Talk:Rhomphaia

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Dacia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles

Varangian Rhomphaia = Daneaxe or Swordstaff??[edit]

The text says: "Michael Psellus writes that all Varangians without exception used what he refers to as a "rhomphaia," but in doing so was referring to the Varangian daneaxe." It seems like the author put in his own vlaues in this. I do not say that he was infact not referring to the daneaxe - as I dont know anything about that - but most of the Varangians, at least in the beginning, was swedish and in sweden, and maybe the rest of scandinavia, there was a weapon called "Svärdstav" (Swordstaff - most likely simply an old sword mounted on a staff) that are a lot more similar to the "rhomphaia" then the "daneaxe". In the old sagas there is also names like "höggspjót" (similar to "chopping/cuting/biteing spear") and texts like "he cutted and trusted with his spear" wich can be seen as evidence that there was a type of spear in scandinavia that you both could trust and cut/chop with - similar to the "rhomphaia".

So... It is possible, but not certaint, that what is refferd to as the Varangian "rhomphaia" is not at all referring to a "daneaxe" but to a "Swordstaff" instead.

83.226.118.69 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 There's no archaeological evidence for a Swordstaff however. Written references could refer to a number to different weapons and the sagas were not transcribed until the 13th century AD. The most likely explanation is that the Rhomphaia was a classical reference to the two handed axe that was definitely used by the Varangians. See this article by Dr Timothy Dawson who is an expert in Byzantine history http://www.levantia.com.au/theory/rhomfaia.html Master z0b (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some great pictures[edit]

Found some great Rhomphaia pictures on Flickr. Could be great additions to the article. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rupe-rumpe[edit]

In today romanian language the verb "a rupe" means "to tear apart - to rip" (and a whole family of derivation words), while the archaic version "a rumpe" is still used as regionalism. Bigshotnews 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Falx leading to improvements in roman armour[edit]

If all the roman helmets found with this reinforcement date from the dacian wars (they don't have to be found in the area, as a soldier who fought against the dacians could then have served in briton), all that you can logically conclude is that the helmets were strengthened at that time. While you could conjecture that the falx was responsible, to state categorically that this was the case would be wrong (unless, of course, someone has found a letter from Trajan ordering such improvements). Any such improved helmets pre-dating the Dacian Wars would, of course, invalidate the claim outright.Glevum (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Byzantine references[edit]

The references to the Byzantine rhomphaia are out of date and incorrect. There is no archaeological evidence for their existence and so I'm going to remove that section. See this article by Dr Timothy Dawson http://www.levantia.com.au/theory/rhomfaia.html Master z0b (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a notice[edit]

it is spelled romfea and not rhomphaia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.101.175 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Attached to a pole"?[edit]

It says "attached to a pole", but later it is stated to have a tang through most/all of the grip.
Those completely mutually exclusive statements.
Either it is attached to a pole (with possibly a tang, a little bit into it), or it has a tang going through most/all of the grip, which cannot be said to be a pole.
It's one or the other. Both cannot be true, as that would be logically, physically, and definitionally impossible. The one excludes the possibility of the other ...and given the very long tang, on the surviving examples... 94.255.211.44 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language and Tomaschek[edit]

Hi, User:Kromid. The Macedonian language was codified in 1945, while Wilhelm Tomaschek died in 1901. Tomaschek published his fundamental work "Old Thracians. An Ethnological Study" in 1893. The change in this article's disputed sentence from Bulgarian to Macedonian language was done in 2018 without a source. This sentence was added originally with the phrase Bulgarian language in it in 2006, but also without a source check here, please. I will remove the Slavic language for now until a credible source is presented to support it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again User:Kromid. I have got it in the book by L. A. Gindin (1999) Troja, Thrakien und die Völker Altkleinasiens. Versuch einer historisch-philologischen Untersuchung. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. ISBN 9783851241891, p. 22. Check here in German language, thanks.