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

[diegis]

Quite right on both counts, Nina! Tapae was the site of several battles precisely because it was a 'bottleneck' - a pass through the mountains. Its physical size precludes any 'large battle', let alone deployment of the "biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy" ( which seems to have been divided into several different invasion forces coming from different directions, not just all invading via Tapae/Iron gates.)

Roman army in first war had just 2 columns, who meet and join right before the battle of Tapae. And that was the bulk of Roman army, since after the battle of Tapae (an inconlusive Roman victory) when Dacians counteratacked in Moesia, Traian himslef with a part of this army retreated and rush there to resolve the problem, meaning that he left behind in Moesia just a small force with guarding duties.

[Dan Howard]

I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is relevant to the falx?

I've seen nothing to suggest that the falx was specifically designed to be used in battle.
I've seen nothing to suggest that it was a better cutter than a dozen other blades in use at the time.
I've seen nothing to suggest that falxmen played a prominent role in any Dacian victory against the Romans.

[Thunder]

I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is relevant to the falx?

I've seen nothing to suggest that the falx was specifically designed to be used in battle.
I've seen nothing to suggest that it was a better cutter than a dozen other blades in use at the time.
I've seen nothing to suggest that falxmen played a prominent role in any Dacian victory against the Romans.

Presuming the falx handle is as long as the blade, it could be used in a fashion not dissimilar to a bill, which would make it extremely effective against Romans.

[Dan Howard]

The bill was designed to be used primarily against cavalry and any infantry it came against would have had small shields or none at all. Neither is applicable to Roman legionaries.

[diegis]

I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is relevant to the falx?

I've seen nothing to suggest that the falx was specifically designed to be used in battle.

Then maybe you should read again the topic.
-There is a falx blade marked with a symbol find as well on Sica blades, considered as having a protecting and mystico-ritualic role. It is doubtfull that such thing was needed for one who cut twigs in his backyard, but logical for one who go to war. As well having similar symbols engraved on Sica (which is exclusevly used for battle or ritualic sacrifices) enforce the variant of a Falx battle sword special designed for that.

-As well, the existance of a close type of sword at southern Tracians (Getae/Dacians being the northern ones), called Romphaia is another prouve. Romphaia was as well a 2 handed sword and had a similar lenght (or maybe slighty longer) but Falx had a more pronounced curvature, Romphaia having an almost right blade

I've seen nothing to suggest that it was a better cutter than a dozen other blades in use at the time.

The curved blades are by construction and shape better at cutting then right blades, this is common knowledge. Why do you think the sickles and schytes was done like that (and is harder to made a curved blade then a right one), and not with right blades?
As well, an even better use of Falx come from the fact that was able to bypass the shield (even one as big as roman scutum), due to its curved shape, and can be used as well in a similar manner with a hammer (or axe), piercing thru the helmets (and a fellow forumist said he did that even with an old sickle-similar maybe with a Sica) from above the shield. Fact that first crossbars on roman helmets apeared in this time period is usualy considered as a response to such hits over the shield (similar the specificalu depiction of arm and leg protection during fights is considered the same as a response to curved blades) . And such hits are not possible with other swords

-And we have too that quote from Fronto (in his Principae Historiae) where he said about the horrible wounds made by Dacian curved swords.

I've seen nothing to suggest that falxmen played a prominent role in any Dacian victory against the Romans.

Yes, we dont know, but in the same time we have nothing clear to suggest that it didnt play a proeminent role. For example from Dio Cassius we know that during the battle of Tapae the emperor Traian himself was forced to rip of his clothes to make bandages for wounded soldiers, meaning that even Romans was very good equiped and had good armour, and had as well the numerical superiority, the casualities was much bigger then was expected, and one of the reasons might by the curved swords (Falx and even Sica) able to reach and hit over and around the shields and piercing nasty wounds thru the armour as well.
But yes, it is not known for sure, and as i said previously, the skill and bravery of warriors counted probably more then weapon itself

[Conal]

The curved blades are by construction and shape better at cutting then right blades, this is common knowledge. Why do you think the sickles and schytes was done like

To balance them for cutting grass from a standing position. On the contrary it is common knowledge that curved blades do not cut better than straight ones. There are a number of reasons why swords are curved, which on the whole relate to styles of fighting or manufacturing processes, rather than cutting efficiency. Swords such as the Kopis or Falcata and knives such as the Khurkri have the cutting edge on the inside of the curve or bend and rely on weight distribution to get a cut not the curve. They have more weight towards the tip so that it is concentrated at the point of impact... more a chop than a cut.

Scythes have a completely different balance as the blade thins towards the tip, so, on a long handle, would rely on leverage to add weight to a cut/chop. There is no evidence that the inner edge would enhance cutting ability in this instance.

-And we have too that quote from Fronto (in his Principae Historiae) where he said about the horrible wounds made by Dacian curved swords.

The same shock and awe was suggested at the Roman encounter with the Spanish sword where the wounds were considered terrible ... so much so that they adopted it as the Gladius Hispaniensis ... this sword now appears to be a Spanish borrowing of a La Tene II straight sword.I would like to see sword would that could not be desribed as terrible...I believe the are water colours of either Waterloo or the Crimea which show the outcome of survived sword cuts. The French are said to have complained about the 1876 pattern sabre but there are tests on youtube which show this as no more efficient than any other sword. It was the light cavalry who were more efficient as the curve allowed cutting strokes at a closer range!

[Dan Howard]

-As well, the existance of a close type of sword at southern Tracians (Getae/Dacians being the northern ones), called Romphaia is another prouve. Romphaia was as well a 2 handed sword and had a similar lenght (or maybe slighty longer) but Falx had a more pronounced curvature, Romphaia having an almost right blade.

