03-01-2017, 01:09 PM
(03-01-2017, 12:50 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I notice that in his attacks on the helmet (which looks like a WWII-era civil defence helmet, not that it makes a difference!) he's only using the point of the weapon, not the blade. A heavy punching blow like this would be effective without the big blade behind it - a spike, a javelin, or a dolabra (which the Romans used against armour) would do just as well.
The kind of 'battlefield modifications' that the Romans supposedly made to their helmets to counter the falx would not have made any difference in this case.
We have the note by Fronto about the 'terrible wounds' inflicted by the falx; the second part of the video demonstrates these well enough. Any big cutting weapon is going to have that effect, more or less.
No source, as far as I know, mentions that the falx was particularly useful in cutting through armour. This video doesn't show that either. It was a big slashing blade, effective against unprotected flesh.
The Romans may have made use of manicae and greaves to counter the falx, but they appear to have used both previously (manicae on Rhineland tombstones from the mid 1st century, for example). No source suggests that the Roman army modified its equipment in response to the falx in particular.
So I don't see that this video really changes anything in terms of the numerous debates on this subject over the years!
Yes, this is just to have a bit of a visual confirmation of the versatility of the weapon, who can be used both in a hammer like strike with the tip point used for piercing with strikes over the scutum (and even blunt force trauma seeing how the head and the neck was trembling under the hit) and as a sword or sickle/scythe for cutting/choping (alternatively I think could have been used even for hooking things in some instances). Neither a javelin, dolabra or gladius were that versatile
About the helmet, the man said is a WW 1 type with a 16 gage thickness steel (which is a bit over 1.5 mm) so I imagine he have some idea about the helmet characteristics as he hold it and use it. I admit however I have less to no knowlledge about British helmets from WW 1 and WW 2 period so you might be right, I do think however a helmet like that (even made of less quality steel) make a quite OK comparison with an ancient Roman helmet.
The supposition the Romans reinforced their helmets because of the falx is a supposition indeed, even if I understand (from those previous discussions) that the oldest reinforced helmet was found in Dacia (Berzovis, today Romania, incidentaly a place mentioned in one of the very few lines preserved from Trajan De bello Dacico).
Tthe clashes between Romans and Dacians were older than Trajan wars, IIRC correct they started in BC era or early in first century AD. They were also used by gladiators so its not necessary an adaptation for Trajan wars period but Romans felt the need to show them on the imperial art monuments of that era so there must have been a more widespread use during those wars.
And one reason must have been the falx and maybe even the sica (with a longer handle) seeing as well what Fronto said. Dio Cassius also said that Roman wounded soldiers were so many during the battle of Tapae from 101 AD that Trajan himself had tore his clothes apart (or his imperial toga) to make bandages for them. I assume that means lots of amputations coming from scythe like strikes, which required more bandages to stop the blood loss, way more than Romans were expecting and were prepared for.
Razvan A.
