Dacian Swords (Other than the Falx)

[diegis]

Well, first, about other swords then falx. Dacian used more then one type of sword, as well other weapons, diferent then sword, as primary weapon ( as one handed battle axes with 2 blades, or one blade on a part and one huge nail type on the other side for punching armours ). About swords, the main one was definately "sica", founded in greater numbers all over. It was more like a huge battle knife, or a short sword, with one or both edges sharpened, and used in combination with the shield. Another type of sword was a persian inspired one, called "akinakai", a short-medium straight one, used probably mostly by nobles, before the AD. Another type are from celtic inspiration, a longer right type, as well from a little spread, like the pommel ringed one presented here. However, in AC era, and after some exchanges with romans ( including prisoners, desertors from roman army-much probably dacians from southern provinces like Moesia, or even roman instructors send for ex. by Domitian ) gladius sword apear in dacian army too, but the "national" one sword, if we can call it like that was definately "sica".
About the falx, i still see someone pres the idea that was not a dacian weapon, but a bastarnae one. I argue on another topic, and not want to start again, but the fact that falx was considered by romans at that time a Dacian sword, it was founded just in Dacian sites, and not in other places ( like the few bastarnae ones discovered, some of them beeing in fact common bastarnae dacian ones or disapearing after Burebista times ), it was more then likely a development of "sica" to counter the roman shield wall ( and Dacians was more probable to know the roman tactics ), due to general apearence, and the images from Adamclisi in discusion are still debatable ( there is an image of a falx on Traian Column too ) if they represent just bastarnae or dacians armed with falx ( and most interpretations is that are dacians ), is more then likely to be a Dacian weapon too, who was not too spread because haved a specific role, against the roman shield wall, in a Dacian strategy who ended with the end of war from 106 AD.

[Berbescu]

About swords, the main one was definately "sica", founded in greater numbers all over. It was more like a huge battle knife, or a short sword, with one or both edges sharpened,

Do you have a picture or a reference for a sica with both edges sharpened?

Another type of sword was a persian inspired one, called "akinakai",

A reference, please.

Another type are from celtic inspiration, a longer right type, as well from a little spread, like the pommel ringed one presented here.

Exactly like the pommel ringed ones presented at the begging of this discussion. I think that was the point of this discussion.

However, in AC era,

You mean to say "AD" era? The modern calander of today?

and after some exchanges with romans ( including prisoners, desertors from roman army-much probably dacians from southern provinces like Moesia, or even roman instructors send for ex. by Domitian ) gladius sword apear in dacian army too, but the "national" one sword, if we can call it like that was definately "sica".

Maybe size doesn't always count, but at maximum 40cm (including the handle) I don't think we can say that sica is a sword. I don't want to go in battle with only that to fight away my enemies.

Where did you read about Roman desertors leaving the Roman army to join the Dacians? I am sure that the gladius type sword used in Dacia is from the Celts (or Sarmatians) but not from the Romans. It is not the Roman form. The Romans had gladius because they copied also the Celts.

The most common swords from artefacts are gladius (usually with ring) and something like Germanic saex (a big fighting knife). Sica was common, but was a knife. Falx is also found but few.

About the falx, i still see someone pres the idea that was not a dacian weapon, but a bastarnae one. I argue on another topic, and not want to start again, but the fact that falx was considered by romans at that time a Dacian sword, it was founded just in Dacian sites, and not in other places

OK. Is true, its only found in Dacian sites, but only 5 are found. What conclusion can we draw from that? Maybe it really was just a weapon of allies (ex. Bastarnae) or wass just a temporary idea for fighting Romans, but it is not a common weapon (from artefact finds).

[diegis]

Salve Ioane
About one of the things i write here i just read in some military history book, from which i cannt present here any pics, unfortunately. I remeber that i read that sometimes "sica" was sharpened on both edges, not just the exterior edge. In fact, even on Traian Column, Decebal, to avoid the shame of be captured kill himself cutting his throat with the inner edge of his sica, not the exterior one.
About "akinakes" swords, well, is in that book too, and i will try to present something from the net too. However, it was used mostly Before Christ era, and haved just a little spread, probably mostly on nobles.

