10-10-2010, 03:58 PM
Wow Paulus, its a quite long post, and even if i am not outraged, but mostly amused, i need to make some observations (and to say that partialy i agree with some things)
-NOTE- Adamclisi is located close to Danube, at several km. southeast of Dacian kingdom border as it was back then. Mouth of Danubes (north of which was located Bastarnae) are quite far from it, compared with Decebalus Dacian Kingdom. More then that, it was located in a roman teritory, but that teritory was an older Dacian one (there are many ancient mentions about it, names of Dacian/Getae kings who rulled there), and i read somewhere it was discovered even a dacian village near by, destroyed on that war probably. East of Adamclisi is Tomis, part of Burebista kingdom before, and where Ovidius mentioned that he need to learn Getae language to understand with peoples from the city.
1- as i asked you i think more then a year or so ago, why dont you post some images from Tropaeum Traiani, to make some more clear who's who there? I give you a hint, there are some even on wikipedia, and some diferences are pretty clear, even if you look just at the trousers, as you said. Anyway, i wish as well to see a verifyied and reliable source who say that only Bastarnae are shown there in battle.
2- second piece of evidence, the roman writers, say pretty clear for an unbiased and neutral reader that the Falx was a Dacian sword (wasnt called for nothing "Falcibus Dacorum"), and they refer more then probably to "two-handed" one, or in generaly to that one, because Romans adapted their armour specificaly against such sword. I mean here the helmet especialy. You can use a as well a "Sica" to cut a hand or some tendons, around the shield, but for piercing a top of a helmet you need to use a bigger force of a bigger sword, and that was the Falx. As well, the only one battle when they encountered Bastarnae was that from Adamclisi. I dont think the Romans will make such changes to their armour just because of that single fight, but because they constantly meet with this kind of weapons during their campaign (which was mainly against Dacians)
3 - turning to the weapons itself now. It is not impossible that Falx to be a (or to be at least on origin) a simple farm tool. In fact this is not an unusual hypothese, because later (medieval times) was used even the schyte (not yet present at that point in ancient) as a weapon, and there is big curved knives discovered everywhere in Dacia (and still in use today-as shape model-in Romania), called "cosor" - the equivalent in english of pruning knife/tool, and very probable a bigger long handle can be attached to that.
But, there is allways a but. First of all, at one tip of a Falx, discovered at Tilisca (near Sarmisegetuza) was saw that have blood chanel on the blade, and on another almost full blade discovered at Sarmisegetuza was observed a mark, a symbol similar to ones find on many "Sica" short swords/big knives, which is known that was exclusevly used for battle (or, as some theory said, for ritualic ceremonies too). This means that those swords was made exclusevly for battle (you dont make blood chanels, nor ritualic symbols on a blade, if you just use it for cutting twigs or reed).
So it is not imposible that some agricultural tools to be used for battle, but certanly some blades was made specialy for battle, with symbols graved on them, some even with blood channels.
Wheter or not is inspired by some tools is debatable as well. Some Falxes look as exact copies, just on a bigger scale, of some Sica (on one blade was found even the same symbols graved, a kind of mystico-ritualic sign). Sica itself might be a copy of those "cosor"/pruning knife, but adapted for battle, or might be inspired by sickles.
4 - last evidences, monetary one, i already post some images, with a coin, where a female representing Dacia keep a curved sword with a long handle (as long as blade itself) and a visible blood chanel on the middle of the blade (similar with one from the tip of Falx i mentioned previously)
So, to follow you style, we can conclude that:
1- At Adamclisi are shown both Dacians and Bastarnae (if you say so, i dont mind) welding two handed curved blades
2 - Romans asociated the Falx, a curved two handed sword, just with Dacians, and all such exemplaires was found in Dacian teritories, especialy at Sarmisegetuza area.
3 - Even if is possible that some Falx depicted on Adamclisi or Traian Column to be agricultural tools, or inspired by some as such, it is clear that some was battle swords specialy made for this purpose, with ritualic symbols engraved on blade, and having blood chanels. Having that symbol graved on the blade show as well that the owner wasnt a common people, but part of the noble class (Tarabostes) or elite troops made by profesional warriors (Royal Guard if you wish).
4 - Falx was a "super weapon" because forced the Romans to change their armour and tactic right in the middle of campaign, and made such impression as one you mention at Fronto. Romans didnt adopted Falx on any large scale, because they didnt had at that point any enemy similar to them, fighting in close formations and using large shields. Maybe some was used by Dacian auxiliar troops later, i read somewhere, sorry i dont remeber where now, that in one instance the bodyguards, if i remember correct, of Septimius Severus, was Dacians armed with Falxes. But i might be mistake here.
