with a "stilleto" type blade, but judging from the phrase I'd think they were simple four-sided, each two edges extending from a raised central ridge. This-- curiously enough-- is the same conformation as the Roman cavalry spatha. The Filippovka type, probably of Oriental origin, shows up on the eastern Celtic swords, as mentioned and illustrated by Joze, above.

Here is a link that might help http://www.kelticos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1308

[Dan D'Silva]

Razvan,

In terms of construction and time periods, I think there is less to speak for the Naue II as an ancestor of the spatha than for either the La Tene or Sarmatian long swords, as all except the Naue II use through-tang construction, and are closer in time.

Now I'm going on secondhand data here, but I've read that the slab-tanged Hallstatt swords which might have derived from the Naue II disappeared late in the period, and only the through-tanged dagger survived. This dagger is supposed to be the ancestor of the La Tene long sword, and clearly is ancestral to the La Tene anthropomorphic dagger. I think the Hallstatt dagger's most likely ancestor in turn is the Urnfield antennae sword, which shared its hilt construction and aspects of hilt and blade shape.

The Sarmatian sword I'd suppose evolved from the akinakes, which I believe was also a through-tang sword (though its hilt is more usually solid metal).