The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon

[P. Clodius Secundus]

There is a depiction of siege machines on Trajan's column that appear to have a curved falx type blade attached to the end of one axle. The idea that they were used to dislodge stones from a wall is from J.H.Pollen’s 1874 theory about these weapons. He, like many others, assumes that these machines are Roman in origin and use. Conrad Cichorius seems to have shared my view that they were actually Dacian weapons being used aganst the besigers. My views can be found on this forum <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=25535&p=249790&hilit=dacian+reaper#p228028">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=25535&p=249790&hilit=dacian+reaper#p228028<!-- l if anyone is interested. I have built a model of the the weapon and done limited testing on it's possible function and effects. It is seen below photo-shopped into the attached image.

Salve Clodius

Thats a quite very interesting view. I saw those "machines" arent in roman hands, or used by them, so it is quite possible to be as you say, some dacian weapons. Most of the Dacian fortress was in mountain areas, and running down hill with such "weapon system" can cause lots of damages to tight groups of attackers, especialy in some small or confined areas and places where the attackers are forced to go due the terrain and fortifications. Very good idea of you, indeed (even if you say you was inspired by other authors too)

The scene depicted is supposed to be the preparations for the final assault on Sarmizgetusa. Looking at the few maps I've seen of the actual fortifications, there appears to be an area that corresponds very closely to the terrain on the column. The other interesting coincidence is that Apollodorus of Damascus designed and wrote about a wedge-shaped tortoise purpose built to deflect log/barrels and "wagons" used in this manner, and it would be a nearly perfect defense against these machines.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think due to the sparcity of evidence for these weapons as such, perhaps the thread title should be changed to :

The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon of mass destruction? Anyone? :?:

[P. Clodius Secundus]

I think due to the sparcity of evidence for these weapons as such, perhaps the thread title should be changed to :

The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon of mass destruction? Anyone? :?:

Well, at least we have an image of them which is more than we can say about the Onager. :wink:
As far as being weapons of mass destruction goes, I'm accepting volunteers to play the part of the Romans when I have a full-sized version to test. Can I count on your support? :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I'm guessing you need some tallented artillerymen to fire it, eh? :wink: Obviously, you couldn't have any other role in mind for us Romans, now, could you??

[Thunder]

...what I meant to say is that a good, clean hit from such a weapon will cleave through flesh, bone and armour, unlike, say, a sword, which will glance off the armour no matter how clean the hit (even if it bruises the man beneath!)

I still think you are overestimating the penetrating power of this weapon. It will absolutely cleave flesh and bone! And it will do that even if the stroke is relatively weak, even casual. But that's the point--there is no reason to suspect that most blows in combat were full-force full-swing two-handed home-run smashes. You didn't have to exert yourself that much, risking quick exhaustion, sudden counter-moves, and the problems of follow-through whether you hit or miss, when all you had to do was connect lightly to lay a guy open. In any case, while I also agree that a hard, solid blow from the point of a falx is more likely to penetrate armor than most other weapons, I still do not believe that it is going to "cleave" it significantly, slicing right through to besect the guy inside. And even if you think you *might* get through it, why bet your life on it? Go for the soft parts!

You can't ignore the shield, either, since that was virtually always a factor.

Valete,

Matthew

Then again, consider that the flax is a shock weapon. You hit the lines, break up the formation, and then the rest of your troops follow through and exploit this. Hard, decisive strokes could well have been the norm as the intent of the weapon was not the prolong the combat but to break formations quickly.

[Matthew Amt]

Then again, consider that the flax is a shock weapon. You hit the lines, break up the formation, and then the rest of your troops follow through and exploit this. Hard, decisive strokes could well have been the norm as the intent of the weapon was not the prolong the combat but to break formations quickly.

Put your falx men out in front of the spearmen as "shock troops", and few of them will survive the pilum volleys. They have to be intermingled with shieldmen, or behind them.

