Dacian Falx

[Matthew Amt]

Myself, I'd take the falx, and a scale cuirass, and some greaves maybe. Get enough such soldiers, some training and you have a shock cadre that's going to tear open a Legionary line of battle.

Well, perhaps. But clearly the Dacians couldn't do that, since most falx-men are not even wearing tunics! If you can armor and train a significant force, better off just arming them in Roman fashion, as other ancient nations tried to do, since that gets you a much more flexible force.

Besides, even if you do armor and train a few cohorts worth of falx-men, sure, they'll cause a ton of damage, but you don't think that's going to beat the Roman Empire, do you? Kill a legion's worth of Romans, and they'll bring in 3 more, with artillery or cataphracts or pikemen or whatever it takes to neutralize your falx-men. Adaptation was their specialty.

Good point about pole-arms not necessarily needing a whole lot of space. I don't think the falx is quite the equivalent of a medieval halberd or poleaxe, though, since it's shorter and has no thrusting point. So the falx-man is still reliant on the regular spear-and-shield guys, overall.

Vale,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Thunder wrote:

An overhand slash/chop will generally do the trick and kill your opponent, and you can maintain relatively close order with it.

....you may recall that I referred to the battle-axes at Senlac/Hastings being used in just this fashion - vertically overhand from the second rank, behind a shielded front rank. This has the advantage of not being suicidal for the wielder (!!!), but the disadvantage is that a full-blooded vertical swing cannot be used ( you must pull up to avoid striking the front ranker).....so no shield splitting !

Perhaps that is how these semi-naked falx wielding Bastarnae really operated - though the Adamklissi monument shows one-on-one combat like the picture - except the falx-man, with no protection is quickly despatched by well armoured Romans ( manica, greaves, re-inforced helmet.....but the need for armour re-inforcement of the helmet, and armouring the right/sword arm and legs proves the point you made about the effectiveness of the weapon itself), and since the Romans clearly won, and built the 'victory/vengeance' monument, that would seem to be the more accurate picture, even allowing for propaganda.... :wink: :wink:

[Thunder]

Myself, I'd take the falx, and a scale cuirass, and some greaves maybe. Get enough such soldiers, some training and you have a shock cadre that's going to tear open a Legionary line of battle.

Well, perhaps. But clearly the Dacians couldn't do that, since most falx-men are not even wearing tunics! If you can armor and train a significant force, better off just arming them in Roman fashion, as other ancient nations tried to do, since that gets you a much more flexible force.

Besides, even if you do armor and train a few cohorts worth of falx-men, sure, they'll cause a ton of damage, but you don't think that's going to beat the Roman Empire, do you? Kill a legion's worth of Romans, and they'll bring in 3 more, with artillery or cataphracts or pikemen or whatever it takes to neutralize your falx-men. Adaptation was their specialty.

Good point about pole-arms not necessarily needing a whole lot of space. I don't think the falx is quite the equivalent of a medieval halberd or poleaxe, though, since it's shorter and has no thrusting point. So the falx-man is still reliant on the regular spear-and-shield guys, overall.

Vale,

Matthew

Cataphracts? They didn't have them. Pikemen are too inflexible in Dacia, as is artillery. Really, the falx is a rather good weapon to employ against the Romans and their unending ability to wear out their enemies through sheer weight of heavy infantry means that there's pretty much no military circumstance in which you can see them 'losing'.

[Matthew Amt]

Cataphracts? They didn't have them.

I seem to recall the Romans used *allied* cataphracts on more than one occasion, in eastern campaigns. (Hmm, doesn't Josephus mention that? Can't recall exactly!)

Pikemen are too inflexible in Dacia, as is artillery.

Eh? Why is that? Most battles were fought on open terrain, perfectly good for pikes and catapultae. In fact, artillery is shown both on Trajan's Column and the Adamklissi reliefs. As a comparison, in the Gallic revolt in the Year of Four Emperors, legionaries dealt with the heavily armored crupellarii by knocking them down with long poles and going after them with pickaxes. That was just a small contingent, of course, so it could be handled without importing any special troops or other major measures.

Really, the falx is a rather good weapon to employ against the Romans and their unending ability to wear out their enemies through sheer weight of heavy infantry means that there's pretty much no military circumstance in which you can see them 'losing'.

I certainly agree that the falx seems to have gotten the Romans' attention! But yeah, it was relatively easy for them to add a little more armor, and rely on their usual relentlessness.

Matthew

[diegis]

That must be a doubtful proposition.....unless all the falx wielders strike simultaneously! For it is but the work of an instant for the 'kitchen knife' holder to gut the falx holder ( while he winds up for a swing, let alone struggling to free his weapon from a shield)....what's more it needs room to swing such a weapon - so he's going to be facing several Romans in close order - so one mad Bastarnae ( No Dacian is shown wielding a two-handed falx either on Trajan's column, or the Adamklissi monument) would indeed be facing several Romans. In a battle. you don't just fight the man in front of you!

