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

[Paullus Scipio]

Diegis wrote:

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

: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

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.

2. I am not now, and never have been a member of the "Total War Centre" forum, and I have never posted there - see how you leap to conclusions without evidence? :wink:

3. I said nothing about you being "all day here or there".....that one you have conjured out of thin air !!! :roll:

4. 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.)

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)