http://www.curierul.forter.ro/photos/31 ... abiile.jpg

The article is only in romanian, unfortunately

And yes, what i wanted to say is AD, modern era.
About desertors from roman army who join the dacian one, is known from roman sources, Traian ask Decebal to destroy his border fortresses, war machines, and return all the desertors and prisoners, after their first war, and at the begining of second one Decebal sent 3 ( if remember correct ) desertors from roman army in Traian camp to assasinate him, but unfortunately one of them was considered suspect and tortured until he tell about the others and their mission. This can be only dacians from southern province as Moesia or Scythia Minor, since i dont think others will agree to do such suicidal mission, even if payed very well.
The gladius swords was most probably come from romans, since begining with Burebista times dacians and romans have more and more conections, in various areas, from wars to economic exchanges ( dacian made denars for ex. is almost imposible to be distingushed from the roman ones ), in the same time celts beeing destroyed or pushed away by dacian advance.
And not all celts use gladius, romans take this sword from iberian tribes, thus the name "gladius hispanensis". I never heard about sarmatians using gladius in those times, but more likely "akinakes" or that pommel ringed ones.
About sica ( which i dont see to come from german "saex", why you said that realy dont know ? ), and how was used, well, many swords was short, romans used short ones too, akinakes was a short one, greeks haved too shorter swords. Dacian used sica because more reasons. First, the room for fight was quite small, even very small, and using a big sword against a shield, in a very small open space was not a wise thing, you need it to be as mobil and able to hit the enemy as quick and better as posible, since however if was hard to do that over the shield, and using a huge straight sword in that little space was very dificult. Here was the reason of falx too. It was a curved sword, so not extremly long, and you can use as a schyte, in a closer move then one right big sword, keeping one hand close to upper part of handling and hit and pull, cutting legs, arms, heads, or hooking and destroying scutum, and breaking the shield wall and making space for other to enter and breake the lines in that aglomerated space who was on big scale battles. Another reason for using sica was the terrain, which was mostly a forested, or heavy forested one, again not too much space for big swords, especialy because sica was used in combination with shield, who provide a good protection, and shes form help both stabing and slashing, making very nasty wounds when pull out ( the falx one making quite horrible ones, and instant amputations ). However, medium sized sica/falx type ( something between them ) it was very probably to exist, since in that times was not any standardization of swords, and we can see in some images such exemples.
And well, since all was founded just in Dacian sites, and always was related to Dacians, it is pretty sure that swords from this family was dacian ones.

[Berbescu]

About one of the things i write here i just read in some military history book,

About "akinakes" swords, well, is in that book too, and i will try to present something from the net too.

The article is only in romanian, unfortunately

What is the name of the book and article?

About sica ( which i dont see to come from german "saex", why you said that realy dont know ? ), and how was used, well, many swords was short,

I didn't saw that the fighting knife (in Romanian "cutite de lupta") was the sica. In Dacian archaeology there is a weapon called "battle knife" or "fighting knife". It is LIKE a saex. It is not derived from it. I didn't say it was, only that it is LIKE saex. Read all of this forum discussion because at the beginning of the discussion there is mentioned one and there are some puctures. This is the weapon that I mention. At 60cm it is LIKE a sword but it is CALLED a knife. Ask any Dacian archaeologist and they will know what it refers to. If you say "cutite de lupta" they will know you mean that weapon and not a sica. They always call a sica a "sica".

Also, sica is crescent shaped and decorated. Falx is usually a hooked ended shape and not decorated. The biggest sica is maybe 40cm and smallest falx is about 60cm. What intermediary examples to you know about?

You should read the more recent articles of Ferencz and Dima (from the last 10 years). They will give you more information on Dacians. Not books by Iorga written 100 years ago. Nor stuff written in the communist era. There is too much out dated info and biased "facts".

[diegis]

About one of the things i write here i just read in some military history book,

About "akinakes" swords, well, is in that book too, and i will try to present something from the net too.

The article is only in romanian, unfortunately

What is the name of the book and article?

About sica ( which i dont see to come from german "saex", why you said that realy dont know ? ), and how was used, well, many swords was short,

I didn't saw that the fighting knife (in Romanian "cutite de lupta") was the sica. In Dacian archaeology there is a weapon called "battle knife" or "fighting knife". It is LIKE a saex. It is not derived from it. I didn't say it was, only that it is LIKE saex. Read all of this forum discussion because at the beginning of the discussion there is mentioned one and there are some puctures. This is the weapon that I mention. At 60cm it is LIKE a sword but it is CALLED a knife. Ask any Dacian archaeologist and they will know what it refers to. If you say "cutite de lupta" they will know you mean that weapon and not a sica. They always call a sica a "sica".

Also, sica is crescent shaped and decorated. Falx is usually a hooked ended shape and not decorated. The biggest sica is maybe 40cm and smallest falx is about 60cm. What intermediary examples to you know about?

