06-28-2014, 02:56 PM
Well, Romans themselves considered the Falx as a terryfing weapon:
"Trajan engaged the war with hardened soldiers, who despised the Parthians, our enemy, and who didn't care of their arrow blows, after the horrible wounds inflicted by the curved swords of the Dacians."
Fronto, Principia Historiae, II
My opinion is that Falx evolved from Sica (itself a possible evolution from a sickle or something similar with dual use, for war and for work).
As quite many of those found have marks and signs on the blades I understand, it means that Sica was a weapon and those signs marked there had probably some spiritual significance.
The Falx seem to me as a sort of combination of a Sica and a Romphaia and appeared right in the period when Dacians start to clash more serious with Romans.
So was probably developed precisely to deal with the type of soldier the Romans had, covered by a big shield and having a good armour too. I dont think the Falx was used to split a scutum in two (even if such blow would have disabled the one holding the shield as well) but to hit the soldier behind the scutum, or maybe being used as a sort of hook to break the possible shield wall.
As the curvature allowed the tip to hit the head (and I read here on the site that experimental results were astonishing when they saw the contact), and even if protected by a helmet the hit could at least knock him out or wound him, if not killing him directly.
If the soldier would have rise the shield more for head protection then he will open a lower gap and the Falxmen could have cut his legs. As well a Falxmen could have reach the hand with the sword of his enemy even if keep somehow behind the shield, using the same curvature of the blade and the longer reach of it.
Thats why the first known Roman reinforced helmet was found in Dacia and some Roman soldiers are depicted specifically with arms and legs protections.
And thats why Marcus Cornelius Fronto had write about the very nasty wounds produced and the impression the Roman soldiers had about such blades.
Later they were still used probably by some of Dacian auxiliares (or Dacian bodyguards of some emperors as Septimius Severus, I think on his coins are depicted?) in Roman army but gradually fell of use.
The Falxmen were probably very skilled warriors and formed just a fraction of Dacian army.
"Trajan engaged the war with hardened soldiers, who despised the Parthians, our enemy, and who didn't care of their arrow blows, after the horrible wounds inflicted by the curved swords of the Dacians."
Fronto, Principia Historiae, II
My opinion is that Falx evolved from Sica (itself a possible evolution from a sickle or something similar with dual use, for war and for work).
As quite many of those found have marks and signs on the blades I understand, it means that Sica was a weapon and those signs marked there had probably some spiritual significance.
The Falx seem to me as a sort of combination of a Sica and a Romphaia and appeared right in the period when Dacians start to clash more serious with Romans.
So was probably developed precisely to deal with the type of soldier the Romans had, covered by a big shield and having a good armour too. I dont think the Falx was used to split a scutum in two (even if such blow would have disabled the one holding the shield as well) but to hit the soldier behind the scutum, or maybe being used as a sort of hook to break the possible shield wall.
As the curvature allowed the tip to hit the head (and I read here on the site that experimental results were astonishing when they saw the contact), and even if protected by a helmet the hit could at least knock him out or wound him, if not killing him directly.
If the soldier would have rise the shield more for head protection then he will open a lower gap and the Falxmen could have cut his legs. As well a Falxmen could have reach the hand with the sword of his enemy even if keep somehow behind the shield, using the same curvature of the blade and the longer reach of it.
Thats why the first known Roman reinforced helmet was found in Dacia and some Roman soldiers are depicted specifically with arms and legs protections.
And thats why Marcus Cornelius Fronto had write about the very nasty wounds produced and the impression the Roman soldiers had about such blades.
Later they were still used probably by some of Dacian auxiliares (or Dacian bodyguards of some emperors as Septimius Severus, I think on his coins are depicted?) in Roman army but gradually fell of use.
The Falxmen were probably very skilled warriors and formed just a fraction of Dacian army.
Razvan A.