Matthew

[Olaf]

First Shock Troops only work against unexperienced opponents or those with bad moral.
A disciplined group of soldiers will not be shocked by a group of half naked men storming at them.
Second a trained fighter will not patiently wait for you to land your blow on his shield, but kill you the second you give him an opening.
Now to demonstrate the weaknes of the Falx iused in the way suggested here I ask you to tak a stick of ca. 1m length, grip it in both hands at one end and stand back from a wall so the other end of the stick touches the wall at the heigth of your head.
Now move the stick like a Flax swinging and "cutting" horizontal and vertical. You will notice that your swing take up a lot of space on both sides and behind you.
Now move forward a single step, and you should notice that you are now quite close to the wall.
Now try the same swings and you will see that you will hit the wall with your hands or the lower part of the stick before you can bring the tip of the stick anywhere near the wall.
Now grip the stick with one hand at about 50cm from the tip pointing forward and perform some short stabbing motions at the wall from the close position. Also perform these stabbing motions from the position a step back, while stepping forward with the leg where you hold the stick.
From this you should notice a few things:
1. The stab, even when moving forward, reaches his target faster then the swing.
2. The stab only uses up the space of your own body. So in a battleline stabbers can fight much closer to each other meaning that a chopper would be most likely be outnumbered.
3. The stab can be perfomed from an extremely close proximity to your target.
4. If the wall would be an opponent with a Scutum stepping into your swing, you would not be able to complete your swinging motion but your hand or grip of your weapon would actualy hit the rim or face of a Scutum before you can get the blade in a position where it can actually wound your opponent.
I agree with Matt that the only way I see these weapons being usefull would be in a supporting role in conjunction with a shield wall like the Daneaxes were most probably used.
If we assume that the reach would be enough to hook a Scutum or attack an opponent from the second rank, thereby opening the opponent to a killing blow from a better armored or shielded first ranker than it would actualy make sense.

[Thunder]

Then again, consider that the flax is a shock weapon. You hit the lines, break up the formation, and then the rest of your troops follow through and exploit this. Hard, decisive strokes could well have been the norm as the intent of the weapon was not the prolong the combat but to break formations quickly.

Put your falx men out in front of the spearmen as "shock troops", and few of them will survive the pilum volleys. They have to be intermingled with shieldmen, or behind them.

Matthew

Easiest solution then is to tempt the volley out of the Romans and then hit them with the falxmen.

[Matthew Amt]

Easiest solution then is to tempt the volley out of the Romans and then hit them with the falxmen.

In other words, to assemble a full-time force of soldiers and train them on a daily basis in a tactic which is obviously very tricky and relies on practically split-second timing. You can't have any UNtrained men in your first few ranks when you try this, because they'll simply charge and ruin the whole thing. (Or break and run, ditto.) If your training isn't REALLY good, the attempt will fail with catastrophic results. Basically, you need your own version of a Roman army, at least as far as training and organization go.

But if you are able to instill this sort of training in your army, then you can face the Romans on an equal footing and have no need of superweapons to defeat them.

Second problem: "tempt" how? They aren't going to throw until your troops are in range, and you'll have about 3 seconds between the arrival of the pila and the arrival of the legionaries. That's about enough time for the victims to hit the ground. And most likely there are Romans in the rear ranks who still have pila, either to throw over their buddies' heads, or to unleash point-blank if they have to move up to relieve men in the front ranks.

I will say that this is partly what I was saying: Falx-men need to be protected by men with shields. But you seem to be thinking that the shieldmen can block, deflect, absorb, or otherwise neutralize those pila, then masses of falxmen can leap forward as one, smashing devastating blows on static or cowering Romans. What I see is a very functional mix of spearmen, swordsmen, and falxmen, all thrown into a screaming chaotic mass by thousands of deadly pila, suddenly slammed into by thousands of screaming trained armored killers. The brave and determined falxman who survives those volleys may find it hard to strike well, either trying to leap over a skewered friend, or being forced to halt or back up into his other friends by this carnage, only to have 8 square feet of plywood smashed into his chin. It's really hard to swing at a guy who's doing that to you.

