The Falx

[diegis]

On the principle that one picture is worth a thousand words, here are the three 'racial types' shown on the Column and the Tropaeum...as can be seen, they are quite distinctive...
My apologies for the quality.

Yes, you are right about that principle, so why you denie the using of falx by dacians, even i presented you images, were the falxmen was presented as dacians ( and not by our comunists, but by foreign historians ) i still dont understand.

[Paullus Scipio]

Diegis/Anton wrote:-

This is why i said that Roxolans acted coordinated by Dacians.

.....I don't think one anecdote from Pliny demonstrates this at all.
Earlier, the Sarmatians were referred to as 'subordinated', now they are 'co-ordinated'....which, as independent Allies you would expect, so I agree.

( who, btw., is not general accepted, is just a view of some scholars, i dont know why you keep say that is 100 % agree by all historians ? )

.....maybe not generally accepted in Romania, but elsewhere it is a general consensus, as I stated.....and I did not say "100%". If you read my posts here and elsewhere I am usually careful to emphasise 'probably' rather than 'definitely', 'most' rather than 'all'....

Yes, all peoples wear, at a moment, a cap, or a head cover ( as helmets, or something ), but that specifical kind of hat was weared just by dacian nobles, beeing present not just at Adamclisi, but on Traian Column and at dacian statues who can still be seen on Constantin the Great Arch of Triumph, or some today italian museums ( at Florence and even Vatican ). There is no doubt at all, who is the peoples represented wearing that kind of cap.

....except that the 'skullcap' worn by Bastarnae bears no resemblance to the 'Pannonian' type cap shown on Dacian Pileati ! They are not even the same kind of headwear ! This is simply illogical to make such an intangible point and claim that clearly depicted Bastarnae must be Dacians because of the fact that some of both wear headgear/caps, though of completely different types ! :roll:

you try somehow, but in a childish way, to denie that.

.....personal insults have no place here on RAT ! :evil: :twisted:
RAT is mercifully 'flame free'....let's keep it that way. D

[diegis]

Diegis/Anton wrote:-
[quote]This is why i said that Roxolans acted coordinated by Dacians.

.....I don't think one anecdote from Pliny demonstrates this at all.
Earlier, the Sarmatians were referred to as 'subordinated', now they are 'co-ordinated'....which, as independent Allies you would expect, so I agree.

( who, btw., is not general accepted, is just a view of some scholars, i dont know why you keep say that is 100 % agree by all historians ? )

.....maybe not generally accepted in Romania, but elsewhere it is a general consensus, as I stated.....and I did not say "100%". If you read my posts here and elsewhere I am usually careful to emphasise 'probably' rather than 'definitely', 'most' rather than 'all'....

Yes, all peoples wear, at a moment, a cap, or a head cover ( as helmets, or something ), but that specifical kind of hat was weared just by dacian nobles, beeing present not just at Adamclisi, but on Traian Column and at dacian statues who can still be seen on Constantin the Great Arch of Triumph, or some today italian museums ( at Florence and even Vatican ). There is no doubt at all, who is the peoples represented wearing that kind of cap.

....except that the 'skullcap' worn by Bastarnae bears no resemblance to the 'Pannonian' type cap shown on Dacian Pileati ! They are not even the same kind of headwear ! This is simply illogical to make such an intangible point and claim that clearly depicted Bastarnae must be Dacians because of the fact that some of both wear headgear/caps, though of completely different types ! :roll:

you try somehow, but in a childish way, to denie that.

.....personal insults have no place here on RAT ! :evil: :twisted:
RAT is mercifully 'flame free'....let's keep it that way. D lol: . Well, the images on the site i present you show clearly falx warriors wearing the "phrygian" ( not "panonian", again, i dont know why you named like that, it looks like your knowledges is not that extended in this matter ? ) type of cap, who is specific to dacian "tarabostes" ( or "pileati" ), dacian nobles, the same represented in other monuments as well, and have nothing to do with bastarnae. About Plinius, it was not an anecdote, but a letter send to Traian, where he spoke about that Calinderos, arrested in Nicomedia, and who speake about him, and in wich circumstances he was at Pacorus, Calinderos beeing send as well to Traian. I consider that a source in the favour of what i said. Well, sometimes, i believe you have something against dacians, and try to diminsh their realizations or importance, i dont know why ? You critisize both romanian historiography ( even if is the one who deal it the most with dacians and they wars with romans ) and foreign historians who said anything related with the subject, but not acording with your views. I still wait to present just 3-4 errors from that book ( wich is not writed by comunists infested by Ceausescu, some 30 years ago ).

