Dacian Falx

[Merlkir]

It's a bit sad how deadly sure both of you are of what you're saying. To me, nothing seems to be proven or definitive.
1) Why would the two handed falx be limited to only Bastarnae, or the Dacians? In a region like that, different cultures influencing each other would make sense.
2) Who knows what the nakedness is? It could be ritual - there really aren't many reason not to wear a tunic into battle - there's that quote about the Gaesatae suffering more severe wounds from javelins and darts than their cloaked allies. Or it could indeed be Roman propaganda, showing them as naked savages.
3) indeed not all the men wielding two handed falxes on the metopes have the suebian knots or the same clothes.
4) argumenting using historians from the 19th and early 20th century seems a bit silly to me - people used to believe all kinds of weird stuff back then, sometimes ridiculously wrong. Which we now know. I'm not saying those guys were wrong, just that their fame in those days doesn't mean they were definitely right.
5) that falx found at Sarmisegetuza also belonged to a Bastarnae warrior? Doesn't sound like mr. Occam would agree.

I think the falx (or curved blades, whatever) must've been useful somehow, otherwise the Dacians and other tribes in that area wouldn't have used them. I think both extreme views you guys hold (super effective vs. nearly useless) are implausible though.

The Dacians and other peoples in the area most likely used these choppers to some reasonable success, that's how I'd interpret the evidence.

[M. Demetrius]

There's also the chance that these weapons would be very effective when using them against the indigenous armies, but less so against more heavily armored and disciplined Legions. Just a thought.

[Brennus]

There's also the chance that these weapons would be very effective when using them against the indigenous armies, but less so against more heavily armored and disciplined Legions. Just a thought.

Very good point! Now, I'm no expert on these peoples, but if they were a tribal society than perhaps some of these weapons were first used in skirmishes amongst indeginous peoples (and proven effective) and were thus carried over into battles with the Romans. For example, Some Celtic weapons seemed more suitable for one on one combat, something that was more suitable to their tradition of warfare (small tribal skirmishes, individual challenges, etc. etc). "Some" of these weapons (there was a great variety of designs) may not have proven as effective against the Roman method of warfare as they would have against other tribes. Could the same be said of these Dacian weapons? While the falx appears to have been at least somewhat effective against the Romans, perhaps it was more successful against indigenous armies, as Demetrius suggested.

[Merlkir]

That's a good point. A book by mr. Daicoviciu I've read recently suggests that it wasn't until Decebal's defeat (although quite a successful defeat) that the Dacian army got an equipment reform and military training to fare better against the Romans.

[D B Campbell]

There is no such thing as only Bastarnae fighting there. We already discuss that, and clearly Dacians are depicted too.

I value the opinions of our Romanian colleagues, who (imho) know the material better than the rest of us. If I recall correctly, Richmond suggested Bastarnae, not on the basis of any evidence from the metopes, but because a character with a Suebic knot appears on the crenellation frieze of the Trajanic monument.

In fact, I find the theory of Alexander Simon Stefan (Les guerres dacique de Domitien et de Trajan, 2005) quite persuasive, that Adamklissi commemorates the crushing of the Dacian counteroffensive of winter 101/102, depicted on Trajan's Column Scene 38 (Cichorius, Taf. 29: Casts 95-98).

[Paullus Scipio]

There is no such thing as only Bastarnae fighting there. We already discuss that, and clearly Dacians are depicted too.

I value the opinions of our Romanian colleagues, who (imho) know the material better than the rest of us.

With all due respect to 'Diegis', I think you'll find he is neither historian nor archaeologist, but rather a wargamer such as those whose views you were so uninterested in on the 'rhomphaia' thread.......Unfortunately, if you are referring to real Romanian archaeologists such as F.B. Florescu ,(Monumental de la Adamclisi 1961) or R.Vulpe( 'Studia Thracologica' 1963) these worked under the Ceaucescu regime. He was even more bombastic than Mussolini in proclaiming Romania's "Glorious Past", and all Romanian historians and archeologists ( and everyone else) had to toe that line. The work of Romanian historians and archeologists remains 'contaminated' by this politicising even now.
Florescu theorised that all three ethnic types on the crenellations and metopes were 'Dacians',that the fully armoured cavalry on the column were all Dacian etc, which has not been accepted at all, and both Florescu and Vulpe have since been heavily criticised even in Romania e.g. H Daicoviciu (1972). The view that the people depicted on the Adamklissi metopes are Dacian is largely discredited, even among "our Romanian colleagues". ( he and his father Constantin are among the foremost Romanian archaeologists, having been prominent in excavating Dacian Sarmizegethusa)

If I recall correctly, Richmond suggested Bastarnae, not on the basis of any evidence from the metopes, but because a character with a Suebic knot appears on the crenellation frieze of the Trajanic monument.

