Segmentata vs. Falx

[Mrbsct]

One of the most interesting weapons in the Ancient world is the Dacian Falx. Trajan's column seems to depict it as the Sica while the Tropaeum Trajani in Dacia depicts it in multiple sizes often Longsword length and even Zheilhandler length.

Which do you think is the more accurate length? Decablus is said to adapted to Roman style of warfare so the short-Sword-Falx would be more on par with the Gladius. However the Dacian Falx is said to be ripping through Roman shields in Domitian's wars.

I also have a question on Roman equipment. Michael Smitt said the Lorica Segmentata was scrapped by Trajan in favor for the Lorica Squamata and Lorica Hamata. How true do you thing this is?(this theory is due to the Tropaeum Trajani showing no Lorica Segmentata). One theory is the Lorica Segmentata provides less coverage to the arms and thighs(in this case the Longsword Falx and Short Falx would be more suited) or the Falx just ripped through the Segmentata in a straight overhand blow(in which the GreatFalx would be used better) and the Squamata and Hamata was able to stop it better.

What do historical sources say about the power of the Falx, was in primarly for trick hooking or overhead power strikes? Also what do archeological finds say? Also if the majority of Falxes were the Zheilhander types, the Lorica Segmentata seems to be more suited due to an overhand shoulder strike?

What has awed me is that how effective the Falx was against the Segmentata. Modern recreations from RAT say that the Segmentata is strong enough to hold against an artillery strike from a Manuballista/Scorpio while Hamata can be pierced by normal arrows(the Parthian arrow thread). Yet Michael Smitt believes the Hamata can sustain a Falx attack better.

[Dan Howard]

The falx is probably third in line behind the katana and English longbow as the world's most overhyped weapon. It is just a modified pruning hook. No blade like that can cut through any kind of metal body armour. The only way the falx could penetrate Roman armour under battle conditions, regardless of whether it is mail, or scale, or plate, would be to somehow punch through with the point, not cut with the edge.

[Mrbsct]

My guess is the Dacians aimed for the straps or through the overlap.

[Nathan Ross]

Michael Smitt said the Lorica Segmentata was scrapped by Trajan in favor for the Lorica Squamata and Lorica Hamata. How true do you thing this is?

Not very. Segmentata still appeared on imperial sculpture in the late 2nd/early 3rd century (Column of Marcus / Arch of Severus), and segmentata pieces have been found dating to the late 3rd or even early 4th centuries. It was clearly not 'scrapped' after the Dacian wars!

What has awed me is that how effective the Falx was against the Segmentata.

I'd agree with Dan about the destructive capabilities of the falx - I suspect the impact, so to speak, was at least partly psychological. But a large two handed weapon (assuming a falx was indeed that size) could deliver quite a heavy blow even if the blade did not penetrate.

However, it clearly had some prestigious associations, if only for the Dacians - representations of falxes appear on a stone cut by Dacian auxiliaries in Britain a century after Trajan's war.

The most effective weapon the Romans possessed against plate armour seems to have been the common pickaxe, or dolabra. Roman troops used these against Gallic rebels dressed in gladiatorial armour. The fact that the dolabra appears not to have been adopted as a standard battlefield weapon suggests that trying to punch through metal armour was not considered a high priority. A studded wooden club seems to have been the most effective weapon against fully armoured clibanarii, for example.

Hamata can be pierced by normal arrows(the Parthian arrow thread).

Very rarely, in ideal conditions and at very close range! ;-)

[AMELIANVS]

The falx is probably third in line behind the katana and English longbow as the world's most overhyped weapon.

Thumbs up :evil: !

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Unfortunately seems that my last post didn't show up

well it happens to know someone who invested lots of work in understanding these weapons, He's a Romanian and majority of his papers are written in Romanian Language but he does have a couple in English. His name is Catalin Borangic he's an archeologist in Apulum (Alba Iulia) and you can find some of his papers here:
https://uab-ro.academia.edu/BorangicCatalin

I am an engineer and I can tell there can be enough penetration force in an pruning knife if you have an long enough wood handle attached to it, remember that wood hardens when is shortly held in fire, and that spears were not only thrown but also used in close combat.

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Wouldn't the use of the segmented manica by legionaries disprove this theory?

If the segmentata was found to be ineffective against the falx, why use the same strategy to protect the whole of the right arm? And we see it's use in addition to lorica hamata, squamata, and segmentata... So why add an ineffective type of armour to protect the arm of a soldier if the maille was thought to be better proection? Why not make the manica out of maille or scale instead?

[Walhaz]

I don't have a lot of archaeological or metallurgical experience, but my understanding is that swinging a metal blade (of whatever shape) down as hard as you can on a flat piece of metal of similar thickness does nothing but numb your hands and break your blade. Perhaps some of the re-enactors or weapons-makers can correct me on that, though.

Like Nathan said, heavy blunt weapons were the preferred method of dealing with heavy armor, even after this period. (Also, heavy blunt weapons are cheaper and easier to make than shaped blades.) So it seems unlikely to me that the falx was often used against Trajan's infantry in the overhand, "tear them open like a tin can" style that some have posited.

