Dacian Falx, by R. Wimmers

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What was that other kind of sword the Germanics used this era? You made one recently. I think it also started with an F...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Indeed Robert!
I would remindpeople though that the Romans made several modifications t ohelmets and tactics for this campaign. I think it was a pretty devastating weapon.
As would be obvious looking at the falx, it will make a mess of anprotected flesh.
I am planning on seeing just how it will effec t the equipment too.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

What was that other kind of sword the Germanics used this era? You made one recently. I think it also started with an F...

Only that Dacians were not Germanic.

Anyhow is a nice work, I posted a link to a paper with falxes earlier
www.cclbsebes.ro/docs/sebus/08_Borangic.pdf

As we in our groups reenact dacians we used also the weapons, is pretty easy to take a hold on a shiled with them, going to the neck /back or below the shield is also a possibility, there remains only the 2 handed use that lets the wielder unprotected. i ask myself how were thy coping with a pila volley....

[diegis]

Hi Guys,

Well, the handle is the length based on the reliefs, being about as long as the blade. At an overall length of 100 cm, it has a good reach. With the right hand positioned about 20 cm below the blade and the left holding the base, a fulcrum motion in hitting is possible, lending great strength to the hit. If a gladius was fitted with a 50 cm handle, the same would apply.

The falx is not really a weapon to "kill equipment" like splitting a shield, it is intended to inflict grevious bodily harm. The curved point allows for hitting over a shield into the lower arms or face of those holding it. The curve may also be used to pull the shield away. Because of it's length combined with the mass, it is a matter of battlefield physics to see how much damage it would inflict. I do not think it would actually split a helmet, but the dent incured would cave in the skull beneath. Bit hard on your cutting edge, though. Also, drawing a curved blade back into the cut will cut arm- and legmuscles and tendons to the bone. You are not going anywhere in a hurry after such a slash.

Half a pig does represent the best immitation of hitting an unarmored human, as it has skin, flesh and bone, allowing for good evaluation of cutting power

Hi Robert

The Falx looks quite nice, and I just wait for the results of those tests.
I am not sure about the cutting the pig in half, as the shape of the blade may be problematic with that.
My opinion is that falx was a specialized sword (evolved from a family of less or more curved blades as Sica or Romphaia, maybe having at its origins some agriculture tool, but I saw opinions that was inspired by animal claws and is a very old shape made at first at the end of neolithic) used as you said, to pass by the shield and hit the enemy with the tip of it from above. A good hit will probably penetrate the helmet and the skull or at least produce a cerebral comotion strong enough to incapacitate the enemy, at least for a while (like knock him out).
Another use was to cut the legs and tendons in a kind of schythe like move, in the case the enemy rise too much the shield/scutum to protect himself of an above hit. Or, to cut his arm with the sword.
I think the shape, lenght and mass allowed the tip to penetrate deep, followed after that by a slashing and ripping move if it hit the body.
Basically you can use it in an axe like hit, with the tip producing the damage, or in a scythe like move, with the sharpened inner curvature slicing the flesh and tendons, and if strong enough cutting the bones too (I think everyone saw that pics with that guy cutting a shield in two, such a hit will surely cut a bone too, easily).

Dio Cassius said that at battle of Tapae (101 AD) Romans suffered such many casualties that even Trajan needed to tore his imperial toga to make bandages for soldiers.
Tapae is a narrow place where soldiers was pushing one to another and as Romans was well protected by armours (various types of "lorica", helmets and the big scutum shields) it looks like falxes (or other types of curved blade weapons) worked well. Fronto wrote soon after, when he mentioned about the campaign of Trajan in Parthia, that Romans doesnt care about Parthian arrows after grevious wounds they suffered from Dacian curved swords.
So I am sure any hit of that falx provoked very nasty wounds and in some circumstances even the armours and shield didnt protected the soldiers. Maybe save the lives of some, but the wounds was incapacitating and terryfing

[diegis]

What was that other kind of sword the Germanics used this era? You made one recently. I think it also started with an F...

Only that Dacians were not Germanic.

Anyhow is a nice work, I posted a link to a paper with falxes earlier
www.cclbsebes.ro/docs/sebus/08_Borangic.pdf

As we in our groups reenact dacians we used also the weapons, is pretty easy to take a hold on a shiled with them, going to the neck /back or below the shield is also a possibility, there remains only the 2 handed use that lets the wielder unprotected. i ask myself how were thy coping with a pila volley....

