Dacian Falx vs. Roman Helmets & Armor

[Gaius Colletti]

[quote="Dan Howard" post=284070]Um no. Imagine a warrior in his teens. By the time anyone in these cultures entered their thirties they would be reaching the end of their ability to perform these kinds of physical chores. And this is completely irrelevant since plenty of Roman troops had similar backgrounds and were just as physically capable.[quote]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. People had a shorter life expectancy back 2000 years ago, however they by no means aged at twice the rate. Assuming that a man was not sick, diseased, or maimed, there is no reason why he could not pick up a sword and wield it at the age of 30, 35, or 45.

Roman Legionaires by the time of the Empire had to enlist for 20-25 years, That means if a man enlisting at 20 would not be discharged until he was 40-45 years old. Furthermore, I believe troops had to enlist by 40 years of age. Carrying 70lbs of equipment and supplies on long marches, including a mandatory once a month 18 mile march is no easy task.

I would post some statistics, but they always get screwed up with the infant mortality rate to be useful at a glance. Interestingly to the Greeks, the most ideal soldier was about 40 years of age.

[Dan Howard]

I'm not talking about Roman or Greek troops, nor people who live in a developed urban environment. The average lifespan in the past of people who went "up in the mountains each day to cut trees in the forest" was considerably shorter

[Magnus]

Regardless of how good of shape the Dacians were, the evidence points to defensive adaptations because of a specific weapon. The only weapon unique to the Dacians was the Falx. Not spears, axes or swords. The Romans had faced those for centuries, with no adaptations to their helmets. So the only new stimulus, was the Falx. All roads seem to lead to the Falx.

[diegis]

Um no. Imagine a warrior in his teens. By the time anyone in these cultures entered their thirties they would be reaching the end of their ability to perform these kinds of physical chores. And this is completely irrelevant since plenty of Roman troops had similar backgrounds and were just as physically capable.

What? :lol: Do you think that armies was made up just by teenagers of 17-18 years old? Sure, some of those probably was joining the army too, but peoples in 30's was by no means a rarity, or unable to fight anymore :roll: . In fact if we look at the images of Dacian warriors from the Column or Adamclisi, or the statues of them in Italy, they are prety much all rather mature peoples, wearing beards and so on.
As someone pointed out above, at greeks 40 years old was considered an ideal soldiers, both experienced and still able to fight quite very well, and roman legionars was enlisted up to 40-45 years too

I'd like to see anything indicating that a Dacian solider is any more prepared to die than a Celtic, Germanic, or even a Roman one. This nationalistic chestbeating does nothing to advance this type of discussion.

I am sorry, the only one to bring in discussion comparations betwen Dacians, Celts, Germanic and "even Romans" how you said (put them somehow lower in the list) is just you. I didnt mention any of them, nor compared them with Dacians (even if i can show quotes from Herodotus to Julian the Apostate or even Vegetius who specificaly point out Getae/Dacians in such circumstances related with war, death and imortality).
What i want to show was that beside the weapon/sword it was the warrior too, and his qualities, it was not just the sword who was some kind of magical weapon who work by itself.

If a Dacian tried a strike like this he would be gutted like a pig before he finished the upswing.

:roll: Do you really think that a fight occur like that? That a Dacian will come in front of a Roman, at a Gladius striking distance, and just after that, still imobile, will start rising his sword for a hit?

More probably is that the Dacian will already have the arms in position, armed and ready to release the strike (helped by the longer sword he had, compared with Gladius) before the roman sword might reach him.
Why do you think Romans reinforced their helmets if they was able to gut the Dacians even before they rise their swords? Why do you think Romans are depicted wearing arms/manica protecting armour (and legs protection too) on the arm wearing the Gladius?

[Dan Howard]

And around and around we go. This will never go anywhere until some comparative tests are done. Any test done with a falx is useless unless other weapons are tested against the same targets under the same conditions. How much of superweapon will the falx be if it is demonstrated that a La Tene longsword or even a gladius can cut the same target just as effectively?

