The Semispatha and the Saex

[Longovicium]

I wonder on the demonym 'Saxon' as I understand there to be no internal references by the Angles to themselves as Saxons; that in fact this term is one placed upon them instead. Unlike the Franks and the Allemani, for example, whose names reflect a larger tribal confederation, the Angles never formed such large groupings such that they coined, as it were, a generic term for themselves. I understand that the demonym 'Angle' itself is already derived from the angon and survives today as obviously English but more importantly as a vestige of the throwing weapon in the term 'angling'. I find it hard to see the same tribes labelled under two different weapon names save that one is an internal designation and the other an external one.

Is it perhaps possible that Roman writers simply used the word most apt to describe these northern Germans and labelled them as such? If so, then a short one-edged sword or seax must have been prevalent (notwithstanding burial finds or their lack) at this early stage to be used as a demonym.

If the semispatium is to be read as a weapon distinct from a spatha, I am tempted to see the seax as the best candidate. It is a short-bladed weapon with a single cutting edge which differs from a longsword and a shortsword. The spread of seaxes in burial finds all postdate Vegetius however so that really puts a crimp in my suggestion!

[Thomas V.]

I wonder on the demonym 'Saxon' as I understand there to be no internal references by the Angles to themselves as Saxons; that in fact this term is one placed upon them instead. Unlike the Franks and the Allemani, for example, whose names reflect a larger tribal confederation, the Angles never formed such large groupings such that they coined, as it were, a generic term for themselves. I understand that the demonym 'Angle' itself is already derived from the angon and survives today as obviously English but more importantly as a vestige of the throwing weapon in the term 'angling'. I find it hard to see the same tribes labelled under two different weapon names save that one is an internal designation and the other an external one.

The first assured mentioning of the Saxons (Julian the Apostate, Ptolemaeus probably didn't wrote Saxones but Aviones) is from 356 and refers to the timespan 350-353.

Between 363 and 378 Eutrop refers to pirates as Franci and Saxones.

During several decades Franci and Saxones are used in conjunction. During the 4th century the term Saxones hardly was a name for a tribe, but rather a term used to describe pirates. Gregor of Tours still hardly used the term Saxones as a tribe name. According to Springer, Saxones during the 5th and 6th century probably refered to Englishman, IF it even was used as a tribe name.

Is it perhaps possible that Roman writers simply used the word most apt to describe these northern Germans and labelled them as such? If so, then a short one-edged sword or seax must have been prevalent (notwithstanding burial finds or their lack) at this early stage to be used as a demonym.

In the Germanic languages, the sax could mean any kind of sword/knive and not just single-edged short swords.

[ValentinianVictrix]

The Saxons were definately a known tribe by the time Valentinian I became Emperor. In AD370 the Saxons, after raiding Britain, then turned their attention on the northern coastal towns of Gaul. The local forces under the command of Nannenus could not contain the Saxons, Nannenus, who was himself wounded in an encounter, sent a request to Valentinian for reinforcements. Valentinian despatched Severus, Magister Peditum, with enough troops for the task to aid Nannenus. Severus’ force so terrified the Saxons that they begged for peace and pleaded for negotiations to begin before any fighting took place. A truce was agreed and the Saxons were allowed to return to their homelands by an overland route. However, Severus despatched part of the army to overtake the Saxons and ambush them. Unfortunately, the Romans hidden in ambush revealed their presence too soon and alerted the Saxons to their presence. The Saxons would have wiped them out had not a troop of Roman heavily armoured cavalry (Catafractarii), who were also sent to ambush the Saxons should they have taken another route, intervened and with their support the Roman infantry not only rallied but completely annihilated the Saxon horde.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ammianus mentions that the Saxons were the peoples who pushed the Chauci (Early Franks) into the land of the Batavians in the Early 350's.

[Nathan Ross]

the early "schmale Langsaxe"... clearly derive from steppe / hunnic weapons of the late 4th. century.

Do you mean that the early Saxons adopted this weapon from the Huns?

During the 4th century the term Saxones hardly was a name for a tribe, but rather a term used to describe pirates... the sax could mean any kind of sword/knive and not just single-edged short swords.

OK! So it seems Francis was right about the 'tribal' name deriving from the weapon (or from swords more generally). So can we see Saxons as a collective name (like Franks or Alamanni) for various peoples living in the area and raiding by sea?

Ammianus mentions that the Saxons were the peoples who pushed the Chauci (Early Franks) into the land of the Batavians in the Early 350's.

