Quote:And well, i pass over your lesser or mixed knowledge of the history of the area we discuss, and your obsession with Bastarnae that you see everywhere (still wait for a reliable source confirming you), and i find most funny that even i joined the "Total War Centre" and RAT about the same times as you, and you say i am all day here or there, did you notice that your number of posts here are about 3 times bigger then mine combined, here and there?

And, btw, i use those images from wikipedia because was much better and clear the ones posted by you, no offence

Quote:Strabo describes the Bastarnae territory vaguely as "between the Ister (river Danube) and the Borysthenes (river Dnieper)". He identifies three sub-tribes of the Bastarnae: the Atmoni, Sidoni and Peucini. The latter derived their name from Peuce, a large island in the Danube delta which they had colonised.(Strabo III.17) The 2nd century geographer Ptolemy states that the Carpiani or Carpi (believed to have occupied Moldavia) separated the Peucini from the other Bastarnae "above Dacia".] The consensus among modern scholars is that the Bastarnae were, in the 2nd century, divided into two main groups. The larger group inhabited the north-eastern slopes of the Carpathians and the area between the Prut and Dnieper rivers (Moldova Republic/Western Ukraine), while a separate smaller group (the Peucini) dwelt in and North of the Danube delta region ( and south of it too, until the creation of the Roman province of Moesia.) Only the Peucini, therefore, were situated on the extreme northern border of the Roman province of Moesia Inferior, which ran along the southernmost branch of the Danube delta - not that far from Adamklissi.

Quote:

Thunder:1vzoenbl Wrote:And allow me to lay out the weakness of the gladius. Take a machete, or large knife. Try to stab a target. Notice that to do so, you must extend your arm to get any appreciable reach and that not much force is transferred unless the target is close. Notice that your opponent can, with a longer weapon, stand out of your range and try to kill you with relative impunity. Curse your commanders for issuing you with this weapon.

Sorry, but I really don't think massed combat was like that at all. They didn't walk calmly towards each other with weapons extended to full reach, and find out which one was longer when the other guys said "ouch". Combat range was shield-to-shield, or in this case shield-to-body. A gladius blade is more than long enough to reach that body without the hilt even extending past the shield. A 2-foot advantage in "reach" is no help when your opponent is still advancing. You can't just keep backing up, because the rest of your army is close behind you, pushing forward. If you can swing at just the right moment when he is at the perfect range for your falx, fine. But if you do not incapacitate him with that first blow (which is highly unlikely), he will take one more step and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. If you *do* incapacitate him with that first blow, his buddy behind him will slam a pilum into you at point-blank range, then take 2 fast steps and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. A thrust with a gladius is MUCH faster than a swing with anything, and much faster to recover from. The timing with a falx against a moving target has to be precise, whereas with a gladius it does not. You can curse whomever you like, but Roman soldiers loved their silly little swords.

Quote:It's not hard. Send for the skirmishers and harass said Romans. If Romans do not lose their discipline and use the pila, then send forth light troops to attack the Romans. Romans use pila on the light troops. When the Roman line is engaged, then commit your falxmen to the melee, disrupting the Roman lines.

Um, aren't "skirmishers" and "light troops" pretty much the same thing? As Dan pointed out, Romans had them, too. Also remember that command and control of a tribal army was not a precise science. Without training and discipline, you might not have the option of holding some troops back while others fight. They simply were not organized in that way. And I'm still a little fuzzy as to how and why committing your falxmen should so certainly disrupt the Roman lines.

Quote:If the Romans attack, then simply allow the front lines to be engaged, and then commit the falxmen. Even easier. Even if you lose you'll kill enough Romans to impair their warfighting capabilities.

How "commit"? Do you have your falxmen in separate units, each strictly controlled by highly trained officers linked by a sophisticated signalling system? How do you convince the warriors in the front ranks, who typically have earned the right to be there by being the best, to simply make way for the falxmen to get into action while they are already locked in close combat with the Romans? Even if you do it the obvious way, having falxmen more or less paired up with front-rank shield men, edging into gaps between men and swinging as the shieldmen engage the Romans, the second rank of Romans is doing the exact same thing, possibly with pila raised and ready to thrust or throw. And *they* have practiced for this moment every morning for years on end!

Well, I think we're just going to have to let you live in your own little world on how battles work. Since the situations you describe do not seem to have happened, it must not have been all that easy. You seem to assume that each swing of a falx results in one dead Roman, and that the rest will simply line up to take their turns while the naked tribesman winds up again. Great video game, but not realistic. But I just don't have more time or energy to argue with someone whose mental image of ancient combat is so stylized and unrealistic.