[Matthew Amt]

Regardless of how good of shape the Dacians were, the evidence points to defensive adaptations because of a specific weapon. The only weapon unique to the Dacians was the Falx. Not spears, axes or swords. The Romans had faced those for centuries, with no adaptations to their helmets. So the only new stimulus, was the Falx. All roads seem to lead to the Falx.

I tend to lean in that direction myself, and having had a particularly good view of the falx-vs-scutum test I also agree that the falx (at least that particular reconstruction!) was in impressive weapon.

HOWEVER---correlation does not prove causation! All the defensive features ascribed to the influence of the falx--helmet cross-bracing, manica, greaves, hamata and squamata--have been found in areas other than Dacia. This includes Britain, Spain, Syria, etc. And really the dating is too close to prove which came first. So it's possible that those features were NOT a response to the falx, but a simple swing in the eternal back-and-forth between heavier and lighter armor that you can trace from the Bronze Age through the current day. Sometimes there was a trend from more and heavier armor, sometimes a trend towards less and lighter armor. So what we're seeing in the Dacian wars might simply be back on the "heavy" end, swinging back from the earlier first century AD when some legionaries clearly fought with only shield and helmet. OR---some troops had it all, all along, and some troops had very little! We can prove this for some eras, so no reason it can't still apply.

As another "however", as Dan points out, I have NOT personally witnessed similar tests of regular spears, swords, or axes on the same shield that we chopped with the falx. It's quite possible such tests would also be very scary.

The one point which intrigued me greatly from one of those previous threads was the suggestion that the *falx* was a response to the *heavier armor* of the legionaries, not the other way around! I'm not standing dogmatically on this, by any means, it's simply an interesting interpretation.

On the whole, with Roman references to the respect for "curved swords" (assuming that translation is accurate!) and the way the falx keeps showing up in artwork and on coins, etc., I'm a little more inclined to think that the Romans at least felt that was the "signature" weapon from that area.

Also, guys, we're not going to get anywhere trying to argue the exact timing and physics of a single strike and response in a battle. There are simply too many variables, down to the length of the grass, that could apply equally to either combatant. I do think it's a little biased to say that a strike from a falx would penetrate *both* shield and helmet or armor (any tests on that?), and it seems odd that moving the scutum a mere foot from the body would cause a trained man to be off-balance or be knocked to his knees by a weapon blow of any sort. If you are going to assume that the falx-wielder is in a certain stage of readiness, you have to allow the same preparation for his opponent. Relative ages and training are also not something we can factor in reliably. Best to give all that up!

Valete,

Matthew

[Crispvs]

I have often noticed that on the Adamklissi Metopes, falxmen are usually shown accompanied by another man, suggesting to me that the falx might have been used as a 'squad' weapon, with the falxman accompanied by spearmen or similar who could take advantage of gaps he created while he recovered his swing. This would be consistent with what (as I understand it) we know about the use of the Claymore.

I also suspect that the falx might often have been swung in a 'figure of eight' style, which would be dangerous to legs and arms, as well as heads, but which would allow for more dynamic use and would not expose the user in the way the overhead chopping motion usually assumed by people today would do.


Also, I feel I should make mention of average lifespans, as often quoted. If an average life span of thirty years is mentioned, it *does not* mean that everyone died at the age of thirty of old age. It means that when you take the total of all of the young, adult and old age people who died and divide their combined ages by the number of individuals the result is the average age. For a simple example, if there are two people and one dies at the age of two whilst the other dies at the age of sixty, the average age life span would be thirty one, which would simply be an average and would in no way indicate the ages at which the two people died. This is how average life expectancy works.

So our hypothetical thirty year old Dacian would not be an old man. He would be a mature man with a family and who might have sons who were approaching manhood. He would be familiar with the use of weapons both for hunting and warfare and would still be fully capable of giving a good performance in the battle line.

Crispvs

[Gaius Colletti]

Thank you for clarifying the "average" lifespan Crispus. I am inclined to agree with you about the falx being used more for cutting off limbs, however to what can we explain the crossbars being used on Roman helmets? We know that the crossbars were sometimes hastily put on the helmets right over the brass decorations. However, I am questioning how effective a crossbar on the helmet would have been against a falx. Is it possible it was used for something else?