I'm afraid your recollection is not quite correct, Duncan. The crenellations go all round the 'drum' and the three ethnic types alternate all round also - not just 'a character with a suebic knot'. The "characters with the suebic knot" are the only one of the three ethnic groups to appear fighting on the metopes, or with the 'two-handed chopper', and appear frequently on them. That the sculptors of the metopes knew the difference between the different ethnic groups is proven by the fact that in the "triumph" scenes at the end of the metope sequence two un-mistakeable Dacians appear in chains.

In fact, I find the theory of Alexander Simon Stefan (Les guerres dacique de Domitien et de Trajan, 2005) quite persuasive, that Adamklissi commemorates the crushing of the Dacian counteroffensive of winter 101/102, depicted on Trajan's Column Scene 38 (Cichorius, Taf. 29: Casts 95-98).

The only very tenuous evidence for that is the appearance of four wheeled wagons/carts in the background of the the scene you posted. One of those wagons contains a 'draco standard' and so might be associated with Sarmatians ( who definitely had similar wagons, and appear in the adjacent scene) or perhaps in view of the rest of sceneXXXVIII, perhaps Dacians. No 'dracos' are associated with the 'suebic knot people.' Unfortunately too, none of the other elements shown on the Adamklissi metopes is present - the 'suebic knot' people, probably Peucini-Bastarnae, are not present on the column scene, nor the 'massacre' with dead women and children etc. Since four wheeled wagons/carts are ubiquitous in those times, that would be like concluding that the Sudan famine occurred in Yugoslavia because news item photos showed Mercedes trucks appearing in both!

Equally, while you may find Stefan's theory 'persuasive', I think the majority of historians with an interest in the Dacian Wars would disagree. How does Stefan explain the presence of wagons, women, children and flocks, all associated with the 'suebic knot people', and nary a Dacian in sight, as a "Dacian counter-offensive in the winter of 101/102 ?" The presence of flocks is alone 'persuasive' that the scene is not taking place in winter !!
Furthermore, there are no 'suebic knot people' involved in this 'counterattack' shown in scenes XXXI and XXXII on the column - only Dacians and Sarmatian Rox-Alani.
There really is nothing that the two events have in common, and we don't even 'know' that a Dacian counter-offensive took place at all in the winter of 101/102 AD. Consequently, I would regard Stefan's hypothesis as unlikely at best, untenable at worst.

A more likely possibility is that that Peucini-Bastarnae people - living just north of the Danube and in the delta area, invaded Moesia, intending to colonise land they held previously,( they had been pushed out of Moesia north of the Danube in the 1 st C BC, and in Augustus' time) and so migrated with families,wagons and flocks ( or lock,stock and barrel in the vernacular). They either did this as allies of Decebalus, or else were taking advantage of the heavy drain of Roman troops to Dacia. Whatever, the invasion/migration was stopped at the strategic site of Adamklissi by the 'massacre' of the incoming 'suebic knot people' ; though they would invade again, in company with the Sarmatians (who may have assimilated them) in 180 AD, and again in the latter half of the 3rd C AD, specifically mentioned in the 267/8 invasion, and thus took part in the precipitation of the "Third Century Crisis".They were ultimately absorbed by the Goths.....

[diegis]

I value the opinions of our Romanian colleagues, who (imho) know the material better than the rest of us. If I recall correctly, Richmond suggested Bastarnae, not on the basis of any evidence from the metopes, but because a character with a Suebic knot appears on the crenellation frieze of the Trajanic monument.

Yes, the suebic knot is the only sure indication of who is who there. And for disperation of fellow forumist Paullus, just very few of the "falx" wielders have that hair knot

In fact, I find the theory of Alexander Simon Stefan (Les guerres dacique de Domitien et de Trajan, 2005) quite persuasive, that Adamklissi commemorates the crushing of the Dacian counteroffensive of winter 101/102, depicted on Trajan's Column Scene 38 (Cichorius, Taf. 29: Casts 95-98).