Vale,

Matthew

Quote:And yet, for all your snideness and cavilling, you also have absolutely no idea how any of this would work and are simply clinging to a desperate Roman-Empire fanboyism that automatically negates everything through sheer Roman awesomeness, of course ignoring the fact that the entirety of Roman tactics basically consisted of winning through sheer, bloody-minded attrition, and that for every Roman strategic victory over the barbarians their tended to be at least one or more crushing tactical defeat prior....

Quote:I think due to the sparcity of evidence for these weapons as such, perhaps the thread title should be changed to :

The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon of mass destruction? Anyone? :?:

Quote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: ....even in such a short post as this, everything you say is exagerration or inaccurate!

1. I am not "obsessed" by Bastarnae ( unlike a certain person who seems to think ‘Greater Dacia' extended from the Black sea into Germany hock: )....but I believe the Adamklissi monument is clear as to the probable identity of the 'falx' wielders, and the evidence I have simply presented can be judged by other readers.
As to “reliable source”, see my post page 2; 12 Oct

Quote:

Quote:Strabo describes the Bastarnae territory vaguely as "between the Ister (river Danube) and the Borysthenes (river Dnieper)". He identifies three sub-tribes of the Bastarnae: the Atmoni, Sidoni and Peucini. The latter derived their name from Peuce, a large island in the Danube delta which they had colonised.(Strabo III.17) The 2nd century geographer Ptolemy states that the Carpiani or Carpi (believed to have occupied Moldavia) separated the Peucini from the other Bastarnae "above Dacia".] The consensus among modern scholars is that the Bastarnae were, in the 2nd century, divided into two main groups. The larger group inhabited the north-eastern slopes of the Carpathians and the area between the Prut and Dnieper rivers (Moldova Republic/Western Ukraine), while a separate smaller group (the Peucini) dwelt in and North of the Danube delta region ( and south of it too, until the creation of the Roman province of Moesia.) Only the Peucini, therefore, were situated on the extreme northern border of the Roman province of Moesia Inferior, which ran along the southernmost branch of the Danube delta - not that far from Adamklissi.

Either you didn’t read it properly, or perhaps you don’t regard Strabo and Ptolemy as “reliable sources”? Contrast this with your total lack of ‘reliable sources’ for your many unsubstantiated assertions – as many people posting on this thread have pointed out to you.
Here on RAT it is expected that anyone posting refer to proper sources.

I was not referring to use of photos from 'Wiki' - I use them myself - but rather using articles on 'Wiki as a "source", as you have done.....e.g. on page 2; your post 13 Oct – which wasn’t even relevant. Not to mention repeatedly posting a fanciful painting as ‘evidence’ !! ( BTW: I don’t know of any positive proof that Dacians wore armour – on the actual column, none is shown on Dacian warriors, not even the King.)

Quote:Like Matthew, I am having difficulty being patient with someone who continually deliberately makes sarcastic and offensive jibes at others in his posts – and not just at me either! Using “no offence” is no excuse either – it just shows that you know you are being offensive. Anyway, enough! Your posts are “res ipsa loquitur” (latin: the thing speaks for itself)

Quote:About Dacian armours, there are represented on the Traian Column
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Armour.JPG
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Ima ... base/3.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7S-0oWrx8aQ/S ... tul_33.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7S-0oWrx8aQ/R ... /11181.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7S-0oWrx8aQ/S ... ic147b.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7S-0oWrx8aQ/R ... _sigla.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7S-0oWrx8aQ/R ... opesti.jpg
http://www.terradacica.ro/images/reenactment.jpg
http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/armata_daca/falx-sigla.jpg
http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/armata_daca/ ... tul_06.jpg

Quote:This are armoures and helmets used by Dacians, from both archeological discoveries and imagery from Traian build monuments. They wasnt depicted wearing them for probably 2 reasons
1- to not confuse the viewer (especialy since the Column was quite big and hard to watch closely, and many watchers was "civilians") who might dont understand well who's who betwen Romans and Dacians if all was armoured
2- to show the superiority of Romans over the "barbarians"

Ofcourse probably not all Dacians was equiped with armoures and helmets, but a fair amount was for sure, the professional troops under king command and the nobles for ex.

