Dimensions of Dacian Falx?

[Paullus Scipio]

Tests with the falx show that even if it wouldn't penetrate a modified Roman helmet, it would almost certainly break the Roman's neck through compression with a downward stroke. Can't remember where I read it, but I definitely did, and the author learned a thing or two about its use. Bear in mind it was more than just a cutting weapon, and its form, material, and how it is used makes it a very high velocity weapon

Ther are also some nice photos of what the falx can do to a scutum on Matt Amt/Twentieth Legion website hock: hock:
Of course that fax- wielder, armourless, and with his weapon jammed in the shield would be dead a split-second later ! :evil: :twisted: - c.f. Peter Connolly's illustration in "The Legionary" .

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

Nasty, nonetheless. I'd love to get my hands one someday.

[PMBardunias]

Germanic tribesmen usually identified as "Bastarnae".

Remember that though they seem to have had cultural links to germans, they had aquired the "unwholesome look of the Sarmatians". So at what point do we have to aknowledge that these intersections of cultures are creating entirely new ethnicities or perhaps masking independant groups beneath ethnicities better known to ancient authors? The same problem plagues the later Goths and Heruls.

[MeinPanzer]

To breathe a little more life into this discussion...

I found some information this passing weekend on an actual example of a falx that was found in or near the Dacian fortress of Rupea. I don't know information about when it is dated to (still trying to get a hold of the original source), but it measures, from the end of the tang to the end of the curved blade, 90 cm, which coincides almost exactly with Paullus' measurements of the example on the base of Trajan's column.

Here's a scanned picture of a drawing:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/falx.JPG

[diegis]

Salve, and excuse my english, first ( i am romanian, and, obviously, more close to dacians ). My opinion is that falx was developed from shorter "sica", and was special designed to fight against romans, more exactly to breake the legions shield wall, and create gaps in roman lines, beeing the dacian answher to roman tactics and weapons, before roman themselves readapt to Falx. Its very posible that, beside this two kind of original recurved weapons ( sica and falx ) to exist even a kind of polearm type, all forming a family of weapons specifically to Dacians, as is posibly sugested in this images, and some images from Adamclisi monument ( in top part of photo apear a Falx blade, thus not entirely complete ). http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine:Dacian_Weapons.jpg

[Paullus Scipio]

It should be borne in mind that, strictly speaking, the two-handed falx is not a Dacian weapon at all, for while Dacians are depicted with single-handed sica, only Bastarnae tribesmen (Dacian Allies) are shown with the two-handed falx.......and this weapon is likely related to the earlier two-handed 'Thracian Rhomphaia'.

[MeinPanzer]

It should be borne in mind that, strictly speaking, the two-handed falx is not a Dacian weapon at all, for while Dacians are depicted with single-handed sica, only Bastarnae tribesmen (Dacian Allies) are shown with the two-handed falx.......and this weapon is likely related to the earlier two-handed 'Thracian Rhomphaia'.

Well, stating it that way is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? We know pretty certainly that the rhomphaia and the falx are closely related to one another, and come from a single cultural continuum (Thraco-Getic, Daco-Thracian, or however you want to call it). We know that the Bastarnae were folded into this cultural group in the second century BC and adopted weaponry and equipment from their neighbours (thus Valerius Flaccus' comment about them carrying rhomphaiai). Since the falx clearly didn't independently emerge among the Bastarnae, it must have been a Dacian weapon. This is further borne out by the above actual example, which was found in a Dacian fort.

[diegis]

Bastarnae, a germanic ( some says a kind of celto-germanic ) tribe was violently subdued by dacians in time of king Burebista ( middle of last century BC ), the archeological discoveries related to them almost disapering begining with that time. However, they are still info about them, after that, but probably they was just a small allies of dacians. The very few falx blades discovered was done inside dacians sites ( i read that even at Sarmisegetuza, the dacian capital fortress ), with no conection with bastarnae. As well, the very few mentions who survive until today, about daco-roman wars ( strangely, most of them disapered ), clearely named the recurved swords as beeing dacian. Is not imposible that such swords to be distributed to some much poor allies, but i think such swords ( in any lenghts ) was from dacian origin ( romphaia, the related thracian sword, beeing a much less curved sword, who, i think, was used more in a way closer to bigger swords of celts, for ex., and falx beeing used in a diferent way, somehow both as a huge sickle or schyte, or as battle axe / hummer ).