[Magnus]

Gentlemen, please let me point out that a stubborn mountain can't be moved. If you've presented your point as best you can, and the other side will not acknowledge it...there's not much else you can do. 8)

[Paullus Scipio]

Ah, you misunderstand, Magnus....I am well aware that no-one who argues a point is generally prepared to shift.
The purpose of the 'posts' and 'debate' is not to try and convince the other guy ( immovable, as you say ), but rather to set out different points of view so that the audience can read and make up their own minds..........

Diegis/Anton wrote:-

I hope you will not try now to cross your gladius with my dacian falx

.....sica perhaps! No Dacian is shown with a two-handed falx! :lol: :lol:

Well, the images on the site i present you show clearly falx warriors wearing the "phrygian" ( not "panonian", again, i dont know why you named like that, it looks like your knowledges is not that extended in this matter ? ) type of cap, who is specific to dacian "tarabostes" ( or "pileati" ), dacian nobles, the same represented in other monuments as well, and have nothing to do with bastarnae.

My error.....a slip of the fingers !! :oops: Dacian tarabostes/pileati wear "Phrygian" caps, not the cylindrical type worn by late Romans and called 'Pannonian'. However, I have clear images of all the Adamklissi metopes and no phrygian caps are shown on any of the metopes. I suspect you have mis-interpreted some showing hair tied back smoothly, with a suebian knot, as 'phrygian caps', and although many of the metopes are damaged, they are clear enough on this point. Similarly, none of the Bastarnae on the column wear 'phrygian caps'.
Even if they were, your argument is wrong, because 'phrygian caps' were not unique to Dacians - as the name alone tells you - such caps being widespread in the Mediterranean world at this time.

Well, sometimes, i believe you have something against dacians, and try to diminsh their realizations or importance, i dont know why ?

Not at all, indeed I'm very fond of them ! Trajan's wars are one of my favourite subjects.....and the Dacians. Equally, one doesn't want to attribute to them something ( the two-handed falx) for which there is simply no credible evidence.
Unfortunately, lazy and unthinking writers have simply copied this 'myth', often not even realising that the Bastarnae were not a Dacian tribe and were independent ( most likely), and that only they are ever depicted with the two-handed falx.

Digression: someone suggested the falx could be used to 'hook' a shield rim, but a look at the weapon quickly shows it to have far too shallow a curve to be used in this way... 8)

[Magnus]

Ah, you misunderstand, Magnus....I am well aware that no-one who argues a point is generally prepared to shift.
The purpose of the 'posts' and 'debate' is not to try and convince the other guy ( immovable, as you say ), but rather to set out different points of view so that the audience can read and make up their own minds..........

No....actually I don't misunderstand. What I said was entirely accurate. I've seen plenty people shift their view points. At least ones with open minds. What you're describing is a documentary, where there is no involvement from the audience. This is rather different. Were you or the other participants only presenting facts or passages from ancient texts, then I'd agree with you. However, the facts you and others present are coupled with your opinons and also your personal conclusions. So in essence, you are also debating those points of view as you say...in which case the audience is getting more than just the facts.

Which brings me back to my point...points of view can prove to be stubborn. Which will turn any thread into a quagmire of circular information which is no longer in a useful format.

[Tarbicus]

You know, it's an interesting thread, as the accepted and almost exclusive Dacian use of the falx could be a classic example of, "Well, it just is, isn't it. Everyone says so, and has done for a long time."

Is there a specific reference in the primary sources to the Dacians using the falx? A quick search on Bill Thayer's website shows falx just means sickle or a similar instrument, and its use extends all the way back to the Greeks and Assyrians, and even inside Roman siege engines inside a testudo, like the asseres falcati (dragging hook for dislodging stones?) at Ambracia and the Dacian Wars.