I would argue that, unlike the falx, the rhomphia was a blade that was specifically designed for battle. It reminds me of the Scandinavian langsax. If the two are related then the falx is the civilian version (a tool, improvised for battle) and the rhomphia is the military version (a blade specifically designed for combat). It is a far more efficient design.

And we have too that quote from Fronto (in his Principae Historiae) where he said about the horrible wounds made by Dacian curved swords.

This one?
"But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks."

Oh sorry, that was Livy talking about a short straight blade that only needed a short-arsed Roman with one hand to cause those injuries. As has been said time and again, all swords inflict terrible injuries. The falx just does it less efficiently than most others.

[diegis]

I would argue that, unlike the falx, the rhomphia was a blade that was specifically designed for battle. It reminds me of the Scandinavian langsax. If the two are related then the falx is the civilian version (a tool, improvised for battle) and the rhomphia is the military version (a blade specifically designed for combat). It is a far more efficient design.

You can argue whatever you wish, ofcourse, just that facts or proves presented point more in the direction i say (Falx as a battle designed sword).

This one?
"But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks."

Oh sorry, that was Livy talking about a short straight blade that only needed a short-arsed Roman with one hand to cause those injuries. As has been said time and again, all swords inflict terrible injuries. The falx just does it less efficiently than most others.

Keep saying the Falx wasnt efficient doesnt make it true either. Peoples who actualy saw its effects (and of Sica) are clearly contradict you. If Fronto said that Roman soldiers (who know already the effects produced by Gladius) was soo impresed by the terrible wounds made by Dacians curved swords, it seems that the efficiency of this swords was great even on an adversary wearing a good armour and protected by a large scutum.
And such efficiency can be achieved just with such curved swords. It is not just the cutting power (easily allowing amputation or deep and long cuts), but the piercing abilities too, with all forces gathered in the tip of the blade hitting in a hammer style (with the piercing probably followed by a hook and pull/slash movement), again, imposible to do with right swords.
And yes, i agree that all swords can do terrible injuries, yet not all was that impressive to be specialy mentioned for such, nor forced such an advanced army as Romans in those times to need to adapt their protection (at least helmet, and probably introducing on larger scale the arm and leg protections too) in time of thise campagnies.

[Sean Manning]

I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is relevant to the falx?

I've seen nothing to suggest that the falx was specifically designed to be used in battle.
I've seen nothing to suggest that it was a better cutter than a dozen other blades in use at the time.
I've seen nothing to suggest that falxmen played a prominent role in any Dacian victory against the Romans.

Presuming the falx handle is as long as the blade, it could be used in a fashion not dissimilar to a bill, which would make it extremely effective against Romans.

What's your evidence for a two-handed falx as tall as the wielder or taller? Most of the ones posted in this thread appear 3-5 feet long, half the length of a bill or halberd. Against Romans with pila or gladii and shields, that's not a huge reach advantage, and the Romans will be trying to close the distance. And if you want to mainly use the falx to prod at a distance, why not just use a big spear?

[nina]

I've seen nothing to suggest that the falx was specifically designed to be used in battle.

dear Dan,
allow me to answer with another question: were the spear and arrow designed specifically for battle? or for hunting?
Well, initiallly were tools for hunting. Later, the humanity found a new use for them: the war and that was the moment when those tools started to change their shape.
And from that moment we can talk about spears and arrows specifically designed as weapons.
So it is quite normal for a weapon to evolve from a tool and this might be the case of the falx evolved from a scythe, maybe.
But it's particularities - handle, lenght of the blade, etc, etc made it designed especially for battle.

[Dan Howard]

Nah. If it was designed for battle it would look like a rhomphia.

[nina]

:lol: why? all weapons have to look the same?
take for example the medieval scimitar - a strange looking one. but this doesn't make it less weapon.
and another aspect (I'm sure you will agree on this one): an instrument used on a specific activity cannot be used in any other - mainly because of the risk to brake or distroy it and not beeing able to make another one in time.

[D B Campbell]

In this thread, I am hoping to demonstrate that the idea of a ‘Dacian two-handed falx’ as some sort of ‘super weapon’ is not supported by the evidence.

Having just happened upon this (extraordinarily lengthy) thread, I am intrigued to know exactly who suggested that the falx was "some sort of 'super-weapon'" in any case?! I have never come across such an assertion. :?

[Dan Howard]

:lol: why? all weapons have to look the same?
take for example the medieval scimitar - a strange looking one. but this doesn't make it less weapon.
and another aspect (I'm sure you will agree on this one): an instrument used on a specific activity cannot be used in any other - mainly because of the risk to brake or distroy it and not beeing able to make another one in time.

How is the scimitar a strange weapon? There are dozens of very similar variants from all over the world. Examples include the Persian shamshir, Russian shasqa, Ottoman kiljic, Indian tulwar, Indonesian podang, Arabian saif, and a handful of European sabre variants. It is the falx that is an abberation. If it was such a wonderful design then we would see just as many variants throughout the world as the scimitar.

[nina]

It is the falx that is an abberation. If it was such a wonderful design then we would see just as many variants throughout the world as the scimitar.

You said it yourself: there are similar looking weapons, as the scimitar, but only in Asia. This can only mean one thing - those weapons are suitable for a very particular fighting style. And for the europeans was a strange looking weapon.
So we can say the same about the falx - it was used in a special way, very different from the Roman one.
And to adopt a new weapon like this, would mean for the Romans to change a very effective fighting style. The Romans only adopt weapon type that could fit in their fighting techniques, nothing else.
I don't believe I've used the word "wonderful", you stubborn one.