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

[Dan Howard]

You might need to try a different hoplological lexicon. "Scimitar" is an English corruption of the Persian shamshir. Shamshirs are sabres with the edge on the outside like all sabres. I didn't mention the yatagan because it isn't a scimitar. The yataghan is a lot like a rhomphia in function. It doesn't have much in common with a falx. The closest resemblance to the Dacian falx is a sickle or scythe - both farming tools. The only weapon I can think of that even remotely resembles the falx is the African shotel.

1. It is more likely that the falx evolved from a tool but by the time of Dacian wars it was a weapon.

How do you define weapon?
There is nothing to suggest that a member of the warrior class ever used the falx in battle
There is no precedent for this typology ever being used by a warrior class of other cultures - just peasants grabbing whatever farm tools (i.e. scythes) were nearby.
There is plenty of evidence for this typology being used as a farming implement all over the world. Whenever a sickle-blade gets modified for the battlefield it invariably gets straightened so that the curve is not so pronounced.
Those who actually handle swords will tell you that it is not a practical design. It handles awkwardly; is no better at cutting than a real sword; parries are difficult; cannot be sheathed and transported easily; cannot be used in formation.
Go back to Paul's original post. The so-called "Dacian falx" was a farming tool. It can be called a weapon only in so far that it was sometimes used for fighting but that doesn't change its primary agricultural purpose.