The Geleni were noted for its use (Claudian, De Laud. Stil. I.110). It was the weapon with which Jupiter wounded Typhon (Apollod. I.6); with which Hercules slew the Lernaean Hydra (Eurip. Ion. 191); and with which Mercury cut off the head of Argus (falcato ense, Ovid, Met. I.718; harpen Cyllenida, Lucan, IX.662‑667). Perseus, having received the same weapon from Mercury, or, according to other authorities, from Vulcan, used it to decapitate Medusa and to slay the sea-monster (Apollod. II.4; Eratosth., Cataster. 22; Ovid, Met. IV.666, 720, 727, V.69; Brunck, Anal. III.157). From the passages now referred to, we may conclude that the falchion was a weapon of the most remote antiquity; that it was girt like a dagger upon the waist; that it was held in the hand by a short hilt; and that, as it was in fact a dagger or sharp-pointed blade, with a proper falx projecting from one side, it was thrust into the flesh up to this lateral curvature (curvo tenus abdidit hamo).

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /Falx.html

This Romanian page on the falx has the following quote: http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistor ... /arma.html
[quote]The shorter variant was called “Sicaâ€

[diegis]

Ah, you misunderstand, Magnus....I am well aware that no-one who argues a point is generally prepared to shift.
The purpose of the 'posts' and 'debate' is not to try and convince the other guy ( immovable, as you say ), but rather to set out different points of view so that the audience can read and make up their own minds..........

Diegis/Anton wrote:-

I hope you will not try now to cross your gladius with my dacian falx

.....sica perhaps! No Dacian is shown with a two-handed falx! :lol: :lol:

Well, the images on the site i present you show clearly falx warriors wearing the "phrygian" ( not "panonian", again, i dont know why you named like that, it looks like your knowledges is not that extended in this matter ? ) type of cap, who is specific to dacian "tarabostes" ( or "pileati" ), dacian nobles, the same represented in other monuments as well, and have nothing to do with bastarnae.

My error.....a slip of the fingers !! :oops: Dacian tarabostes/pileati wear "Phrygian" caps, not the cylindrical type worn by late Romans and called 'Pannonian'. However, I have clear images of all the Adamklissi metopes and no phrygian caps are shown on any of the metopes. I suspect you have mis-interpreted some showing hair tied back smoothly, with a suebian knot, as 'phrygian caps', and although many of the metopes are damaged, they are clear enough on this point. Similarly, none of the Bastarnae on the column wear 'phrygian caps'.
Even if they were, your argument is wrong, because 'phrygian caps' were not unique to Dacians - as the name alone tells you - such caps being widespread in the Mediterranean world at this time.

Well, sometimes, i believe you have something against dacians, and try to diminsh their realizations or importance, i dont know why ?

Not at all, indeed I'm very fond of them ! Trajan's wars are one of my favourite subjects.....and the Dacians. Equally, one doesn't want to attribute to them something ( the two-handed falx) for which there is simply no credible evidence.
Unfortunately, lazy and unthinking writers have simply copied this 'myth', often not even realising that the Bastarnae were not a Dacian tribe and were independent ( most likely), and that only they are ever depicted with the two-handed falx.

8)

Well, it seems we have diferent views on this matter, and we will keep saying our point of view. In the site as present you are somewhere behind, in other post, are depicted falxmen warriors, who wear a cap who is similar with one of dacians from other monuments and they are considered dacians by foreign authors, not just romanians, contrary with your opinion that is a general view to see them as bastarnae ( wich you dont present yet any proof, nor at least 2-3 mistakes from that book, wich you just keep saying is wrong, without any prouves ). Look again to that link, and then to this statues of dacians from Italy museums . http://www.formula-as.ro/2007/759/socie ... -roma-7791 http://www.formula-as.ro/2007/759/socie ... -roma-7791 http://www.alexradescu.ro/wp-content/up ... 3/8186.jpg http://www.alexradescu.ro/wp-content/up ... /81851.jpg Yes, the cap was weared by others too ( is named "phrygian" for a reason ), but i dont think that warriors are phrygians or parthians, for ex. If you wish to see in other way, is your opinion, and i will not force you to believe otherwise. Others will choose what they think on this problem, so, if you wish, we can move to problems you find at that book, for ex.

[Timotheus]

I don't think for a moment though that a falx could cleave all the way through a scutum...more a glancing blow that then went on to hit flesh and bone is more likely the cause of the embedded wood in the bones. There's just too much resistance given the breadth of a scutum to go through that and then a target behind. In the picture tarbicus posted, Steve wound up and hit that scutum (authenticaly made in 3 layers of strips btw) and it sank in just under a foot. Steve's a solidly built guy too.