The Dacian campaigns were not pushovers. It took the Romans several hard years to finally win. But from what we know, we simply can not state categorically that it was specifically the falx that made this so.

Valete,

Matthew

[Thunder]

First Shock Troops only work against unexperienced opponents or those with bad moral.

Tell that to Alexander the Great. Or General Ludendorf.

A disciplined group of soldiers will not be shocked by a group of half naked men storming at them.
Second a trained fighter will not patiently wait for you to land your blow on his shield, but kill you the second you give him an opening.

The entire point of Roman military technique revolved around the fact that you couldn't get them around the shield. Works both ways, in this case especially as the Dacian has the advantage in reach. Besides, it's not about 'shocking them', it's about breaking up the formation by casualties.

Now to demonstrate the weaknes of the Falx iused in the way suggested here I ask you to tak a stick of ca. 1m length, grip it in both hands at one end and stand back from a wall so the other end of the stick touches the wall at the heigth of your head.
Now move the stick like a Flax swinging and "cutting" horizontal and vertical. You will notice that your swing take up a lot of space on both sides and behind you.
Now move forward a single step, and you should notice that you are now quite close to the wall.
Now try the same swings and you will see that you will hit the wall with your hands or the lower part of the stick before you can bring the tip of the stick anywhere near the wall.
Now grip the stick with one hand at about 50cm from the tip pointing forward and perform some short stabbing motions at the wall from the close position. Also perform these stabbing motions from the position a step back, while stepping forward with the leg where you hold the stick.

From this you should notice a few things:
1. The stab, even when moving forward, reaches his target faster then the swing.
2. The stab only uses up the space of your own body. So in a battleline stabbers can fight much closer to each other meaning that a chopper would be most likely be outnumbered.
3. The stab can be perfomed from an extremely close proximity to your target.
4. If the wall would be an opponent with a Scutum stepping into your swing, you would not be able to complete your swinging motion but your hand or grip of your weapon would actualy hit the rim or face of a Scutum before you can get the blade in a position where it can actually wound your opponent.
I agree with Matt that the only way I see these weapons being usefull would be in a supporting role in conjunction with a shield wall like the Daneaxes were most probably used.
If we assume that the reach would be enough to hook a Scutum or attack an opponent from the second rank, thereby opening the opponent to a killing blow from a better armored or shielded first ranker than it would actualy make sense.

And allow me to lay out the weakness of the gladius. Take a machete, or large knife. Try to stab a target. Notice that to do so, you must extend your arm to get any appreciable reach and that not much force is transferred unless the target is close. Notice that your opponent can, with a longer weapon, stand out of your range and try to kill you with relative impunity. Curse your commanders for issuing you with this weapon.

Easiest solution then is to tempt the volley out of the Romans and then hit them with the falxmen.

In other words, to assemble a full-time force of soldiers and train them on a daily basis in a tactic which is obviously very tricky and relies on practically split-second timing. You can't have any UNtrained men in your first few ranks when you try this, because they'll simply charge and ruin the whole thing. (Or break and run, ditto.) If your training isn't REALLY good, the attempt will fail with catastrophic results. Basically, you need your own version of a Roman army, at least as far as training and organization go.

But if you are able to instill this sort of training in your army, then you can face the Romans on an equal footing and have no need of superweapons to defeat them.

Second problem: "tempt" how? They aren't going to throw until your troops are in range, and you'll have about 3 seconds between the arrival of the pila and the arrival of the legionaries. That's about enough time for the victims to hit the ground. And most likely there are Romans in the rear ranks who still have pila, either to throw over their buddies' heads, or to unleash point-blank if they have to move up to relieve men in the front ranks.