Quote:Ofcourse probably not all Dacians was equiped with armoures and helmets, but a fair amount was for sure, the professional troops under king command and the nobles for ex.

Quote:a) Chain mail shirt made of iron, cut into small fragments, probably with a chisel, as one can notice traces of cuts on one, two, three or four of sides of the pieces preserved, and only a small part of the remains, folded, were put in the nook (Fig. 5;12). The chain mail fragments were not placed on the dead at the time of the cremation, as the chain mails preserved their initial shape, which means they were not exposed to strong fire; the traces of cremated bones on some of the chain mail fragments are the result of their being deposited in nook over the still hot cremated horse and pig bones. The chain mails are short and round (D = 5.5-6mm, W. thread = 1.5mm), both in plane and in section, and the weaving is one widespread at the time
b) Iron shield umbone. There are relatively many pieces (over 40), but very small, and their features (shape, thickness, number of layers, folding technique) mean they are from an umbones, probably hemispherical, or from the connection and attaching elements of the shield (rivets, edge) (Fig. 4/1; 6/1, 2, 13, 16; 11/11). Although the umbone fragments are very small, including those from the item’s curvature, meaning it is very difficult to approximate its diameter, we believe it is around 10 cm).
c) Helmet (?). There are a few iron-sheet fragments, from a single sheet, that stick together, including one with a hinge, which could constitute an attaching element between the calotte and the mobile cheek-piece of a helmet.
d) Bridle bit (?). One has found a few fragments, including something that could be the end of a bridle (Fig. 4/5; 6/4), a potential indication of a bridle bit, which would make sense, given that the deposit includes horse bones.
There are also several small iron fragments, whose piece of origin is very difficult to identify.
What is interesting is that all the items had been fragmented and only parts of them were deposited in the nook, together with remains from the still-smoking fire. Since burnt horse and pig bones were found in the deposit, perhaps the fire remains are from their cremation.

Quote:Chain mail shirts, such as the one on C70D7, were found in the Dacian tumuli from Cugir-T2 (Cri?an 1980, p. 81-87), Pope?ti-T2, T3 and T4, Radovanu, Poiana-Gorj and Cet??eni (Vulpe 1976, p. 201, 208, fig. 15/1, 18/6-8), namely both in south-western Transylvania and in Oltenia or Walachia, in tombs from the second half of 2nd c.-1st c. BC. Many instances from 2nd - 1st c. BC were found in tombs of the Panaghiurski Kolonii group from north-western Bulgaria (Torbov 2004, p. 57-69). Also, on the upper Tisa, in the necropolis from Zemplin, Tumulus 3, cremation tomb 78, belonging to an adult, one has found a chain mail shirt (Budinský-Kri?ka, Lamiová-Schmiedlova 1990, p. 255, fig. 20a-b); the inventory is that of a Dacian warrior from the last decades of 1st c. BC . Since the chronology and diffusion of this type of item for the Celts and Dacians were recently discussed by Aurel Rustoiu (2006, p. 49-52), we believe there is no point in delving on them....

Quote:
You post a mish-mash of images which are evidence of precisely nothing - you don't even tell the readers what they are supposed to be !!....this is NOT the way to present a case or evidence. As Dan Howard has pointed out on another thread, iconography on its own tells us very little. You don't even tell us what these images are supposed to represent, and in some cases the images are completely irrelevant ( the two images of helmets for example are from Thracian tombs (probably) and are circa 400 BC. They are certainly not "Dacian, 1 C AD".)

To deal with them in detail (numbering top to bottom):-
1. and 2. are depictions of the 'trophy' base of Trajan's column - we don't know who this armour belongs to - probably Roxalani since no Dacians are shown in armour on the column itself. Just possibly belonging to Dacian chieftains - but the helmet styles and decoration are 'Eastern' and more typical of Sarmatians.
3. and 9. fanciful drawings of equipment from the base of the column.
5. A coin showing a trophy, but no armour or helmet - implying like the column itself that Dacians were unarmoured. Of the seventeen or more types of coin referring to victory over Dacia, six or so show 'trophies' - not one of them shows Dacians in armour, or Dacian armour as part of a trophy
4. and 6. Thracian helmets circa 400 BC. Nothing to do with Dacians 1 C AD.
7. I have no idea what this crude helmet is supposed to be and you don't even give us a hint!! - it doesn't look 1/2 C AD. More like much later ( if authentic).
8. Part of Scene LXXVIII showing 'Victory/Nike' with trophies either side at the conclusion of the First War - one shows no armour like the previous coin, the other (to the right of 'Victory') is this one - since the Roxalani took part in this First War and are shown defeated, this particular trophy could just as easily represent victory over them, and the unarmoured one victory over the Dacians.
10. What appears to be suspiciously intact bronze mail - if authentic could be anything.