I don't think they're much of a parrying weapon...more of a shock and awe "let's make a hole in the line here" type.

I agree. When I looked at that picture I imagined that in battle the guy with the falx is not dead unless the legionaire was holding his shield very close to his body. Steve now has his weapon locked into the shield and useless and the shield holder if he didnt get hit by the bit that made it through could pull the shield to the side and stab Steve in the gut.

The falx was made to charge in hard smash away and hope for a quick bloody fight. Also it would require alot more room which means the legionaires budy may also be free to stab Steve before he things to let go of his weapon and flee.

[Tarbicus]

There seems to be a fixation about how the falx could cut through things. How about it hooking and pulling?

[Magnus]

I don't think so Jim, that's a 2 minute penalty.

[Berbescu]

Furthermore, I don't think it ridiculous to consider 'sicae' and 'falxes' two different weapon types......one is a single-handed weapon used in conjunction with a shield and in widespread use by Thracian and Illyrian peoples for centuries, and represented later as the 'Thrax' gladiator type, the other a specialised two-handed weapon used in a very limited time and space by one people only ( like the rhomphaia)

And what of the small "falxes" found? At what point did a sica become a falx? Some of the sicae depicted on the Kazanluk paintings are certainly much larger than your average sica, but are still employed one-handed. What are they classified as? What about the Thracians at the Kallinikos skirmish, who employed rhomphaiai and thureoi at the same time?

What "small falxes" are you referring to? There is a distinct stylistic difference between the sica and falx. Firstly, we should note that there are only about 5 falxes that have been found that can be verified as authentic (and another 2 or 3 that have unknown provenance and may be forgeries). As far as size, there is no intermediary. The falx is distinctly larger than the sica. As well, the form is a bit different, and the sica usually is decorated with symbols on it. The sica is a knife, not a sword.

I think that there is only one falx that appears to be 2 handed. The rest are single handed.

We don't know how wide spread the falx was. They have never been found anywhere except near the Dacian capital. If this were simply because they were all confiscated by the Romans, it wouldn't explain their absence from sites in Free Dacia. Their widespread use on Trajan's Column and the Adamklisi monument may be simply to stereotype the Dacian soldiers for the viewer to instantly recognise them. It may also have been to impress the viewer and glorify the victory of the Roman soldiers.

[Berbescu]

At what point did a sica become a falx?

Let's keep it simple shall we? .....one-handed =Sica, two-handed = Falx ( while remembering that like swords there can be an almost infinite gradation, with'bastard' and 'hand-and-a-half' swords)

Show us an example of an intermediary between a sica and a falx.

How many 2 handed falxes are there? Can you give us a reference for them? (i.e. where were they found and where are they now?)

[crandell]

Ioan, I think that Paul is simply using a different definition of "falx". If I understand correctly, he is using the term more generally to refer to several similar weapons.

I personally use it to refer specifically to the Dacian (or found in Dacia) weapon (and recommend that usage) but maybe there are other's who use it differently. Perhaps it would be more useful to simply define ones such terms at the beginning instead of arguing over terminology.

Just my 2 denari worth.

For a bit of info on another common Dacian type of sword, check out the post on link from old RAT

Otis

[Dan Z]

I know this thread is a little old, but since the subject has come up again there are a couple things I'll comment on...

First, back on page 3 there was a comment:

I'd like to make a note about the reenactment picture. Here, the scutum is firmly secured allowing the falx to cut deeply into it. However, a scutum being held by a person would give upon impact. Even if a legionary provided a stiff arm I don't think the result would be the same.

You can sort of see me in that picture standing a safe distance behind the guy with the falx. The scutum in that picture actually was not all that firmly secured; it was attached to one end of a wooden beam using a number of bungee cords. The wooden beam was resting on a base that allowed a reenactor on the other end of the beam to move the shield around a bit.

Second, the Thracian rhomphaia was brought up a couple of times. I believe Paul has already mentioned that the rhomphaia and the falx are two completely different and unrelated weapons, but I thought I would mention it again for emphasis. I've handled the falx in that picture and I have two rhomphaia of my own with which to compare it. The falx is more of an axe-like weapon and the rhomphaia is more like...well...the closest thing would be a rifle and bayonet. If you know how to use a rifle and bayonet, you know how to use a rhomphaia.