It is very possible that falxmen (at least some if not all) to wear a chain mail shirt or even a helmet (I think at Adamclisi there is one with a simple round helmet). Is possible that on the Column (and even Adamclisi) Romans depicted the Dacians in a more traditional manner, and not equiped with armours and such, either to show their inferiority either (more probably) to not confuse the viewers, as both armies will look too similar equiped with armors and such. They did depict however some chainmail and scale armours, as well some helmets, among the trophies, and combined with some archeological discoveries it is sure that Dacians used armours as well, at a quite significant scale

So is possible that falxmen formed a more specialized category of troops, entering in battle after first clash of the lines.
The first line (equiped more traditional with single handed swords and with shields) would then step back after a short first contact and let the falxmen to break the ranks of the enemies, bypassing their shields, and then slip through that "holes" formed in the enemy shield wall and move futher.
In this way the Romans wouldnt be able to throw their pilla at unshielded enemies.

[ParthianBow]

Robert is making me a falx too. I can't wait to receive it! :-)

[M. Demetrius]

So is possible that falxmen formed a more specialized category of troops, entering in battle after first clash of the lines.

Lots of things are possible, and concerning the Column and Adamklissi monuments' sculptures, the consensus is that TC was carved by artists who had probably never seen that many Roman field soldiers, and likely no "enemies of Rome" in their natural, indigenous settings. They were working from descriptions, which may be why some of the scenes are not correct according to the archeological and other records. Examples include Roman auxiliary tunics that are the length of modern T-shirts, very unusual lorica segmentata, et al. It could be that the depictions of the enemy soldiers were done is such a way as to make them easily distinguishable, since much of the column is hard to view from the ground level.

It has been a while since I looked at all the length of the Column's art, but I don't remember any falxmen with armor. All that come to mind are shirtless. Can you find a section that shows falxmen wearing linked ring armor? I'd like to see that, just to set the record straight. I'm not arguing, just asking.

Conversely, Adamklissi is said to have been carved by soldier-artisans who were still in the field. Their renderings of armor and weapons seem to be much more like the artifacts we've found. The general consensus is that we can agree with what's shown there as being fairly accurate, with the obvious variations that are due to the medium. Such as spear shafts that are scaled up to 4 or 5 cm, hamata with rings the size of golf balls--that's artistic license. If they tried to carve 6mm rings in every person depicted, they'd probably still be carving. But the shape of the armor shirt itself is correct.

So, for example, when the Adamklissi metopes show something a certain way, it's safer to say "that's how it was", When Trajan's Column shows things, it's safer to say, "This is a general representation, not an archeological drawing".

[Dan Howard]

Would there be any chance of this not devolving into yet another Romanian protochronism debate? Would it be possible to discuss the subject of this thread without all the pseudo-scholastic nationalistic rubbish that gets dumped on readers every time the Dacians are mentioned on this site?

It is a wonderful reconstruction. Byron is a lucky guy. It might be possible to determine if the falx was just a pruning hook. Perhaps we could see if it performs any better than some of the other two-handed agricultural tools in use at the time. Another theory is that the falx was the tool and the rhomphia was the weaponised version of it. A comparison between the performance of these two blades would be excellent too.

[diegis]

So is possible that falxmen formed a more specialized category of troops, entering in battle after first clash of the lines.

Lots of things are possible, and concerning the Column and Adamklissi monuments' sculptures, the consensus is that TC was carved by artists who had probably never seen that many Roman field soldiers, and likely no "enemies of Rome" in their natural, indigenous settings. They were working from descriptions, which may be why some of the scenes are not correct according to the archeological and other records. Examples include Roman auxiliary tunics that are the length of modern T-shirts, very unusual lorica segmentata, et al. It could be that the depictions of the enemy soldiers were done is such a way as to make them easily distinguishable, since much of the column is hard to view from the ground level.

It has been a while since I looked at all the length of the Column's art, but I don't remember any falxmen with armor. All that come to mind are shirtless. Can you find a section that shows falxmen wearing linked ring armor? I'd like to see that, just to set the record straight. I'm not arguing, just asking.