I will say that this is partly what I was saying: Falx-men need to be protected by men with shields. But you seem to be thinking that the shieldmen can block, deflect, absorb, or otherwise neutralize those pila, then masses of falxmen can leap forward as one, smashing devastating blows on static or cowering Romans. What I see is a very functional mix of spearmen, swordsmen, and falxmen, all thrown into a screaming chaotic mass by thousands of deadly pila, suddenly slammed into by thousands of screaming trained armored killers. The brave and determined falxman who survives those volleys may find it hard to strike well, either trying to leap over a skewered friend, or being forced to halt or back up into his other friends by this carnage, only to have 8 square feet of plywood smashed into his chin. It's really hard to swing at a guy who's doing that to you.

The Dacian campaigns were not pushovers. It took the Romans several hard years to finally win. But from what we know, we simply can not state categorically that it was specifically the falx that made this so.

Valete,

Matthew

It's not hard. Send for the skirmishers and harass said Romans. If Romans do not lose their discipline and use the pila, then send forth light troops to attack the Romans. Romans use pila on the light troops. When the Roman line is engaged, then commit your falxmen to the melee, disrupting the Roman lines.

If the Romans attack, then simply allow the front lines to be engaged, and then commit the falxmen. Even easier. Even if you lose you'll kill enough Romans to impair their warfighting capabilities.

[Dan Howard]

First Shock Troops only work against unexperienced opponents or those with bad moral.

Tell that to Alexander the Great. Or General Ludendorf.

You really think that the Persian infantry that Alexander's troops faced were highly trained? Only the so-called "Immortals" were experienced troops.

And allow me to lay out the weakness of the gladius. Take a machete, or large knife. Try to stab a target. Notice that to do so, you must extend your arm to get any appreciable reach and that not much force is transferred unless the target is close. Notice that your opponent can, with a longer weapon, stand out of your range and try to kill you with relative impunity. Curse your commanders for issuing you with this weapon.

When on the defensive the Romans used the long pilum as a thrusting weapon. The gladius would have been drawn when the attackers started to break up on the defensive line or when the Romans charged.

It's not hard. Send for the skirmishers and harass said Romans. If Romans do not lose their discipline and use the pila, then send forth light troops to attack the Romans. Romans use pila on the light troops. When the Roman line is engaged, then commit your falxmen to the melee, disrupting the Roman lines.

The Romans had their own skirmishers to counter this. In fact the vast majority of the Dacian campaign was conducted by auxilliaries. Go through the various battles and skirmishes and see how many actually involved the legions to any significant level.

[Matthew Amt]

And allow me to lay out the weakness of the gladius. Take a machete, or large knife. Try to stab a target. Notice that to do so, you must extend your arm to get any appreciable reach and that not much force is transferred unless the target is close. Notice that your opponent can, with a longer weapon, stand out of your range and try to kill you with relative impunity. Curse your commanders for issuing you with this weapon.

Sorry, but I really don't think massed combat was like that at all. They didn't walk calmly towards each other with weapons extended to full reach, and find out which one was longer when the other guys said "ouch". Combat range was shield-to-shield, or in this case shield-to-body. A gladius blade is more than long enough to reach that body without the hilt even extending past the shield. A 2-foot advantage in "reach" is no help when your opponent is still advancing. You can't just keep backing up, because the rest of your army is close behind you, pushing forward. If you can swing at just the right moment when he is at the perfect range for your falx, fine. But if you do not incapacitate him with that first blow (which is highly unlikely), he will take one more step and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. If you *do* incapacitate him with that first blow, his buddy behind him will slam a pilum into you at point-blank range, then take 2 fast steps and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. A thrust with a gladius is MUCH faster than a swing with anything, and much faster to recover from. The timing with a falx against a moving target has to be precise, whereas with a gladius it does not. You can curse whomever you like, but Roman soldiers loved their silly little swords.

It's not hard. Send for the skirmishers and harass said Romans. If Romans do not lose their discipline and use the pila, then send forth light troops to attack the Romans. Romans use pila on the light troops. When the Roman line is engaged, then commit your falxmen to the melee, disrupting the Roman lines.

