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

[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!