Does he? What's the reference? I didn't think anyone mentions the Chauci in the later period (except perhaps a reference in Zosimus, who relates them to the Saxons).

As far as I was aware, the Chauci were most probably absorbed by the Saxons - they occupied the same area and seem to have had a similar material culture (and a different one to the Franks). Is there any known difference, in fact, between the Chauci and early Frisii? Could they both have become 'Saxons' by the 3rd/4th century?

[Longovicium]

The question of Ptolemy and the Aviones is not so clear cut, I think..

Schutte argues that 'Saxon' is the correct demonym and that the two other names in the manuscript versions (Axiones and Aviones - the latter referred to by Tacitus) are examples of apocope (loss of an initial letter or syllable):

http://archive.org/stream/ptolemysmapsof...2/mode/2up

This still leaves the issue of the reason for naming these Germanic tribes as Saxons to the extent that Ammianus, Julian, and others refer to them as such while the Roman military command designates an area of coastal authority as the Comes Litoris per Saxonici as opposed to Francia (excuse my cod Latin!). As there is some debate about the function of that command (was it a military defense or an area overseeing settlement, for example), it nevertheless refers specifically to 'Saxons' in what I would take to be a tribal rather than the generic name. By that I mean that these Saxons are distinct from Franks and other Germanic tribes to warrant a title in both the vernacular and the official language of the day. If the word was used to describe pirates in general then why was it not used also at a broader level so that the Franks would be subsumed into it rather than conjoined? I am speculating here as this is an area far outside my knowledge, I have to admit!

So we seem to have two separate lines of enquiry here which may not actually connect:

The rise of the Saxon demonym deriving from the word for knife in general (out of curiosity, how does the word 'cniva' for a knife relate here?) placed upon a tribal movement of sea raiders distinct from Franks.

The introduction of the seax later which some posters here suggest is perhaps a Hunnic importation and which was then subsequently called a seax by the native Germanic tribes.

At some point (much later?), the seax is also labelled a semispatium; a word who first recorded instance is by Vegetius. This is a word which most people have in the past understood to refer to a shortened spatha or a gladius by another name. The suggestion has arisen however that in fact it is a word distinct from the spatha and may therefore refer to a different weapon entirely.

Phew!

[XorX]

the early "schmale Langsaxe"... clearly derive from steppe / hunnic weapons of the late 4th. century.

Do you mean that the early Saxons adopted this weapon from the Huns?

Nope. Thats`s what I meant with "another ancestry".
The "steppe line" of single bladed weapons today called "seax" is different from and doesn`t interfere with the "continental line" (I include the "saxons" here)
Different traditions of forms / lengths / use of single edged swird-ish weapons. Today we call all of them, from the hunnic 4th century pieces to norwegian "sword-seaxes" of the 9th century simply "seax".
IMO that leads to some misunderstandings according to chronology and origin.
IMO the "steppe line" died out after 500, the new forms of that time are just big hunting knives up to max 30 cm in length. More a tool than a weapon.
In northern Germany / later saxon country, there are some single edged swords from the 1st century BC up to the 3rd AD, but these have a different shape and size (thin broad blades with a T-shaped square) and handles which are totally different from the later ones used on seaxes. For me these are not a candidate for being the predecessor of the seax (there is a huge gap in the finds between these swords and the seaxes )but eventually for giving a name to the Saxons...

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That actually further reinforces my opinion that the Pouan Blade is Hunnic...

[Thomas V.]

At some point (much later?), the seax is also labelled a semispatium; a word who first recorded instance is by Vegetius. This is a word which most people have in the past understood to refer to a shortened spatha or a gladius by another name. The suggestion has arisen however that in fact it is a word distinct from the spatha and may therefore refer to a different weapon entirely.

Semispathium means "a small spatha", with spathium being an uncommon term for "spatha". As in the Roman era spatha didn't necessarily mean "spatha", but could also mean "sword" in general, semispathium can also mean "a small sword". The Germanic term for "a small sword" would be sahs. So semispathium is the Latin equivalent of sahs. As "a short sword" is rather unspecific, semispathium can refer to plenty of other sword-/knife-/daggerlike objects. In my opinion Vegetius' semispathium refers to the pugio.

[Renatus]

At some point (much later?), the seax is also labelled a semispatium

I have been hunting around in the online version of MGH. I found the second of the references cited in the original quotation but not (knowingly) the first. I have, however, found others to similar effect. As I suspected, these give the Latin word but make no reference to the saex or anything like it. Do we know that these two weapons are correctly equated?