Um, aren't "skirmishers" and "light troops" pretty much the same thing? As Dan pointed out, Romans had them, too. Also remember that command and control of a tribal army was not a precise science. Without training and discipline, you might not have the option of holding some troops back while others fight. They simply were not organized in that way. And I'm still a little fuzzy as to how and why committing your falxmen should so certainly disrupt the Roman lines.

If the Romans attack, then simply allow the front lines to be engaged, and then commit the falxmen. Even easier. Even if you lose you'll kill enough Romans to impair their warfighting capabilities.

How "commit"? Do you have your falxmen in separate units, each strictly controlled by highly trained officers linked by a sophisticated signalling system? How do you convince the warriors in the front ranks, who typically have earned the right to be there by being the best, to simply make way for the falxmen to get into action while they are already locked in close combat with the Romans? Even if you do it the obvious way, having falxmen more or less paired up with front-rank shield men, edging into gaps between men and swinging as the shieldmen engage the Romans, the second rank of Romans is doing the exact same thing, possibly with pila raised and ready to thrust or throw. And *they* have practiced for this moment every morning for years on end!

Well, I think we're just going to have to let you live in your own little world on how battles work. Since the situations you describe do not seem to have happened, it must not have been all that easy. You seem to assume that each swing of a falx results in one dead Roman, and that the rest will simply line up to take their turns while the naked tribesman winds up again. Great video game, but not realistic. But I just don't have more time or energy to argue with someone whose mental image of ancient combat is so stylized and unrealistic.

Vale,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, it is hard to debate seriously with the young and opinionated, Matt .........

Would it surprise you to learn that our young fellow members such as 'Diegis' and 'Thunder' are more at home on wargame forums such as "Total War Centre" ? :wink:

There, the purest unsubstantiated speculation and "I read somewhere", and wiki items count as 'knowledgable'...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[diegis]

Yes, it is hard to debate seriously with the young and opinionated, Matt .........

Would it surprise you to learn that our young fellow members such as 'Diegis' and 'Thunder' are more at home on wargame forums such as "Total War Centre" ? :wink:

There, the purest unsubstantiated speculation and "I read somewhere", and wiki items count as 'knowledgable'...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, the irony :lol:
And well, i pass over your lesser or mixed knowledge of the history of the area we discuss, and your obsession with Bastarnae that you see everywhere (still wait for a reliable source confirming you), and i find most funny that even i joined the "Total War Centre" and RAT about the same times as you, and you say i am all day here or there, did you notice that your number of posts here are about 3 times bigger then mine combined, here and there?

And, btw, i use those images from wikipedia because was much better and clear compared with ones posted by you, no offence

[diegis]

Sorry, but I really don't think massed combat was like that at all. They didn't walk calmly towards each other with weapons extended to full reach, and find out which one was longer when the other guys said "ouch". Combat range was shield-to-shield, or in this case shield-to-body. A gladius blade is more than long enough to reach that body without the hilt even extending past the shield. A 2-foot advantage in "reach" is no help when your opponent is still advancing. You can't just keep backing up, because the rest of your army is close behind you, pushing forward. If you can swing at just the right moment when he is at the perfect range for your falx, fine. But if you do not incapacitate him with that first blow (which is highly unlikely), he will take one more step and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. If you *do* incapacitate him with that first blow, his buddy behind him will slam a pilum into you at point-blank range, then take 2 fast steps and slam his shield into you, with his whole weight behind it, accompanied by a lightining sword-jab to your guts or face. A thrust with a gladius is MUCH faster than a swing with anything, and much faster to recover from. The timing with a falx against a moving target has to be precise, whereas with a gladius it does not. You can curse whomever you like, but Roman soldiers loved their silly little swords.

