The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon

[Matthew Amt]

Matt wrote:

I'm also not entirely comfortable with a strict definition of how "falx" may be used in Roman literature. They used a lot of other terms loosely or interchangeably, so a narrow definition makes me a little uneasy.

Huh? Not sure what you mean by this - my point was that "falx' was a broad definition, not a narrow one - it literally means 'curved blade', any kind of curved blade.

DOH! Sorry, must have read that all too fast.

Rather than Phil Barker's idea, it is equally possible, maybe more so, that the 'improvised' use of a tool was a counter to troops in heavy armour - and there is an excellent precedent for this. During the revolt of Sacrovir in Gaul in AD21, the rebels included a small group of trainee gladiators of the fully-armoured 'Crupellari' type. The Roman legionaries resorted to using tools of the 'two-handed chopper' variety - their 'dolabra' (! hock: ) to deal with these! [Tacitus Annals III.43 ff].....perhaps the Bastarnae trapped with their families at the 'wagon massacre' also desperately improvised against heavily armoured Roman troops. Let us not forget too that after, this 'weapon' is never heard of again.....that surely implies it was an 'improvisation' used as a one-off rather than a newly developed formidable weapon.

*OH!* OOOoooooooohhhhhhh...... OhMyGod. Geez, you're good, I love it! Sure is something to consider...

Well, i agree that Dacians lost the war, but the impression made by them was quite big. Domitian before even paid them tribute, and Traian used the biggest army used by Romans vs a foreign enemy, and was one of the few instances when Romans had numerical superiority on the battle field (draining troops from all over the empire). Romans build the biggest bridge in the world for that invasion (biggest for around a millenium i think), a spectacular realisation for that times, and even make some engineering works on Danube course (which is one of the biggest rivers in the world as discharge of water volume and biggest in Europe-except Volga), so making a huge war effort. And even if the Dacian capital, Sarmisegetuza, was at a distance of 100-150 km from Roman border (province Moesia), Romans needed almost a year, each war, to reach there, and celebration of victory lasted 123 days at Rome. Trajan Column and Forum was build there, to always be remembered, first ever and biggest such column, and lots of statues of Dacians (some of them saw now on Constantine Arch and even Vatican Museum).

That's something to consider, too! Very good points.

Why on earth would they suddenly decide to wear arm protection because of Dacian blades and not all of the other sword types the Romans faced?

This is one possible reason:



I was holding the other end of the support beam, and it was a bloody impressive demonstration even from that distance. A little more metal between me and that thing? Oh, yeah, GOOD to have! Now, obviously this test doesn't necessarily reflect battlefield conditions. The guy with the falx is a weight lifter, and it's entirely possible that his weapon is over-engineered. But it certainly showed an ability to go through or around a shield that a simple spear or sword can't match. You understand that I am in no way saying that we've proved causality, here! But I still think it's *possible* that this weapon encouraged the grunts in the front ranks to beef up their armor just a tad. I'm also always careful to present the whole issue to an audience that way: a *possibility*, not fact. So I LOVE Paul's suggestion that it was the other way around, and I can't wait to throw that into my demos, too!

Great stuff from everyone, by the way! I love going through these hot, savage debates and agreeing with everybody! And then DISagreeing with everyone, too! Too much fun.

Valete,

Matthew