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

[Matthew Amt]

Fascinating post, Paul! Overall, I like it. Just a couple things niggle in the back of my mind, though.

For starters, I'm a little leery about identifying different tribes by their clothing, at least so categorically. It's just a gut feeling, I'm not about to say "You can't do that!", because I agree that Roman artwork used conventions like that.

I'm also not entirely comfortable with a strict definition of how "falx" may be used in Roman literature. They used a lot of other terms loosely or interchangeably, so a narrow definition makes me a little uneasy.

Finally, it seems a little contradictory that on the one hand you say that ONLY the Bastarnae are using these things, but on the other hand that blades and implements like this are found all over Europe! Just sayin'...

On the whole, though, I certainly agree that the falx in whatever form was not a "super weapon", mostly used by modern scholars to taunt Roman reenactors with yet another example of Roman non-invincibility (which of course we never claimed!).

...because Romans adapted their armour specificaly against such sword. I mean here the helmet especialy. You can use a as well a "Sica" to cut a hand or some tendons, around the shield, but for piercing a top of a helmet you need to use a bigger force of a bigger sword, and that was the Falx. As well, the only one battle when they encountered Bastarnae was that from Adamclisi. I dont think the Romans will make such changes to their armour just because of that single fight, but because they constantly meet with this kind of weapons during their campaign (which was mainly against Dacians)

Be careful! It is true that we tend to think that modifications such as helmet bracing and the use of manica and greaves was because of the falx, but we don't KNOW that. Cross-braced helmets are found in Israel and Germany, and the manica turns up in Spain and Britain. Big threat of the falx in those areas? Nope. It could be that we are simply seeing a trend in armor towards the heavy side, which happened now and then through history (alternating with trends in lightening armor). Now, even I still believe that these new additions *may* well have been inspired by the falx, just because a little more metal makes it more likely that you can survive a hit from one of those things (at which point the wielder is doomed because he lacks armor and shield!). But I always throw in the caveat that we do NOT *know* that for certain!

...at one tip of a Falx, discovered at Tilisca (near Sarmisegetuza) was saw that have blood chanel on the blade

A "blood channel" is NOT for blood. It is a fuller, meant to lighten the blade without sacrificing strength. I have a small modern machete with grooves in the blade--it's a tool, not a weapon.

...and on another almost full blade discovered at Sarmisegetuza was observed a mark, a symbol similar to ones find on many "Sica" short swords/big knives, which is known that was exclusevly used for battle

Out of curiosity, how do we *know* this? I DO think (at this point!) that some falxes were purpose-made weapons, so I'm not arguing, I just want to know what evidence there is about this mark.

In the end, even if the falx DID cause the Romans to supplement their usual armor, such flexibility is hardly unknown for them. They had altered their equipment and tactics a number of times in the past, against various enemies. It doesn't seem to have been anything earth-shaking to them. At the very least, we can say that the falx (or whatever we want to call it!) made enough of an impression on the Romans that they included it significantly in their artwork showing that region. That's pretty significant. But it's always shown being used by the *losers*--that's significant, too!

Valete,

Matthew