[sitalkes]

It seems to me that Romanian archaeology and historical research has been damaged to some extent by the legacy of the communist era, where everything seems to have been subjugated to the government's nationalistic programme. I think there may be a lot of work from the communist era that needs to be re-examined in this light. It will be some time before new scholarship can replace all the work done in the previous years. These works seem to emphasise the special status of the Dacians and the relative unimportance of any links they may have had to the Thracians and Bastarnae. Often they seem to defy common sense and are a form of propaganda. This is not just a Romanian problem. In other communist countries, the government also manipulated the archaeology, even hiding discoveries that did not agree with their view of history.

[sitalkes]

I have some other pictures of Dacian blades at http://home.exetel.com.au/bmboats/dacians.htm

[diegis]

Well, the comunist historiography tryied, in a way, to "equalize" somehow the realizations of dacians with ones of romans. But this was not related with links to thracians. In all our historiography, dacians are see as north thracians. Ofcourse, they became, with times, a kind of diferent culture then south thracians, maybe spoke even an another dialect, but is clear that they are related. About bastarne, is nothing "exagerated" or minimalized about. The arheology show clearlly that they almost disaper after Burebista campagne who subdued the greek colonies on Black Sea, and, however, they was not play a major role in the area. About the importance of dacians, even if sometimes is maybe exagerated by some of our historians, the fact that romans, at the peak of roman power, used their biggest army ever deployed against a foreign enemy, in two wars, to subdue dacians of Decebal ( who was not all united, as was in time of Burebista ) show the fact that dacians was one of their most powerful enemies.

[M. Demetrius]

I'm already picturing it rending a shield asunder

Or a neck just below the jaw. Eek.

[Berbescu]

As it is understood, the Dacians were an ethnic group (most probably related to the Thracians or a sub-group of the Thracians). They were not Celtic or Germanic. It is understood that there were different tribes of Dacians but they were all Dacians. Maybe some of them had more cultural influence from different other ethnic groups.

I thought the Dacians were actually a collective of different peoples anyway? Northern Thracians, Germanic and Celtic tribes, and nomadic horsemen. It's more of a collective name for the tribes in Dacia. Technically, isn't the falx Dacian?

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/II52.html
http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/eng/falx.htm

[Berbescu]

It seems to me that Romanian archaeology and historical research has been damaged to some extent by the legacy of the communist era, where everything seems to have been subjugated to the government's nationalistic programme.
(snipped)

Yes. This unfortunately is true. The most unfortunate thing is that many GOOD discoveries were made but since it's very difficult to know which are good discoveries and which are from low quality research methods or worse, from false information, so we have to consider a lot of it with a question mark of suspicion. Now there are young archaeologists who are making new researches to find out what really happened in the Dacian epoch and after the Romans left. Unfortunately (there are many unfortunatelies) many persons (historians and nonhistorians) do not want to know what happened in history. They only want evidence so to say they are descended of great ancestors and kindred from a very long ancestral line. Hopefully the the new researches and publications will change ideas.


Ioan

[Berbescu]

I found some information this passing weekend on an actual example of a falx that was found in or near the Dacian fortress of Rupea. I don't know information about when it is dated to (still trying to get a hold of the original source)

I know this one. What is "original source"? You mean the bibliographic reference where the picture comes from? Or you mean where exactly was this falx found?

, but it measures, from the end of the tang to the end of the curved blade, 90 cm, which coincides almost exactly with Paullus' measurements of the example on the base of Trajan's column.

This is one for 2 hands. There are other examples of falx for 1 hand usage (falx, not sica). There are only a few falxes found. Less than 10. And some of them maybe are modern forgeries because the provenance is not known or suspicious. Also, all of them were found in southern Transylvania. In the rest of the Dacian area, are found normal swords.


Ioan