Well, idea is that a falxmen (which suposedly was well trained and brave warriors, i agree it was not an easy task) can hit with greater chances of succes over and around the shield, or even hook the shield and drag the roman so his comareds near by can hit him much easy. To protect himself the legionar need to rise his scutum so obstructing his view for a bit, moment when he can have his legs cut, or the arm holding the gladius (making a small lateral step and using the length and especialy the shape of the sword it wasnt impossible at all). The shape of the falx allowed to deliver hits over the edge of scutum, so if the roman doesnt keep his shield up, he will receive a hit on his head. Falx doesnt need large circular or lateral moves, as swinging the sword too much around. Form above the head you can hit on the same space as your body. The handle can be keept with one hand to end of it and one close to blade, shortening the lenght, and just when realease the hit on the last portion you leave your hand close to blade to glide toward the end of the handle, hit, then pull. The legionar can't hit with the scutum and with the Gladius in the same time, so is not easy for him either. But is hard to say how things evolved in that mess who was the battle

Um, aren't "skirmishers" and "light troops" pretty much the same thing? As Dan pointed out, Romans had them, too. Also remember that command and control of a tribal army was not a precise science. Without training and discipline, you might not have the option of holding some troops back while others fight. They simply were not organized in that way. And I'm still a little fuzzy as to how and why committing your falxmen should so certainly disrupt the Roman lines.

Contrary what you might think, the Dacian army during Traian wars wasnt a "tribal army", but a quite profesional one. It was trained according with Roman standards, used war machines (as ballistae), and was quite good equiped (if you look at the images and trophies from the Column). In some images apear even standards/flags similar with roman ones, meaning a similar organization of troops. Dacians received lots of desertors from Roman army (probably dacians and thracians from Moesia and Thracia) as well instructors and engineers send by Domitian, and Decebalus keept as well most of the prisoners taked durring those wars, and use them probably for constructing those war machines and training. Traian specificaly asked at the peace from 102 that all war machines to be surrended or destroyied, and Dacians to stop receiveing desertors from Roman army

How "commit"? Do you have your falxmen in separate units, each strictly controlled by highly trained officers linked by a sophisticated signalling system? How do you convince the warriors in the front ranks, who typically have earned the right to be there by being the best, to simply make way for the falxmen to get into action while they are already locked in close combat with the Romans? Even if you do it the obvious way, having falxmen more or less paired up with front-rank shield men, edging into gaps between men and swinging as the shieldmen engage the Romans, the second rank of Romans is doing the exact same thing, possibly with pila raised and ready to thrust or throw. And *they* have practiced for this moment every morning for years on end!

As i said, it is very possible that such things may happen, since dacians inspire quite a lot from romans. First line of dacians equiped with shields and shorter swords/spears etc. engage the first roman line, then when the lines change after few minutes the falxmen enter in battle. Is possible as well that falxmen to be used for surprise attacks from flanks, but as i said, falxes wasnt a widespread weapon, so was used probably just in specific moments of battle, with a specific role

Since the situations you describe do not seem to have happened, it must not have been all that easy. You seem to assume that each swing of a falx results in one dead Roman, and that the rest will simply line up to take their turns while the naked tribesman winds up again. Great video game, but not realistic. But I just don't have more time or energy to argue with someone whose mental image of ancient combat is so stylized and unrealistic.
Vale,
Matthew

Falxmen i assume entered the battle after the first clash of lines, coming from the second line, with the intend to make a break in tight roman lines (probably during the change of lines, for more impact). It didnt make probably a kill with each hit, agree, but any hit reaching the target may lead to incapacitating the enemy. Keeping the initiative and offensive, and forcing the romans to stay in defensive, the falxmen can hack their way to first lines, or create havoc and disorder there. If we look at how long the wars was (about a year each), even if dacian capital was at just some 150 km from roman border, and at what Fronto said about the horrible wounds made by curved dacian swords (thus he reffer probably to Sica too or those kind i posted in previous post) we can assume that falx had a succes in battle after all. Even if probably was less used compared with Sica type or Gladius type swords, and, more then all this weapons itselfs counted the peoples who used.