Dacian Falx

[diegis]

Have you forgotten ? “Falx’ means any curved bladed weapon or tool. ANY !! As you can see from Trajan’s column and the Inscriptions of Dacian units in Britain, ALL ‘falxes’/curved blades depicted as used by Dacians are ‘single handed swords/daggers = sicas.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Dacians used the two-handed hedging hook/slashing hook/reed cutter tool as a makeshift weapon – they could afford ‘proper’ swords !

Oh boy, here we go again :lol: I already posted images with Dacians using the two handed swords from Adamclisi metopes, and a Falx blade found near Sarmisegetuza have engraved a solar symbol on the blade, also find on many Sica blades, considered a mystical protection symbol (i already posted the image several times, as well the article with Falxes)

Quite wrong.

Adolf Furtwangler ( the famous German historian ) considered as long ago as 1897(!!!) that the Adamklissi monument depicted defeat of the Bastarnae people

Sir Ian Richmond ( one of the world’s leading archaeologists) pointed out as long ago as 1960 in a lecture delivered to various prominent bodies, that there were three different ethnic groups portrayed on the crenellations as prisoners – Dacians, Sarmatians and Germanic ( who can only realistically be Bastarnae). He also described the metopes, and that all the fighting scenes showed Romans fighting the ‘Germanic barbarians’/Bastarnae.

Lepper and Frere ( 1988), the current foremost work on Trajan’s column and the Dacian Wars considered all possibilities (including the Romanian archaeologist Florescu, who thought they were Dacians) and concluded that Furtwangler and Richmond were right and that they were Bastarnae.

Since you probably have access to mainly Romanian works, who may have followed Florescu’s ( demonstrably incorrect) line, it is understandable that you believe this. Nevertheless the rest of the German-speaking and English- speaking scholars who have studied the subject have concluded for over 100 years that the Germanic barbarians shown on the Adamklissi monument are almost certainly Bastarnae, and are certainly NOT Dacian.

Well, if i remember correct Mommsen considered first time he saw the Traian Column that is about Romans vs Germans, but we know nowthat is Romans vs Dacians. Back then (XIX century, early XX century) it was little know about Dacians, and was an era of romantic nationalism when peoples believe their ancestors and nation is above any others.
Lepper and Frere (which i must admit i dont know what they write about the Adamclisi) i dont think have knowledge at that time (1988) about archeological discoveries of Falxes, and i posted an article from 2000's, of a romanian scholar who dealt with them, i dont think is needed to repeat it again.
It is your choice to believe an XIX century german scholar or couple english-speaking ones, as its my choice to believe some XX and XXI scholars who said the contrary.
And please stop mentioning that only Bastarnae are depicted on Adamclisi, is clearly not true (as we both posted images and the diferences betwen various peoples there are prety clear, so its not just one type or ethnicity). Its like following Goebbels advice, as if you repeat a thing long enough, at some point many peoples will believe is true.
National History Museum here consider anyway that germanic Buri (same name with Dacian Buri) are the ones who fight at Adamclisi, not the Bastarnae, and the "wagon scene" depicted on Traian Column apear at battle from Nicopolis ad Istrum, not Adamclisi, and in those images there is not any Bastarnae around, but mostly Dacians. I dont have much time now, but i have somewhere the images to post them.

Those pictures you have posted, and all the other metopes show the chopper-wielders being slaughtered and they and their families are massacred!

If we go on the evidence of the Adamklissi monuments (more than one) and the small amount of evidence we have of Trajan’s Wars, the Peucini branch of the Bastarnae were heavily defeated and probably suffered Genocide, though they recovered to be a small part of tribal coalitions later against the Romans, in Marcus Aurelius’ reign and later as part of the Gothic coalition.

I am baffled by this assumption that the two-handed-extemporised-tool-used-as-a- weapon, with a curved blade and therefore called in modern times, a type of “falx”/curve blade was “effective”. (There is no evidence that the two-handed thing was given this or any other name by the Romans)

The so-called “Falx” ( a term ONLY used in modern times to refer to the tool used as a weapon on the Adamklissi metopes), going on such evidence as we have, was such an abject failure that, so far as we know, it never appeared on the battlefield again, having been tried just once !!

Romans gived the name Falx to all Dacian curved blades (possibly not to Sica, which was already well known). You have no direct prouve to consider the two handed weapons from Adamclisi as simple tools, but there is at least one direct evidence who point that Falx as we know them (2 handed swords) was indeeed battle swords.
As well Romans considered the Dacian curved swords quite very efective (if we see Fronto, and the fact that romans reinforced their helmets during this period, and very probably introduced on large scale the arms and legs protection).