You should read the more recent articles of Ferencz and Dima (from the last 10 years). They will give you more information on Dacians. Not books by Iorga written 100 years ago. Nor stuff written in the communist era. There is too much out dated info and biased "facts".

Well, lets begin with first answer. Unfortunately i dont remember the name of the book, i read it couple years ago, and it was not mine. However, was a pure military history book, not related with any "comunist" view of history, which mainly was just present dacians as "good guys" who fight for freedom, as a kind of "proletars" against "imperialist invaders". And trust me, the ones who know better in military history are military historians ( unfortunately i didnt read anything from ones you tell me, but trust me, is not a wise thing to imediatly deny something because was writed long ago, or in comunist times, because 2+2=4 in those times too, so come with real arguments, so not become you "biased" ).
I have, lets say, since childoohod as hooby what we call "arme albe", and i never let any ocasion to study and to handle any such weapons since then, i saw both real and modern copies of falx ( in museums ), and celtic straight sword finded here, and i read all i find about it. This is the site with "akinakes" info

http://www.curierul.forter.ro/07ist/04.htm

And this are some images with sica, falx, and battle knives ( battle knives i presume can be sometimes considered as a sica, just dont have graves and worksmanship of sica, and can be as well curved or straight )

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... alx_03.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... alx_04.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... alxuri.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... alx_01.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... ier_04.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... ier_06.jpg

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/2.63.h.jpg

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/2.65.h.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kjfnjy/224054839/

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... at54_g.txt

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... at54_g.txt

http://www.enregistrersous.com/images/v ... 020657.jpg

http://www.swordsmith.net/roman.asp?gal ... d=75#Items

I have a drawning from a falx finded by Parvan, if i remember correct, but i cannt find now. As you see, swords here, both original and reproductions are not quite the same in shape and dimensions. Sica was probably used mostly by tarabostes ( nobles ), but not sure if just by them, and comati ( capilati-common peoples ) used probably some gladius type one. Some ones uses falxes ( the most skiled warriors ), swords who aperead in my opinion after first encounters with romans and theyr scutum. The only comon thing is that both sica and falx was curved swords ( with falx as an evolution of sica because of necesity and diferent startegy, as spatha was a development of gladius ) used by dacians mostly against romans ( the falx ), and this is the reason of disapearing after the daco-roman wars. However, curved battle knives remain in what we call today "cosor".

[diegis]

About sword and battle knife. This was a common thing, Dacians, Romans, Celts, use the knife as a secondary weapon ( see romans with gladius and pugio ). In my opinion Dacians used more then one type of sword, on diferent moments. First, was sica, a daco-thracian short sword ( and since battle knives used by dacians was both straight and curved, and sica was a short sword, sometimes is a confusion, yes, between sica-a short sword/huge knife sized weapon and such battle knifes, but yes, is not the same weapon ). Then, probably after persian Darius the First expedition here the "akinakes", another short sword type apear in dacian use, lately followed probably by those pommel ringed presented at the begining of topic. As well in use was some straight long swords, inspired by celtic ones. A change apear somehwere between last century BC, and first century AD, when long, celtic type swords disapear, and their place is take it by "falx", as a long, curved sword. In this time i think the gladius type apear too in Dacian army. This change i think apeared because of more and more encounters with romans, and as well because a long straight sword was not too good in a aglomerated space of battle, when you need to be as mobile as posible, and have a weapon able to use as good as posible, and short swords are the best in that situation, both as handle and using, because it was exhausting to fight after a while, especialy with an enemy having a shield, and you have small space for using the weapon. We know then in last cen.BC era dacians ( getians )defeated in today Dobrogea the roman army of Caius Hybrida, and capture his legions flags ( recovered decades later from Zyraxes, a local dacian dynast ), then during the time of Burebista, and especialy after, the conections was more and more. So, dacians developed a sword able to breake the roman shield wall, long enough to reache the legs, head or even arms of enemies, but with a distinct shape and construction ( clearly inspired/developed by/from much shorter sica ) who make them able to use well in the big aglomeration of tens of thousands of warriors. As well, the fact that dacians tryied to copy the roman army organization made the use of gladius type sword spread too, alongside sica.

