The "Myth" of the "Dacian Falx" as a super weapon

[sitalkes]

... the assertion is made more than once in its course, that the 'falx' was such a deadly 'super-weapon', ... This view has gained acceptance particularly among wargamers and re-enactors, and others interested in Trajan's Dacian Wars, and was first put forward by Phil Barker (in the UK) around 1970.

Must be why I've never come across it, if it's a wargamers' hobby-horse. Thanks for putting that straight.

Under WRG 6th & 7th edition (and "Warrior") rules the falx was categorised as a "Two Handed Cutting Weapon" which was a good all-round weapon. It was not as good as a pilum + sword against infantry, or a long spear vs cavalry, but had a chance against them even if they were armoured and it was great fun to have a weapon in this class as it always did huge amounts of damage to both its owners and its targets. Thus it was a super weapon as it tore holes in the ranks of both players and inspired the imagination. Subsequent rule sets (eg DBM, FoG) have downgraded this weapon class and it is no longer regarded as a super weapon even by wargamers. Under DBM it is classed as a "Blade" which is the same as a pilum+sword (though usually other factors make it inferior overall). DBM lists also often subsumed that type of weapon into the "superior auxilia" category, which was alwyas an average troop type and never a super troop. Under FoG the Dacian army lists allow much fewer falx-armed troops (and they are mainly Bastarnae). The FoG rules make the falx a very chancy weapon to use, with about an equal possibility of a win and a loss in most circumstances - an average weapon, not a super weapon.