Quote: The images of the 'tropaeum' carved on the base of Trajan's column are also useless, because they represent a jumble of weapons from Dacians, Roxolani Sarmatians and Bastarnae sources. In order to draw any possible conclusions, we need other evidence to support these images - thus the images from Adamklissi allow us to guess that it is probable that the 'two-handed choppers' are trophies from Bastarnae,( from the three ethnic groups represented) who are also associated with 'two-handed choppers' (this time "rhomphaia") by Valerius Flaccus writing in the 1 C AD. In this instance shields are also referred to, as in almost every example of Thracians illustrated with "rhomphaia". What we don't know is whether Valerius Flaccus is describing past events, or possibly confusing the old "rhomphaia" with the contemporary Bastarnae use of the "falx".

Quote: The question of whether Dacians used armour during Trajan's wars, and to what extent, or not, is simply not known at present, though there is evidence of Dacian mail for an earlier period ( see below). This sort of statement is the purest speculation with no proper evidence:-

Quote: What 'professional' troops? Roman deserters? These would not be let anywhere near the King for fear of assasination attempts - Decebalus tried this very thing against Trajan. Evidence for 'professional troops'?

Quote: "a fair amount for sure"? There is absolutely no, nil, zero evidence for this !!!! On the contrary,the iconography we have - the column and the many coins show NO armour at all.
The only armoured troops on the Dacian side actually shown in armour on the column are Sarmatian Roxalani, and not one Dacian, not even King Decebalus, has armour or even a helmet. In fact the 'capwearers'/nobles are shown on the column wearing their Phrygian caps even in battle. This, taken on its own would suggest that the body armour and helmets depicted on the 'tropaeum' base are possibly all Roxalani gear, and that only the shields ( which bear similar patterns on base and column) and perhaps some swords are truly Dacian, but we have no way of knowing for sure - because we might expect from analogies with other similar peoples (e.g. Thracians) that the chiefs and nobles might have had helmets etc BUT I don't know of any archaeological finds that might support such a thing for this date ( e.g. tomb finds or similar from around Sarmizegetusa dateable to the 1/2 C AD). You may well be right that the Dacians on the column itself are shown as unarmoured and in a standard form of dress as a form of 'ethnic identifier', but without further evidence we simply can't know.....

Quote: For a previous period, 2 -1 C BC, there is evidence of equipment from Warrior graves from Hunedoara valley in Transylvania. Mostly the graves usually contain a spearhead and the typical curved 'sica' fighting knife around 10.3-30 cm long.Belt buckle remains and pottery are other common grave goods. A number of 'La tene' type celtic swords have also been found, but only fragments of up to ten shields in Dacian contexts. One grave did contain the goods of a 'richer' individual, including a possible horse bit, as well as remains of a horse and a pig. Of significance here is that weaponry remains consisted of:-

Quote:a) Chain mail shirt made of iron, cut into small fragments, probably with a chisel, as one can notice traces of cuts on one, two, three or four of sides of the pieces preserved, and only a small part of the remains, folded, were put in the nook (Fig. 5;12). The chain mail fragments were not placed on the dead at the time of the cremation, as the chain mails preserved their initial shape, which means they were not exposed to strong fire; the traces of cremated bones on some of the chain mail fragments are the result of their being deposited in nook over the still hot cremated horse and pig bones. The chain mails are short and round (D = 5.5-6mm, W. thread = 1.5mm), both in plane and in section, and the weaving is one widespread at the time
b) Iron shield umbone. There are relatively many pieces (over 40), but very small, and their features (shape, thickness, number of layers, folding technique) mean they are from an umbones, probably hemispherical, or from the connection and attaching elements of the shield (rivets, edge) (Fig. 4/1; 6/1, 2, 13, 16; 11/11). Although the umbone fragments are very small, including those from the item’s curvature, meaning it is very difficult to approximate its diameter, we believe it is around 10 cm).
c) Helmet (?). There are a few iron-sheet fragments, from a single sheet, that stick together, including one with a hinge, which could constitute an attaching element between the calotte and the mobile cheek-piece of a helmet.
d) Bridle bit (?). One has found a few fragments, including something that could be the end of a bridle (Fig. 4/5; 6/4), a potential indication of a bridle bit, which would make sense, given that the deposit includes horse bones.
There are also several small iron fragments, whose piece of origin is very difficult to identify.
What is interesting is that all the items had been fragmented and only parts of them were deposited in the nook, together with remains from the still-smoking fire. Since burnt horse and pig bones were found in the deposit, perhaps the fire remains are from their cremation.

