10-18-2010, 09:08 PM
Most of the fighting was done by auxilliaries, not legionaries. The tactics described are irrelevant in the majority of Dacian engagements with Roman troops.
By the time the bill saw widespread use, shields were fairly small and getting phased out of medieval battlefields. Its primary tactical use was against cavalry. The bill cannot be considered a tactical equivalent to the falx since neither of these apply to Roman legionaries.
Paul has already provided a decent argument that no armour was worn by Falxmen. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
By the time the bill saw widespread use, shields were fairly small and getting phased out of medieval battlefields. Its primary tactical use was against cavalry. The bill cannot be considered a tactical equivalent to the falx since neither of these apply to Roman legionaries.
Paul has already provided a decent argument that no armour was worn by Falxmen. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