5 - coins related with Dacia show exactly a two handed sword, i can show at least one, you can show me ones with one handed swords ?
-NOTE- Adamclisi is located close to Danube, at several km. southeast of Dacian kingdom border as it was back then. Mouth of Danubes (north of which was located Bastarnae) are quite far from it, compared with Decebalus Dacian Kingdom. More then that, it was located in a roman teritory, but that teritory was an older Dacian one (there are many ancient mentions about it, names of Dacian/Getae kings who rulled there), and i read somewhere it was discovered even a dacian village near by, destroyed on that war probably. East of Adamclisi is Tomis, part of Burebista kingdom before, and where Ovidius mentioned that he need to learn Getae language to understand with peoples from the city.
1- as i asked you i think more then a year or so ago, why dont you post some images from Tropaeum Traiani, to make some more clear who's who there? I give you a hint, there are some even on wikipedia, and some diferences are pretty clear, even if you look just at the trousers, as you said. Anyway, i wish as well to see a verifyied and reliable source who say that only Bastarnae are shown there in battle.
2- second piece of evidence, the roman writers, say pretty clear for an unbiased and neutral reader that the Falx was a Dacian sword (wasnt called for nothing "Falcibus Dacorum"), and they refer more then probably to "two-handed" one, or in generaly to that one, because Romans adapted their armour specificaly against such sword. I mean here the helmet especialy. You can use a as well a "Sica" to cut a hand or some tendons, around the shield, but for piercing a top of a helmet you need to use a bigger force of a bigger sword, and that was the Falx. As well, the only one battle when they encountered Bastarnae was that from Adamclisi. I dont think the Romans will make such changes to their armour just because of that single fight, but because they constantly meet with this kind of weapons during their campaign (which was mainly against Dacians)
3 - turning to the weapons itself now. It is not impossible that Falx to be a (or to be at least on origin) a simple farm tool. In fact this is not an unusual hypothese, because later (medieval times) was used even the schyte (not yet present at that point in ancient) as a weapon, and there is big curved knives discovered everywhere in Dacia (and still in use today-as shape model-in Romania), called "cosor" - the equivalent in english of pruning knife/tool, and very probable a bigger long handle can be attached to that.
But, there is allways a but. First of all, at one tip of a Falx, discovered at Tilisca (near Sarmisegetuza) was saw that have blood chanel on the blade, and on another almost full blade discovered at Sarmisegetuza was observed a mark, a symbol similar to ones find on many "Sica" short swords/big knives, which is known that was exclusevly used for battle (or, as some theory said, for ritualic ceremonies too). This means that those swords was made exclusevly for battle (you dont make blood chanels, nor ritualic symbols on a blade, if you just use it for cutting twigs or reed).
So it is not imposible that some agricultural tools to be used for battle, but certanly some blades was made specialy for battle, with symbols graved on them, some even with blood channels.
Wheter or not is inspired by some tools is debatable as well. Some Falxes look as exact copies, just on a bigger scale, of some Sica (on one blade was found even the same symbols graved, a kind of mystico-ritualic sign). Sica itself might be a copy of those "cosor"/pruning knife, but adapted for battle, or might be inspired by sickles.
4 - last evidences, monetary one, i already post some images, with a coin, where a female representing Dacia keep a curved sword with a long handle (as long as blade itself) and a visible blood chanel on the middle of the blade (similar with one from the tip of Falx i mentioned previously)
So, to follow you style, we can conclude that:
1- At Adamclisi are shown both Dacians and Bastarnae (if you say so, i dont mind) welding two handed curved blades
2 - Romans asociated the Falx, a curved two handed sword, just with Dacians, and all such exemplaires was found in Dacian teritories, especialy at Sarmisegetuza area.
3 - Even if is possible that some Falx depicted on Adamclisi or Traian Column to be agricultural tools, or inspired by some as such, it is clear that some was battle swords specialy made for this purpose, with ritualic symbols engraved on blade, and having blood chanels. Having that symbol graved on the blade show as well that the owner wasnt a common people, but part of the noble class (Tarabostes) or elite troops made by profesional warriors (Royal Guard if you wish).
4 - Falx was a "super weapon" because forced the Romans to change their armour and tactic right in the middle of campaign, and made such impression as one you mention at Fronto. Romans didnt adopted Falx on any large scale, because they didnt had at that point any enemy similar to them, fighting in close formations and using large shields. Maybe some was used by Dacian auxiliar troops later, i read somewhere, sorry i dont remeber where now, that in one instance the bodyguards, if i remember correct, of Septimius Severus, was Dacians armed with Falxes. But i might be mistake here.
5 - coins related with Dacia show exactly a two handed sword, i can show at least one, you can show me ones with one handed swords ?
Razvan A.