Conversely, Adamklissi is said to have been carved by soldier-artisans who were still in the field. Their renderings of armor and weapons seem to be much more like the artifacts we've found. The general consensus is that we can agree with what's shown there as being fairly accurate, with the obvious variations that are due to the medium. Such as spear shafts that are scaled up to 4 or 5 cm, hamata with rings the size of golf balls--that's artistic license. If they tried to carve 6mm rings in every person depicted, they'd probably still be carving. But the shape of the armor shirt itself is correct.

So, for example, when the Adamklissi metopes show something a certain way, it's safer to say "that's how it was", When Trajan's Column shows things, it's safer to say, "This is a general representation, not an archeological drawing".

No, I said that among the trophies represented on the Column, at the base of the Column, there are couple armours (chainmail and scale armor), some helmets, as well weapons (including falxes as far as I remember, dont have time now to search for the images).
Those are made after the real things that was brought to Rome as war trophies, and as the craftsmen that made the Column was supposedly even better then those from Adamclisi I suppose they depicted more realistic the real things they seen or handle (weapons, armours, shields, helmets etc).
There isnt any Dacian as far as I know (falxmen or other soldiers) that is depicted as wearing armour (there is one with a helmet I think, at Adamclisi, and another one with a Sica on the Column, wearing as well a helmet) but is logical to assume that they use those armors (seeing some archeological discoveries too).
And the reason they wasnt depicted wearing them was indeed to not confuse the viewers (some details was harder to see, many were civilians with probably little knowledge of armors and weapons of the enemies, so the bigger the differences the better). I saw as well that they was suppsoedly painted too, in different colors so again to make a difference as clear as possible (unfortunately the paint was gone over time).
But as falxmen didnt used a shield they (or at least some of them) probably wear some sort of protection, like a chainmail shirt.

[Robert]

Although the falx may very well have started out life as a pruning hook, I do believe it became a weapon in it's own right. It has been found in warriors graves along with other weapons. I have several pictures of pruning hooks of the Roman era from musea (Xanten has a good few on display) and these are a lot smaller. There is no need for a pruninghook to be 60 cm long over the back. That is a lot of blade for cutting a branch. So in all likelyhood the falx as we know it from both iconography and the archeological record is a true weapon.

The Rhomphaia is near straight, if bent, it is a slight curve. It this manner, it could also be used for stabbing, as a supplement to a slash. That one is still on the list of oncoming projects I would like to do at some stage :-)

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, from my limited understanding of Roman equipment didn't the Romans fit cross braces in imperial helmets after the Dacian wars due to soldiers wartime experience against the falx.
Just on previous comments on the differences between Trajan's Column and Adamklissi. I thought whereas TC was erected to glorify Trajan's achievements as emperor, Adamklissi was built more as a memorial to the soldiers who fought in the campaign. More a representation of a war of extermination with no quarter given by either side a lot like the Aurelian Column regarding the Marcomannic wars about 70 years later. Apologies for drifting off topic.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Robert]

Oh yes, certainly, so not off topic at all. I believe the main reason for the fitting of the crossbands is because this type of poleweapon curving over the shield would have a large impact on the helmet. The crossbands were designed to not allow the blade purchase to drive the helmet inwards and causing it to glance of. The crossbands would not help agains a direct hit with the point, though.

[Dan Howard]

Hi, from my limited understanding of Roman equipment didn't the Romans fit cross braces in imperial helmets after the Dacian wars due to soldiers wartime experience against the falx.

That is just an assumption that some have made because the encounters with the falx and the equipment modifications occurred within the same century or so. There is no real evidence to support the theory. Nobody has even attempted to see if there are any differences in the ability of both kinds of helmets to resist the falx (another cool experiment for Byron to think about).

[Robert]

Hitting iron helmets, even much more authentic types then the welded sheet iron Indian bowls, is VERY hard on blades. So best do this experiment last. And make sure there is no ridgid mounting of the helmet, to mimic the bending or snapping of the neck of the guy who is wearing the helmet.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Great progress on my Falx from Robert, hot off the press.
Ben, I think you are in for a nice surprise too!

Dan, yes, all these are on my mind.....how eager I will be to do it in reality
once I get it is another matter!! 8-)

But yes, the logical theory was they made these mods to the helmets during the war, not after, although when I see the helmets wit hthe flat plate type cross pieces, I can't help wonder if this was just a fashion statement after the fact.....
The field modified ones were quite crude.
[attachment=7278]100_3606.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7279]100_3608.jpg[/attachment]