Dacian Falx vs. Roman Helmets & Armor

[Matthew Amt]

Regardless of how good of shape the Dacians were, the evidence points to defensive adaptations because of a specific weapon. The only weapon unique to the Dacians was the Falx. Not spears, axes or swords. The Romans had faced those for centuries, with no adaptations to their helmets. So the only new stimulus, was the Falx. All roads seem to lead to the Falx.

I tend to lean in that direction myself, and having had a particularly good view of the falx-vs-scutum test I also agree that the falx (at least that particular reconstruction!) was in impressive weapon.

HOWEVER---correlation does not prove causation! All the defensive features ascribed to the influence of the falx--helmet cross-bracing, manica, greaves, hamata and squamata--have been found in areas other than Dacia. This includes Britain, Spain, Syria, etc. And really the dating is too close to prove which came first. So it's possible that those features were NOT a response to the falx, but a simple swing in the eternal back-and-forth between heavier and lighter armor that you can trace from the Bronze Age through the current day. Sometimes there was a trend from more and heavier armor, sometimes a trend towards less and lighter armor. So what we're seeing in the Dacian wars might simply be back on the "heavy" end, swinging back from the earlier first century AD when some legionaries clearly fought with only shield and helmet. OR---some troops had it all, all along, and some troops had very little! We can prove this for some eras, so no reason it can't still apply.

As another "however", as Dan points out, I have NOT personally witnessed similar tests of regular spears, swords, or axes on the same shield that we chopped with the falx. It's quite possible such tests would also be very scary.

The one point which intrigued me greatly from one of those previous threads was the suggestion that the *falx* was a response to the *heavier armor* of the legionaries, not the other way around! I'm not standing dogmatically on this, by any means, it's simply an interesting interpretation.

On the whole, with Roman references to the respect for "curved swords" (assuming that translation is accurate!) and the way the falx keeps showing up in artwork and on coins, etc., I'm a little more inclined to think that the Romans at least felt that was the "signature" weapon from that area.

Also, guys, we're not going to get anywhere trying to argue the exact timing and physics of a single strike and response in a battle. There are simply too many variables, down to the length of the grass, that could apply equally to either combatant. I do think it's a little biased to say that a strike from a falx would penetrate *both* shield and helmet or armor (any tests on that?), and it seems odd that moving the scutum a mere foot from the body would cause a trained man to be off-balance or be knocked to his knees by a weapon blow of any sort. If you are going to assume that the falx-wielder is in a certain stage of readiness, you have to allow the same preparation for his opponent. Relative ages and training are also not something we can factor in reliably. Best to give all that up!

Valete,

Matthew