06-18-2014, 09:18 AM
One of the most interesting weapons in the Ancient world is the Dacian Falx. Trajan's column seems to depict it as the Sica while the Tropaeum Trajani in Dacia depicts it in multiple sizes often Longsword length and even Zheilhandler length.
Which do you think is the more accurate length? Decablus is said to adapted to Roman style of warfare so the short-Sword-Falx would be more on par with the Gladius. However the Dacian Falx is said to be ripping through Roman shields in Domitian's wars.
I also have a question on Roman equipment. Michael Smitt said the Lorica Segmentata was scrapped by Trajan in favor for the Lorica Squamata and Lorica Hamata. How true do you thing this is?(this theory is due to the Tropaeum Trajani showing no Lorica Segmentata). One theory is the Lorica Segmentata provides less coverage to the arms and thighs(in this case the Longsword Falx and Short Falx would be more suited) or the Falx just ripped through the Segmentata in a straight overhand blow(in which the GreatFalx would be used better) and the Squamata and Hamata was able to stop it better.
What do historical sources say about the power of the Falx, was in primarly for trick hooking or overhead power strikes? Also what do archeological finds say? Also if the majority of Falxes were the Zheilhander types, the Lorica Segmentata seems to be more suited due to an overhand shoulder strike?
What has awed me is that how effective the Falx was against the Segmentata. Modern recreations from RAT say that the Segmentata is strong enough to hold against an artillery strike from a Manuballista/Scorpio while Hamata can be pierced by normal arrows(the Parthian arrow thread). Yet Michael Smitt believes the Hamata can sustain a Falx attack better.
Which do you think is the more accurate length? Decablus is said to adapted to Roman style of warfare so the short-Sword-Falx would be more on par with the Gladius. However the Dacian Falx is said to be ripping through Roman shields in Domitian's wars.
I also have a question on Roman equipment. Michael Smitt said the Lorica Segmentata was scrapped by Trajan in favor for the Lorica Squamata and Lorica Hamata. How true do you thing this is?(this theory is due to the Tropaeum Trajani showing no Lorica Segmentata). One theory is the Lorica Segmentata provides less coverage to the arms and thighs(in this case the Longsword Falx and Short Falx would be more suited) or the Falx just ripped through the Segmentata in a straight overhand blow(in which the GreatFalx would be used better) and the Squamata and Hamata was able to stop it better.
What do historical sources say about the power of the Falx, was in primarly for trick hooking or overhead power strikes? Also what do archeological finds say? Also if the majority of Falxes were the Zheilhander types, the Lorica Segmentata seems to be more suited due to an overhand shoulder strike?
What has awed me is that how effective the Falx was against the Segmentata. Modern recreations from RAT say that the Segmentata is strong enough to hold against an artillery strike from a Manuballista/Scorpio while Hamata can be pierced by normal arrows(the Parthian arrow thread). Yet Michael Smitt believes the Hamata can sustain a Falx attack better.