[Paullus Scipio]

To Diegis:
The above appears to be highly speculative, and to me at least, highly unlikely.
What is the evidence on which you base your broad conclusions ?
'Akinakes' type swords, for example, were not only used by Persians but by steppe nomads too. There is no evidnce I know of, either iconographic or archaeological, for widespread use of the two-handed 'Falx', nor any iconographic evidence to suggest it's use by Dacians at all, let alone that it was developed by Dacians to 'break the Roman Shield wall'......again, the information we have suggests that Legionaries at this time (c.100 AD) did NOT fight in a 'shield wall' at all !!
What evidence is there to suggest any link between the two-handed 'Falx' types, and the 'sica' apart from the fact that both are curved and have inside edges ( like scythes) ? They do not seem to have much in common.....in fact it would be more logical to suggest the 'Falx' developed from a scythe.... :wink:

[diegis]

To Diegis:
The above appears to be highly speculative, and to me at least, highly unlikely.
What is the evidence on which you base your broad conclusions ?
'Akinakes' type swords, for example, were not only used by Persians but by steppe nomads too. There is no evidnce I know of, either iconographic or archaeological, for widespread use of the two-handed 'Falx', nor any iconographic evidence to suggest it's use by Dacians at all, let alone that it was developed by Dacians to 'break the Roman Shield wall'......again, the information we have suggests that Legionaries at this time (c.100 AD) did NOT fight in a 'shield wall' at all !!
What evidence is there to suggest any link between the two-handed 'Falx' types, and the 'sica' apart from the fact that both are curved and have inside edges ( like scythes) ? They do not seem to have much in common.....in fact it would be more logical to suggest the 'Falx' developed from a scythe.... :wink:

Well, it is in a way speculative, and is based in part on my views, yes, and in what i believe it is a logic thinking. First, falx apear in last century BC ( replacing the older straight long swords ), and is used mostly until begining of second century AD ( even i saw in a material presented previous that a falx was discovered in a dacian tomb dated later then those dates ), exactly the times when Dacians and Romans "meet" for the first time, until they last major wars ( there was other after too, but none of them at such scale, and fight by a coordinated and trained by "the state" if we can say that, dacian army ). As well, all falxes was finded in dacian sites, and romans themselves said that are dacian swords, and i dont think they lied about that, if was not as that. About iconographic images, well, let say that this is debatable, and we have here diferent point of views, but the majoritar opinion i saw everywhere i see/read about the falx is that is a dacian sword, used by dacians ( even i cant say that is not posible to be gived to some allies/auxiliar troops who fight for them ).
As well, the shape of the sword is the best for use against an oponent who have a big shield, and only enemy who have that was romans. And ofcourse they still use that scutum, and fight in a closer formation, even in 100 AD. Falx was developed precisely to fight against such enemy, beeing able to hit over the shield, and under the shield, in both piercing and cutting moves, against head, legs, or even arms. This is the reason for romans to reinforce their helmets, and use protection armor for arms and legs, used at that moments just by gladiators. Thats why they associate the sword with Dacians and dacian wars, and not mention any others, even much later after the wars. Bastarnae tribe was a small tribe, living in stepes north-north west of Black Sea, who was partialy exterminated by Dacians under Burebista, and fight as dacians auxiliars in war with romans. They dont need such swords, since they dont have enemies who was protected by such big shields.
As well, the scythe as we know today apeared in Europe much later ( a millenium later ) after the wars we talking here ( at least according to "wikipedia" ), and trust me, i saw ( and even use ) both of them, is not any conection beside the inner shaped edge. Totaly diferent baldes, and totaly diferent construction of the tool versus the sword. Yes, in medieval times the schyte was used as weapon, here in Romania at least, maybe in similar ways with falx in some moments, but is not for sure developed falx from a scythe. More close to that is the sickle. But much more close is the "Sica", which resemble ( at least some exemplares ) in a smaller scale the bigger falx, no doubt here ( as you can see in some iconography and images of both original and modern reproductions swords i present in a previous post ). Both have curved blades ( true, not quite a standardization of degrees ) sharpened inside, and having the same constructive pattern, and even look ( yes, not quite all, but most of them ), what you want more ? Is obviously that falx is the bigger "brother / sister" of sica.

[CHADBURN CEDRIC]

Hi Otis,

Have you got a date ? I or II century (AD) ? And the name of the book ?
Others documents about gladius type with ring pummel?

-gladius type with ring pummel (ringsword-1b.jpg)
-Others gladius type with ring pummel (dacian-weapon.jpg)
-Fighting knife (dacian-weapon.jpg)

I am looking for documents about dacian shied bosses. We can see its on the trajan'column and several dacian umbones were found in Romania (II-I BC) but nothing for the first and second century (AD).

This is the same thing for dacian armor in the first and second century (AD). Dacian wear a lorica hamata or lorica squamata? Artefacts were found ?

