10-02-2008, 01:52 PM
I think that the term "falx" is quite fine to use. The Romans didn't use it. It is simply a modern term that we use to describe this weapon (the variants of it found within the territory of ancient Dacia). This term is universally accepted for this type of sword used either by the Dacians or or within Dacia. As I know, there have been about 4 or 5 found at Dacian sites. They are not all identical, but much smaller than the Thracian Rhomphaia (although perhaps influenced by or derived from it). In your other RAT post (www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=21204&start=40) you also advocate that Dacians did not use the falx and that it was only the Bastarnae. Are you aware of any archaeological finds from specifically Bastarnae sites? Or sites with Bastarnae presence and no Dacian/Thracian presence? Are there other monuments with Bastarnae or other Germanic people's where they are depicted with a falx?
Regarding the sica, I agree with Berbescu's point (on page 4 of that discussion) that it is a completely separate weapon from the falx. The form is different, and they tend to be of high quality with symbols inscribed on them. They are often found in high status burials. They are generally accepted to have been a high status item, some researchers even going as far as to suggest that they had a ritualistic or sacred significance.
Otis
Regarding the sica, I agree with Berbescu's point (on page 4 of that discussion) that it is a completely separate weapon from the falx. The form is different, and they tend to be of high quality with symbols inscribed on them. They are often found in high status burials. They are generally accepted to have been a high status item, some researchers even going as far as to suggest that they had a ritualistic or sacred significance.
Otis
---------- ---------- ----------
Otis Crandell
Babes-Bolyai University
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Otis Crandell
Babes-Bolyai University
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
