10-14-2010, 09:36 AM
I know only a small amount of this:
1. The falx, in essence, is a scythe blade mounted on a short haft. It is not a sword. It is a polearm, like a bill or a voulge or a war-scythe.
2. Such a weapon would, with it's heft, momentum, weight and power, tear through armoured troops like they weren't there.
3. Roman tactics basically consisted of a lot of armoured troops.
To describe it as a 'super-weapon' is inaccurate. It is simply another polearm, admittedly, one a thousand years prior to the mass use of polearms, and the reason it became popular is the same one that other polearms became popular - military proliferation of heavy mail (and plate) armour on a large scale, necessitating the use of a specific anti-armour weapon like a polearm to defeat these bodies of armoured troops.
1. The falx, in essence, is a scythe blade mounted on a short haft. It is not a sword. It is a polearm, like a bill or a voulge or a war-scythe.
2. Such a weapon would, with it's heft, momentum, weight and power, tear through armoured troops like they weren't there.
3. Roman tactics basically consisted of a lot of armoured troops.
To describe it as a 'super-weapon' is inaccurate. It is simply another polearm, admittedly, one a thousand years prior to the mass use of polearms, and the reason it became popular is the same one that other polearms became popular - military proliferation of heavy mail (and plate) armour on a large scale, necessitating the use of a specific anti-armour weapon like a polearm to defeat these bodies of armoured troops.
Alexander Hunt, Mercenary Economist-for-hire, modeller, amateur historian, debater and amateur wargames designer. May have been involved in the conquest of Baktria.
