03-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Quote:1. In respect of the same era, does the presence of segmentata fittings in so-called auxiliary forts prove that auxilia wore segmentata? In the absence of corroborating evidence, one would have to say no.....there are other possible explanations....same here !
It's not conclusive in any way, but then again neither the omission of details in the Adamklissi metopes (for instance, where are the elite Dacian cavalry that we find so much archaeological evidence for?). It certainly points to use amongst the Dacians, which is what one would expect anyway. I think it is kind of ridiculous to classify "sicae" and "falxes" as two separate types of weaponry, anyway. As archaeology shows, examples of lengths in between the two were in use.
Quote:2.One hears of this, but are these unequivocal two-handed falxes, or merely sica? Even if they are, refer to point one.....
These are close to a meter in length, like the largest examples from the Adamklissi examples and the one on the base of Trajan's column, but as above, I think it's wrong to argue that Dacians used sicae but not falxes. Both were probably used in varying sizes.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