This is correct. Trajan rush with a part of his army from Dacia to reppel the counteratack of Dacians and their Sarmatians allies. There are couple important battles in Moesia, last one being the one from Adamclisi. Interesting, none of Paullus Bastarnae apear on the battle scenes from the Column as far as i know, and National Museum History here (where a copy of Traian Column is held) give the Buri as Dacian allies, not Bastarnae

[diegis]

With all due respect to 'Diegis', I think you'll find he is neither historian nor archaeologist, but rather a wargamer such as those whose views you were so uninterested in on the 'rhomphaia' thread.......Unfortunately, if you are referring to real Romanian archaeologists such as F.B. Florescu ,(Monumental de la Adamclisi 1961) or R.Vulpe( 'Studia Thracologica' 1963) these worked under the Ceaucescu regime. He was even more bombastic than Mussolini in proclaiming Romania's "Glorious Past", and all Romanian historians and archeologists ( and everyone else) had to toe that line. The work of Romanian historians and archeologists remains 'contaminated' by this politicising even now.
Florescu theorised that all three ethnic types on the crenellations and metopes were 'Dacians',that the fully armoured cavalry on the column were all Dacian etc, which has not been accepted at all, and both Florescu and Vulpe have since been heavily criticised even in Romania e.g. H Daicoviciu (1972). The view that the people depicted on the Adamklissi metopes are Dacian is largely discredited, even among "our Romanian colleagues". ( he and his father Constantin are among the foremost Romanian archaeologists, having been prominent in excavating Dacian Sarmizegethusa)

:lol: interesting aproach, but didnt you think that combating the sources is more normal and valuable? And since you watch so closely too the "twcenter" and more than that you find me there too probably you observed as well that none of my posts are related with games, but with history.
I dont think Daicoviciu ever said that on metopes from Adamclisi are depicted only "Bastarnae", the ones who said that are a german scholar from XIX century (about the same time Mommsen said at first that on Traian Column are Germans, not Dacians) and couple others which frankly i didnt read what exactly they said.
I really dont think you will find someone who looked seriously on the matter and who deny the presence of Dacians at Adamclisi (in fighting scenes), and everyone who saw the images we both posted can see the clear diferences betwen various peoples there. The only element pointing on a germanic (not necessary Bastarnae, probably germanic Buri, not to be confused with Dacian tribe with the same name) presence is the suebian knot, as Campbell said.
And well, if you contradict the romanian historyography on political basis, and not on scientifc one, it is your choice, but i still think that a writing from 2000's made by a romanian scholar, regarding Falxes, is better then your XIX century german scholar who clearly had no many dates and knowledge at that time

I'm afraid your recollection is not quite correct, Duncan. The crenellations go all round the 'drum' and the three ethnic types alternate all round also - not just 'a character with a suebic knot'. The "characters with the suebic knot" are the only one of the three ethnic groups to appear fighting on the metopes, or with the 'two-handed chopper', and appear frequently on them. That the sculptors of the metopes knew the difference between the different ethnic groups is proven by the fact that in the "triumph" scenes at the end of the metope sequence two un-mistakeable Dacians appear in chains.

:roll: :lol: would you want to post again the "characters" who appear fighting on the metopes, or with the 'two-handed chopper' and watch if really just the ones with suebian knot are the only figthing?
It is funny as well that you say that in the "triumph" scenes at the end of the metope sequence there is two un-mistakeable Dacians who appear in chains (among others as Germanic too) but the Dacian didnt fight at all. So why to show them as a "triumph"? You try to mix up the things, as in armoures case, maybe it will come as you wish, but you are a bit lost in your own ideas
As i said, if you repeatidly say an untrue thing, it wouldnt make it true.

The only very tenuous evidence for that is the appearance of four wheeled wagons/carts in the background of the the scene you posted. One of those wagons contains a 'draco standard' and so might be associated with Sarmatians ( who definitely had similar wagons, and appear in the adjacent scene) or perhaps in view of the rest of sceneXXXVIII, perhaps Dacians. No 'dracos' are associated with the 'suebic knot people.' Unfortunately too, none of the other elements shown on the Adamklissi metopes is present - the 'suebic knot' people, probably Peucini-Bastarnae, are not present on the column scene, nor the 'massacre' with dead women and children etc. Since four wheeled wagons/carts are ubiquitous in those times, that would be like concluding that the Sudan famine occurred in Yugoslavia because news item photos showed Mercedes trucks appearing in both!

Equally, while you may find Stefan's theory 'persuasive', I think the majority of historians with an interest in the Dacian Wars would disagree. How does Stefan explain the presence of wagons, women, children and flocks, all associated with the 'suebic knot people', and nary a Dacian in sight, as a "Dacian counter-offensive in the winter of 101/102 ?" The presence of flocks is alone 'persuasive' that the scene is not taking place in winter !!
Furthermore, there are no 'suebic knot people' involved in this 'counterattack' shown in scenes XXXI and XXXII on the column - only Dacians and Sarmatian Rox-Alani.
There really is nothing that the two events have in common, and we don't even 'know' that a Dacian counter-offensive took place at all in the winter of 101/102 AD. Consequently, I would regard Stefan's hypothesis as unlikely at best, untenable at worst.