This suggests that in the 2-1 C BC at least, wealthy/noble warriors could have mail. There are also other finds of mail in tombs elsewhere in Dacia:-

Quote:Chain mail shirts, such as the one on C70D7, were found in the Dacian tumuli from Cugir-T2 (Cri?an 1980, p. 81-87), Pope?ti-T2, T3 and T4, Radovanu, Poiana-Gorj and Cet??eni (Vulpe 1976, p. 201, 208, fig. 15/1, 18/6-8), namely both in south-western Transylvania and in Oltenia or Walachia, in tombs from the second half of 2nd c.-1st c. BC. Many instances from 2nd - 1st c. BC were found in tombs of the Panaghiurski Kolonii group from north-western Bulgaria (Torbov 2004, p. 57-69). Also, on the upper Tisa, in the necropolis from Zemplin, Tumulus 3, cremation tomb 78, belonging to an adult, one has found a chain mail shirt (Budinský-Kri?ka, Lamiová-Schmiedlova 1990, p. 255, fig. 20a-b); the inventory is that of a Dacian warrior from the last decades of 1st c. BC . Since the chronology and diffusion of this type of item for the Celts and Dacians were recently discussed by Aurel Rustoiu (2006, p. 49-52), we believe there is no point in delving on them....

Note however that mail is not at all common - as we would expect for such an expensive item.

Quote: Incidently, it appears that Decebalus in both wars, sensibly avoided open battle with the Romans ( other than, perhaps his defeat at Tapae, which he may have learned from) - for we know of no decisive battles - and wisely concentrated his defence of Dacia on mountainous forts/strongholds/citadels - like other Thracian peoples. It is these all but impregnable mountain fortresses that took time for the Romans to take which account for the campaigns, not any particular resistance in the field. Even so, the first war may have lasted but one campaigning season, and the second two. The Dacians, clearly lightly armed like the Gauls or Germans, had no more success in the field in the long term than these peoples against heavily armed Legionaries and Auxiliaries ( beyond initial success perhaps due to surprise and Roman overconfidence by Fuscus in Domitian's Dacian War).

Quote:There are several open battles with Romans, there are couple in the first war, not just the one from Tapae (who was one of the biggest in ancient times),......................................................... they had the biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy (Traian draw troops from all over the empire, Britania/Scotland border, Germania, Orient, and lots of irregular troop beside the legionars and auxiliars, already a big number massed in Moesia since Domitian), had the numerical superiority (quite a huge numerical superiority in second war), and ofcourse the technological superiority.
So i think Dacians was quite a very tough enemy................................

Quote: .....the dismounted warriors were weighed down by their body armour...made of iron plates (ferreis laminis) or toughened leather(praedurio corio)

Quote:Hmm, i really doubt Bastarnae ever used a falx, which is clearly a Dacian weapon, pointed by pretty much all evidences. In fact i doubt that Bastarnae ever participated to this wars, and is a confusion betwen them and Burii, a possible germanic tribe bearing the same name with a Dacian one.

Quote:Dacian army was a trained and organized one, ....For example in this image
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/075-063b.jpg
apear Dacian flags, the usual dragon with a wolf head, and others similar with Roman "vexilla", meaning that Dacian army was organized in units around those flags, similar with Roman organization. After all Decebalus received lots of desertors and, during Domitian, military instructors, and Dacians learned for sure from them the Roman army organization and training style
In this image

Quote:Yes, as i said it wasnt probably all the army armoured, just nobles and king troops probably, the ones who formed the permanent army and who was professional soldiers

Quote:The actual location tought to be the ancient Tapae is not an open space, is a narrow one.
I don't see any problem for a population to fight in it's own techinques. Or to learn new ones from the Romans.

So I think Dacians were quite tough.....................miners :mrgreen: (the French team at Ro?ia Montan? - GOLD MINE - found evidences that the mines were in use before Romans came in Dacia. And I believe them - was there, saw some material) So the Romans must have known about the quantity of gold present in Dacia