[Virtus Probi Invicti]

FWIW, this is a photo of a denarius of Trajan that shows a defeated Dacian on the reverse. You can certainly find ones that are in better shape, but I am showing this one because I own it!
Coin iconography is problematic for a number of reasons...limited space to work with, possible lack of familiar of the celator with the true appearance of what he was trying to depict, a need to please the authorities, etc. The Dacian is sitting on a shield, and a sword appears below him...note that the bend of the sword rather conveniently is an exact match for the shape of the shield above it! Clearly, a substantial weapon is depicted, definitely a sword and not a knife. This coin was minted in Rome and it is highly unlikely that anybody in the mint had seen a Dacian, but, for whatever reason, it seems that the person (probably a slave) who engraved the reverse die was told to depict a fairly large curved weapon to identify the figure as a Dacian (as well as to show him with a distinctive hat).

[Robert Vermaat]

The Dacian is sitting on a shield, and a sword appears below him...note that the bend of the sword rather conveniently is an exact match for the shape of the shield above it!

Is that a shield? It looks more like a bow & bowcase to me. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion.

[Virtus Probi Invicti]

Interesting thoughts, VS. Here is a link to a somewhat worn, but still clearer example...
http://www.stoa.org/gallery/Roman-Coins/8_G

This one seems to even show the guard or end of the handgrip, and seems to suggest a two handed weapon was intended (even though this sword looks a little shorter than the one on my coin). I'd say this is more clear in showing a type of sword, although I guess I'm not sure I can really say that your idea of a bowcase is wrong just from the coin itself.
I probably should have included a clearer example from the start...just wanted to show off one of my coins too much!!
:oops:

[Berbescu]

( unfortunately i didnt read anything from ones you tell me, but trust me, is not a wise thing to imediatly deny something because was writed long ago, or in comunist times, because 2+2=4 in those times too, so come with real arguments, so not become you "biased" ).

To use your analogy, 100 years ago, historians believed that 2+2=8. Today we believe 2+2=6. With some luck and lots of research, we might eventually refine that to 2+2=5 or even 2+2=3.5 but we are unlikely to ever figure out that in fact 2+2=4.

If it is how you say, what people believed then was true, then why do modern historians say things different? They had a different interpretation of the evidence. Partially because they had less information than we do, and also because they had (and some still today have) a personal agenda to prove. If you are so big a believer of that which the communists told you when you were a child, then you might also remember that Romanian is apparently derrived from Slavic and the Latin influence on our language is marginal. You still think that 2+2=4 in those times?

You should go to the library and read something modern. It is my advice to "not become you biased".

[diegis]

( unfortunately i didnt read anything from ones you tell me, but trust me, is not a wise thing to imediatly deny something because was writed long ago, or in comunist times, because 2+2=4 in those times too, so come with real arguments, so not become you "biased" ).

To use your analogy, 100 years ago, historians believed that 2+2=8. Today we believe 2+2=6. With some luck and lots of research, we might eventually refine that to 2+2=5 or even 2+2=3.5 but we are unlikely to ever figure out that in fact 2+2=4.

If it is how you say, what people believed then was true, then why do modern historians say things different? They had a different interpretation of the evidence. Partially because they had less information than we do, and also because they had (and some still today have) a personal agenda to prove. If you are so big a believer of that which the communists told you when you were a child, then you might also remember that Romanian is apparently derrived from Slavic and the Latin influence on our language is marginal. You still think that 2+2=4 in those times?

You should go to the library and read something modern. It is my advice to "not become you biased".

Hahahaha, i am not that old, to go to school in the 50`. And then was just a short period when soviets and some of their "followers" here tryied to "conect" somehow slavs with romanians, and was quickly abandoned soon. And trust me, i read "modern" stuff too, just i dont fall from an extreme to another like some peoples, just try to see what was good then, and how fits with new stuff. And not trying to "reinvent" all, just because is coming from the past, and some peoples dont like that :roll:

[diegis]

Searching for something on the net, i saw an interesting info, and i want to hear an opinion from someone who know better english, or even live there, and know the dictionary. It was said that the word "dagger" comes from a word from vulgar latin, "daca", meaning "dacian knife" ( probably the same name gived by dacians, or a term gived by romans not sure ). I know that after roman conquest a lot of dacian troops entered in roman army, and some of them was deployed at Hadrian wall, for ex. ( another info, again dont know how close to reality, says that the dragon from "welsh" flag was indeed inspired by dacian "draco" flag, who becomed standard in roman cavalry after dacians formed military units in roman army ).