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

[diegis]

No. Some swords are actually suited for use on the battlefield.

Oh, ze sword expert iz arrived :lol:

This is probably the only real advantage of the falx.

I am not a native english speaker, so let me rephrase, probably i didnt said to exactly previously. Falx, compared with other swords (as Gladius, for ex., since you mention it) cut better, pierce better (due to its shape, you can hit as with a hammer) and have a longer range, being able to hit or cut the enemy behind a shield, which was by itself a great thing

Pure speculation. Where are the imperical tests that demonstrate this?

Probably you mean "empirical"? I am not sure what "imperical" means? And well, a fellow forumist, WorkMonkey1, just said it made a test with a sickle (similar maybe with a Sica short sword), i am sure a Falx would be even better. It is up to you to trust him or not, but i dont see why not.

Romans faced both Gallic and German shield walls with full height shields.

Romans meet Dacians about the same time they finished the Gauls. In fact by the same time Dacians finished the Celts in central Europe (Boii and Tauriscii alliance) and interesting droped the use of long, right celtic swords arounfd the same time, and soon Falx entered the scene. Germanic armies (or even Celtic ones) can't be compared with Roman legions as organization and training (Celts was occupied and so Germans actualy, reasons why Germania wasnt transformed all in a province of empire can be discussed), but Germanic victories didnt come in pitched battles, but in an ambush (Teutoborg) or a messed up Roman comand (Arausio). Just much later (after Dacian wars of Traian) they start to become actualy romanized from military point of view, and romans tactics changed as well, so no need for large troops equiped with Falxes was needed.