Even one-on-one I'd opt for the Roman kit over the Bastarnae warrior's armament every time - despite the 'terror weapon' effect of the falx...consider what is about to happen to the central falx wielder in the picture in the next heartbeat/split second, just from the man with the split shield.....the falx wielder is as good as dead.....:wink:

Oh boy, we come to the same obsession of yours again and again :lol: . Falx was a Dacian weapon, as Romans back then said so, and at Adamclissi are depicted ofcourse Dacians with falxes. In fact all falxes discovered are from Dacian capital Sarmisegetuza and sourounding areas (which is not near any Bastarnae teritory) and nobody then (and even now, excepting you) said that falx is somehow a Bastarnae weapon. In fact is clear that is from the same family with Sica and Romphaia, other Dacian and Thracian swords. See below as well, from page 10 (for english part). There are images and dimensions as well, with all Falxes find until now

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33876270/Bora ... bus-I-2009

More on topic, i think Thunder is pretty correct, is no need a large room to swing the swords, as a long right one, since you can use hits over the shield or even hook and pool ones against the legs. Due to shape of the blade, and if it was good sharpened, it can easily cut the tendons just with a swift pool, without to need to swing it too much (which can cut the entire leg off).
So a front of Dacian Falxmen with longer swords compared with Roman Gladius, so longer range and able to hit the legionars from above the shields was very possible. And when the shield wall was broken the job was even more easy, with hits possible to come from all directions, targeting the head, the arms, the legs, sometimes even as in Matthew pics (cuting partialy the shield too, even from lateral).
My opinion was that fron line was made from Dacians equiped with shields and short swords (sica or gladius like type), until the Romans trow their "pilla", and contact was made. Then they make room to Dacians wearing the Falxes, to broke the Roman lines

[M. Demetrius]

nobody then (and even now, excepting you) said that falx is somehow a Bastarnae weapon

I buy them all the time on RTW, so I know that they must be real. Along with flaming pigs and wardogs, they're pretty good at breaking the line. Or the wind, I guess.... :roll:

[Thunder]

I'm not entirely sure why the falx, which is widely associated with the Dacians, and the majority of which have been found in Dacian-controlled territory, would not be considered a Dacian weapon.

[Astiryu1]

I buy them all the time on RTW, so I know that they must be real. Along with flaming pigs and wardogs, they're pretty good at breaking the line. Or the wind, I guess.... :roll:

I always carry a unit of flaming pigs when on the march. You have to feed the troops somehow! :lol:

What was the terrain/farming conditions like in Dacia? What was the main crop? If the Falx was derived(as is currently believed) from a farming scythe are there any finds of the proto-falx(?) on farmland or anything?

[Matthew Amt]

Not from a scythe but a pruning bill. Probably an implement known in many places, but for some reason it grew into a weapon in this area. Eastern Europe had also seen weapons like the sica and the rhomphia, and while I hesitate to draw any direct lines of development, maybe folks around there just got used to thinking of forward-curving blades.

Matthew

[Astiryu1]

Pruning Bill... Okay what type of trees were present that they used it on? I assume it is for a fruit or something but don't know what grows there. If not a fruit then just for cutting branches then when felling trees? I ask these questions as to get an idea of how they might have used it as a tool before the development as a weapon. Maybe there is a common link between the two.

[Matthew Amt]

Well, you can use a pruning bill on anything! You can use it for clearing weedy little saplings or shrubs as well as tree branches. In fact, careful pruning of a fruit tree would be more likely done with a saw, I would guess. Doesn't matter what grows, there, really. Even if archeologists have dug up pruning bills in Dacia, that doesn't prove a line of descent, after all--it's just a reasonably assumption.

Matthew

[Lysimachos]

I was recently watching an episode of Nature on PBS and noticed a man using a very falx-like implement to harvest reeds in the Danube Delta. Coincidentally or not, this is right in the middle of ancient Dacian territory. I'm not saying that it is a holdover from ancient times, or that the ancient weapon was derived from a reed harvesting tool, but I found it interesting.

You can check it out yourself in this video. Fast forward to about 42:45.
[url:1hmn8fwy]http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/wild-balkans/video-full-episode/5519/[/url]

[Astiryu1]

Thanks for the video! Reed cutting makes sense. With a hooking technique around the ankles (under the shield and back of leg) a new (maybe old...) technique comes forth. This technique could be used to immobilize the enemy( a different way of fighting) and working in pairs one man could keep a shield from blocking while the other man attacks the Achilles Tendon.
This is a theory mind you. :| I have no clue as to how the Falx was used in battle except for the arguments previously stated. Seeing that use just gives me ideas. As I am sure it had given the Dacians as well. 8)

[JeffF]

I know that the outer curve of the falx was not used for slashing but I was wondering if there was anything about the properties of the steel or the methods in forging the blade that would prevent the outer curve from being sharpened? I don't mean the entire back of the blade just the tip in the area of the curve itself.

thanks,

Jeff

[Matthew Amt]

I doubt it. They could make swords and spears, after all, so it's not like there was something lacking in their technology. The cross-section of a falx blade would be triangular or a narrow wedge, so the back edge is actually blunt. Presumably up toward the point this flattened out, but I don't know if there was a couple inches of sharpened back edge or not. Should be pretty easy to determine from a close examination of an original, if you can get access to one! I don't think there was any *need* for a sharpened back edge--the point should work just fine without it.

Now, the older rhomphia *did* have 2 edges for about a third of the length of the blade. The rest had a T-shaped section, so the back actually had a rib or ridge, giving strength. But that's a different weapon, more subtle and versatile than the falx.

Valete,

Matthew