:roll: what? So now it wasnt probably any Dacian counter-offensive that took place at all in the winter of 101/102 AD? :lol: I think you want now to re-write the entire stuff (and unfortunately not too rich) is known about Daco-Roman wars. Even against what is presented on the Column
First of all, the Dacian counteroffensive is show on the Column (and we know from a letter of Pliny teh Young too about that, for ex.). Then there was at least two big battles in Moesia, mostly betwen Dacians (and partialy Sarmatians) and Romans. Last one show is the one from Adamclisi. There is no Bastarnae around, which probably means that Germanic peoples joined the battle just at Adamclisi, and their participation wasnt important enough to be show at Rome too, but just on the local monument

This is the image with Dacians and their Sarmatian allies crossing the Danube. As you can see the "draco" flags are used by Dacians not Sarmatians
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/031-022b.jpg

Here Dacians attack a Roman fortress in Moesia
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/032-023.jpg

Traian embark on vessels with hos troops at Drobeta, to rush on the help of his bases from Moesia (he is show on a horse, so was something urgent
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/033-024b.jpg
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/036-027b.jpg

This Roman cavalry defeat the Sarmatians
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/0371.jpg

This is the battle from Nicopolis ad Istrum (a town build after the battle by Traian). Here apear the wagon scene, with no Germanic peoples involved. There are just Dacians fighting with Romans

http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/038-029a.jpg
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/038-029b.jpg

This is the battle from Adamclisi from the Column
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/0401.jpg
There are depicted Romans wounded (both legionars and auxiliars), and along with couple scenes from the battle of Tapae where roman heads are impaled on top of a Dacian fortress and Roman prisoners are tortured by Dacian women are the only representations in Roman imperial art of Roman soldiers killed, wounded or prisoners which mean that their losses was quite big and hard to be hidden even on a propagandistic art.
As well the Bastarnae are not represented
Here is scenes where legionars and auxiliars fight mixed together (quite unusual) and Dacians held the upper position (probably they press very hard the roman lines and are about to broke them)
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/040-032b.jpg
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/040-032c.jpg
Here the roman cavalry intervene and force the Dacians to retreat and Romans win the battle
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/040-032d.jpg
http://www.mnir.ro/images/colectii/041-033.jpg

A more likely possibility is that that Peucini-Bastarnae people - living just north of the Danube and in the delta area, invaded Moesia, intending to colonise land they held previously,( they had been pushed out of Moesia north of the Danube in the 1 st C BC, and in Augustus' time) and so migrated with families,wagons and flocks ( or lock,stock and barrel in the vernacular). They either did this as allies of Decebalus, or else were taking advantage of the heavy drain of Roman troops to Dacia. Whatever, the invasion/migration was stopped at the strategic site of Adamklissi by the 'massacre' of the incoming 'suebic knot people' ; though they would invade again, in company with the Sarmatians (who may have assimilated them) in 180 AD, and again in the latter half of the 3rd C AD, specifically mentioned in the 267/8 invasion, and thus took part in the precipitation of the "Third Century Crisis".They were ultimately absorbed by the Goths.....

Are you serious? Bastarnae colonizing the Roman empire, without asking the Romans, in the middle of the war where they are suposedly enemies? And coming with all their famillies? This is just suicidal and illogical.
And Bastarnae doesnt held any Scythia Minor, i posted you the names of local Getae/Dacian kings (from inscriptions from Histira and from Dio Cassius) who ruled the place in the period you talk about (and even before)

[M. Demetrius]

Take a breath. Glance at the sunrise. Sip a little coffee and have a nibble of a cinnamon pastry. Now doesn't that feel better? Proceed with the conversation, friends again.

[sitalkes]

If you can get hold of it, this might be a useful reference:
David Sim, “The Making and Testing of a falx also known as the Dacian battle scythe”, in Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11, 2000, pp37-41

Cheers,

Chris

[Brennus]

Take a breath. Glance at the sunrise. Sip a little coffee and have a nibble of a cinnamon pastry. Now doesn't that feel better? Proceed with the conversation, friends again.

:lol: N' Yesh. I shall place my monocle in the preferred orbit, have a seat by my monitor, and take a refreshing puff from my hastily stuffed pipe as I sculpt the ends of my handlebar mustache while enjoying further RAT discussions. Ahhh, better. :lol: I love it :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

!: