Dacian Falx vs. Roman Helmets & Armor

[diegis]

Similarly, any two-handed bladed weapon ( battle-axe, bill, halberd, Claymore etc) will, because of longer leverage and two-handed use, inflict a more powerful blow than single-handed blades.

:grin: very correct

The two-handed 'Falx' ( which is unlikely to have been a 'Dacian' weapon, despite certain Romanian nationalistic opinions ) was most likely an agricultural implement ( a bill-hook, or hedging hook, or reed-cutter; to which it is identical)and seems to have been used by the Bastarnae tribesmen who lived in the Danube delta and lower Danube region as an extemporised weapon. There is no evidence of this agricultural implement's use in warfare after the demise of the Bastarnae tribe.

:roll: Good God, not again this weird theory of you, already debunked in few previous threads. Falx at the moment of Trajan Dacian wars at least, was a true sword (archeology find several blades, one engraved with a solar symbol find on many Sica as well, and one still having parts of fossilized leather from its scabard/sheat). All was found in Dacia teritory, usualy in or near the capital, Sarmizegetusa) and Romans themselves say that are Dacian weapons. It was on the same family with Romphaia (Thracian sister sword, much less curved) and resemble the (Dacian and Thracian curved short sword) Sica shape, just on a larger scale.

The increased force of this weapon ( two-handed, and with greater leverage) may well have led to modifications, of the sort described, to Roman armour.

Again, correct and common sense asumption

It should be noted that the person wielding the falx against the helpless Roman shield in the well-known photo was a body-builder and unusually strong. Even so, it is readily apparent what would happen in the next second were a Roman legionary to be behind that shield - he'd be gutted by a Roman gladius, exactly as depicted on the Adamklissi metopes.

This highlights the point that two-handed weapon wielders have a tremendous disadvantage - their wielders are completely unprotected. In later ages, men so armed usually fought in the second rank, behind a protective front rank 'shield-wall', where they were able to wield their powerful two-handed weapons freely over the heads/shoulders of their protectors.*

Well, first, about the person who use the Falx, imagine that a warrior in his 30's, who lived in the ancient times, going up in the mountains each day to cut trees in the forest, almost since his childhood, have a very good stamina and force, and can achieve easily the same results as in that test.
And acording with Dacian religion he consider himself he is immortal, that the eternal life will start soon after he leave this one, and on the otherworld the best warriors have the best life, so is very eager to kill some enemies and is hardly afraid to die

As well, if a legionar wear that shield and he is hit like that, either the tip of the sword will pierce his helmet or hit him hard on shoulder or so, either if he keep the shield more distanced from the body he will be heavy unbalanced and draged even in his knees if the supposed Dacian enemy will make a pull move after the hit. Either way the legionar will not be able to imediatly stab him with his Gladius

Not then, by any means, a 'super weapon' and certainly not adopted by the Roman Army, who were frequently quite quick to adopt effective enemy weapons.

Dacians who joined the Roman Army as auxiliars still used curved swords, and there is an image posted by another forumist in another topic, with a bodyguard of a Roman emperor (Septimius Severus if i am not wrong) wearing a huge Falx. I think is possible that even Varangian guard in Byzantine empire was armed with some similar sword (Falx/Romphaia related).
Roman legions didnt adopt Falx (or Sica) because their fighting style, formations and training was already set in some way, and work very well. Romans was practical peoples, and probably consider is not necessary to fix something that it work, and if is necessary they can rely on auxiliars as even Dacians for using diferent weapons

* At the end of the Middle Ages, men in full plate armour also frequently used two-handed weapons - 'Great'swords, bills, halberds etc and were fully protected - a very lethal combination.

It is not impossible for Dacians who fight armed with Falxes to wear armoures as well. On the Trajan Column the enemies (with exception of couple images, when some Sarmatian cavalry apear clearly separated from others) apear without armoures, so probably the viewers in Rome (mostly civilians) to not confuse who is who there, so Dacian are represented wearing their "national day by day" clothes

But among the trophies on the Column are presented few armour and helmet types, and ancient writers and archeological discoveries show that Dacians used armoures, quite on large scale