That being said, the Dacians surely would have fought more enemies than just the Romans, such as the German tribes to their west. These tribes were much more lightly armored than Roman troops (or not armored at all) and may very well have been far more vulnerable to an over-the-should cleaving stroke. Perhaps the efficacy of the falx in those contexts led to the Dacian falx tradition, or perhaps ancestral stories from German auxiliaries bled over into the Roman consciousness.

Another thought is that a "Great Falx" type weapon used in the over-the-shoulder cleaver style might very well severely damage a Roman soldier's shield to the point where he had to throw it away. I should think that would have a very salient psychological effect on the troops. Romans fought with shield and sword when the battle came to close quarters during this time period, and the loss of the shield due to one enemy stroke would be quite terrifying, and could easily lead to speculation about split armor and so on.

My last two comments are nothing more than supposition, but it might help to explain why the Dacians seemed to embraced the falx and the Romans seemed to be so terrified of it.

[Mark Hygate]

....................
My last two comments are nothing more than supposition, but it might help to explain why the Dacians seemed to embraced the falx and the Romans seemed to be so terrified of it.

Well, swords stab or cut and are fairly 'gentlemanly' weapons - an arrow causes pain and suffering, but is often fairly clean.

I think any sensible person would find a, often two-handed it seems, blade-ended hacking scythe-club - which even has a nasty pointed end - pretty damn terrifying.

When it comes to the armour, particularly, and with reference to the idea that hamata/squamata was more prevalent in the East due to greater coverage (hence the link to the arrow thread) - does anyone have good representative weight comparisons? Was segmentata deemed not suitable vs the Dacians due to the desire for greater coverage and segmentata was already heavy?

That greater coverage being desirable due to the handiness of weapons like the falx/falcata/scythe and the ability to cause damage to exposed portions (that segmentata leaves).

[richsc]

Legio XX did a test of a falx against a scutum some years ago. The falx, two handed and with a blade by Mark Morrow, ie, it was very sharp, penetrated about 8" into the shield. But it took a bit to get it out, meaning the wielder was effectively disarmed. We never did get around to arguing if the 'flimsy' scutum was actually conferring a combat advantage since no one actually fights with sharp weapons. The needlefelt stuff doesn't count.

[Thomas Aagaard]

You don't want to get your weapon stuck in a shield.. since then your are effectively dead.

If I had to use a falx against a roman, I would do, like I would with a daneaxe or helbard. Hook the shield and pull it down (with two hand on the weapon and only one hand on the shield I can do this) and have the guy next to me hit the now very vulnerable roman with a proper hit.
(neck or stab him in the face.) If iam good, I might even be able to pull the shield down a bit and then stab him in the face.

[Olaf]

As demonstrated, arguably as propaganda, on the Tropheum Trajani, a two handed bladed weapon, without the added benefit of proper body armor gets you killed rather quickly.
The test cut against the Scutum was done against a shield fixed into place as far as I know, an was performed almost straight downward onto the upper rim of the shield. A Scutum in combat would of course have moved and pivoted, taking some of the cutting power away. Also the attack would have been received at an angle if the Miles knew how to use his shield and the force directed away, to glance of the shield. Then its only a short step forward to leisurely thrust the Gladius into the unprotected belly, breast or face, if it was not done already while the Falx wielder was taking time to set up his grand swing...

[brennivs - tony drake]

I have had my Falx for 16 years now and I can tell you If I was coming up against you I would only use the point only :evil: I would not bother hitting a Segmentata, the weapon is for soft tissue. Mine would punch through a helmet hence the cross bracing ( but I would worry that the blade might jam into the helmet ), it would take a arm off hence the Manica, also take a leg off hence the Greave. I would not use it to hit a shield, again as has been mentioned no good, but quite effective to use it as a hook while another goes in while your guard is down. Now if the point was used against Hamata or Squamata again it would tare through this, It would not cut you from shoulder to groin but even 6" inch cut you will not been able to fight on. The mind set I would say for a Dacian was to cause as much trauma to the body as possible a wounded soldier takes more manpower to look after than a dead one. Now there is wide varation in the blade styles and sizes from the various pictorial reference as well as found examples, so judging from the designs Ive seen some would not be able to do the helmet punching, but against flesh no problem. I don't have the pics of the various examples on this computer to show :-( I will see what I can do :grin:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/20-roman-re...l?start=15
This has one or two pics on my thread
Regards Brennivs

[Caratacus]

I seem to remember a paper by David Sim in which he addressed this very question. I wish I could remember where it was now. Essentially, he forged a falx blade and then used it against plate armour of the same thickness as lor seg, backed by a gel medium supposed to reproduce the properties of human flesh. If I remember aright, I think his conclusion was that the armour was pretty good at defending against at least glancing blows from a falx blade but a full-bodied strike would probably have killed the soldier.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Eleatic Guest]

The falx is probably third in line behind the katana and English longbow as the world's most overhyped weapon. It is just a modified pruning hook. No blade like that can cut through any kind of metal body armour. The only way the falx could penetrate Roman armour under battle conditions, regardless of whether it is mail, or scale, or plate, would be to somehow punch through with the point, not cut with the edge.

I read that there is archaeological evidence that Roman helmets were reinforced during the Dacian Wars, apparently as a response to the falx' cutting power.