Thomas V's suggestion that the Germanic term for 'small sword' would be sahs looks interesting but I am troubled by his use of "would be". Is this fact or speculation? Likewise, his assertion that spathium is an uncommon term for spatha, is this attested?

[Thomas V.]

Thomas V's suggestion that the Germanic term for 'small sword' would be sahs looks interesting but I am troubled by his use of "would be". Is this fact or speculation?

From one of my previous posts: In the individual Germanic languages sax mainly means "knive" and "small sword" (cf. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Band 26, 2004, p. 539).

Likewise, his assertion that spathium is an uncommon term for spatha, is this attested?

This online dictionary is based on the 2002 edition of the Georges Latin dictionary: [hide]latin_german.deacademic.com/44693/semispathium[/hide]. It states that semispathium means "a small spatha".

Another source: [hide]http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?spathium[/hide].

[Longovicium]

The problem with the semispathium being a pugio is that in Milner's notes to his translation (where he argues that it is indeed in reference to a pugio), he justifies this by reference to Isodore 18.6.4-5. This is problematic at best, given Isodore's penchant for fanciful etymologies.

The full Latin text from Vegetius is as follows (II, XV):

Haec erat grauis armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores, quos spathas uocant, et alios minores, quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas positas in scutis, quas primo impetu iaciunt, item bina missibilia, unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum nouem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum uocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur, ad cuius ictum exercebantur praecipue milites, quod arte et uirtute directum et scutatos pedites et loricatos equites saepe transuerberat, aliud minus ferro unciarum quinque, hastili pedum trium semis, quod tunc uericulum, nunc uerutum dicitur.

I wonder if any RAT member can render the Latin into English which is different from Milner's translation? Vegetius seems to use gladius in an anachronistic sense as in the weapon used by the legionaries (now called a spatha) with smaller swords called semispathia. Would a pugio fit into the sense of what Vegetius is writing about in that sentence?

[Renatus]

From one of my previous posts: In the individual Germanic languages sax mainly means "knive" and "small sword" (cf. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Band 26, 2004, p. 539).

Yes, but what about sahs? If semispathium, sax and sahs all mean 'small sword', I can see how the connection could be made but that does not mean that semispathium and saex are necessarily the same. Have we anything more positive?

This online dictionary is based on the 2002 edition of the Georges Latin dictionary: [hide]latin_german.deacademic.com/44693/semispathium[/hide] It states that semispathium means "a small spatha".

And it may be right but where is the authority for spathium and spatha being the same thing?

Another source: [hide]http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?spathium[/hide]

I cannot make a lot of sense of this.

[Renatus]

The full Latin text from Vegetius is as follows (II, XV):

Haec erat grauis armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores, quos spathas uocant, et alios minores, quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas positas in scutis, quas primo impetu iaciunt, item bina missibilia, unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum nouem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum uocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur, ad cuius ictum exercebantur praecipue milites, quod arte et uirtute directum et scutatos pedites et loricatos equites saepe transuerberat, aliud minus ferro unciarum quinque, hastili pedum trium semis, quod tunc uericulum, nunc uerutum dicitur.

I wonder if any RAT member can render the Latin into English which is different from Milner's translation?

I'm not going to do the whole thing but I would translate the piece in bold as follows:

'because they had helmets, mail coats, greaves, shields, larger swords (which they call spathae) and other smaller ones (which they name semispathia)'

I don't think that semispathium and pugio are the same. My guess would be that Vegetius knew that the legionary of old carried two edged weapons, one larger than the other, and that, in his own time, the Roman armoury included two swords, the spatha and the semispathium, again of differing sizes. To him, gladius was a generic term for 'sword' and he may not have even heard of pugio. His idea was to improve the army by returning to the methods of the past but he saw no reason why it should not have up-to-date equipment. So he gave his old-style legionaries modern weapons.

[Thomas V.]

Yes, but what about sahs?

Sahs is just the Old High German version of "sax".

This online dictionary is based on the 2002 edition of the Georges Latin dictionary: [hide]latin_german.deacademic.com/44693/semispathium[/hide] It states that semispathium means "a small spatha".

And it may be right but where is the authority for spathium and spatha being the same thing?

I ordered a printed version of the most recent (i.e. 2013) edition via interlibrary loan. I will tell you what it says about the (semi)spathium.

Another source: [hide]http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?spathium[/hide]

I cannot make a lot of sense of this.

It states that spathium is an uncommon term meaning "spatha".