Dacian Falx vs. Roman Helmets & Armor

[Matthew Amt]

Matt C.H., if you dig back a few weeks in the "Enemies and Allies" section, you'll find at least 2 long and frothing debates on the falx. There are indeed those who consider it a Roman-cleaving super-weapon, devastating legion after legion and dominating the battlefield for years. There are others who point out that the Dacians *lost*... The Dacian campaigns do seem to have been at least a little tougher than cake-walks, and it is *possible* that the Romans modified their armor to adapt to the falx. But then, adapting is what the Romans did best!

My gut reaction is that a lorica segmentata would be a better defense against the impact of a falx, but it's *shorter* than a shirt of mail or scale armor. That could be why we don't see segmentata in the Adamklissi reliefs. Having been the guy at the end of the support beam holding a shield while it was chopped by a falx, I can tell you that there is indeed a creepy feeling of "I want more armor..." Doesn't matter if it is scientifically not more likely to *penetrate* armor, the shape of it is just a little more likely to go licking around the shield and snag bare flesh. But as others have pointed out, you only have to survive that first strike to have a free shot at the unarmored wielder.

Let's hope this doesn't turn into another of those threads...

Matthew