The Falx

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I agree with that!

[Ironhand]

Attempting to disable a shield with an edge is risky no matter the power of the weapon. If that is your goal I recommend an ax-hammer such as became popular later on. Just because it could potentially cut through a shield doesn't necessarily mean that was its purpose or the way it was typically used. There are a lot of options where it could have been used. A lot of blades could potentially cut through a shield, but it has always been dangerous to do so. For one reason being that Romans no doubt knew how to counter any attempted shield cut and make it dangerous much like later warriors did. I think a lot of the assumption is that since the weapon was very powerful and armour had to be introduced and modified that the falx was used like the cleaver it resembles, but it doesn't have to be the case and even if so could be used for specialized purposes and strategically on the battlefield and not just guys spaced randomly across the battlefield swinging wildly with cleavers.

[brennivs - tony drake]

If you read the history the first Dacian campaign was a bit of stale mate hence the truce,hostige given ect. If you think of the Roman side the amount of troops comeing from the campaign with limbs missing was very high and must have played on the minds of the Senate and plebs. While on the Dacian side they were prepared for high casualtys, in there eyes the more troops you can send home that cannot stand or pick up a sword would be more visual in Rome.This they hoped would make the public turn against the war and then the Romans would withdraw, just look at today :?: You can always bury dead soldiers and know one would know :?: Under Trajan, when it kicked of again he must have thought long and hard about this, and brought together minds on the best way forward and top of the agender must have been the high amount of soldiers ending up limbless. The solution being to turn the troops into tanks and with training to stop the Dacians from using these swords to there advantage. Without going on to much the rest is history.
Regards Brennivs

[Paullus Scipio]

Nice theory, Brennius, but there are a couple of factors that militate against this.

1. Dacians are never shown depicted with the two-handed falx. ( so therefore likely never used it).
It is only ever shown wielded by Germano/Celtic/Thracian Bastarnae tribesmen, who, along with the Sarmatian Rox-Alani appear as Allies of the Dacians

2. The use of manica, greaves etc is now known (via archaeological finds)not to have been restricted to the Dacian campaigns, but appears for example in Britain, and so appears to have been in general use, rather than a specific solution to to a particular problem......

3.Most Roman soldiers (whether auxiliary or legionary) in Trajan's time did not come from Rome itself, but rather the provinces - the only wounded who might put in an appearance in Rome itself would be wounded Praetorians.....

4.Trajan's First Dacian war did not, according to our sources, end in a "draw", but rather the un-conditional surrender of Decebalus - he came and sued (successfully) for peace, agreed to hand over arms, engines and engineers, surrender deserters, dismantle forts, relinquish all territory taken ( previously, down to the reign of Domitian), to be a friend and ally of Rome ( which implied a variety of obligations), and not to try and enlist troops from within Rome's territories. Trajan duly celebrated a 'Triumph' which was contrasted with the 'phony' triumphs of Domitian...
In return, Dacia was left intact ( apart from some occupying garrisons). Trajan seems to have wanted to remove an enemy and create a "friendly" border/buffer state at this stage........the conquest of the Second War came about because Decebalus continued open hostility, and broke the treaty.....

"Myth" busted ??? wink: :wink:

[brennivs - tony drake]

Thanks for the history Pavllvs, But I was asking everyone to read the history and all your points are correct D
Regards Brennivs

[MeinPanzer]

Nice theory, Brennius, but there are a couple of factors that militate against this.

1. Dacians are never shown depicted with the two-handed falx. ( so therefore likely never used it).
It is only ever shown wielded by Germano/Celtic/Thracian Bastarnae tribesmen, who, along with the Sarmatian Rox-Alani appear as Allies of the Dacians

As has been stated in the other thread on the falx in Allies & Enemies of Rome, actual examples of falxes have been found in Dacian hillforts, so it was almost certainly not just a weapon of the allies in this case.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:-

As has been stated in the other thread on the falx in Allies & Enemies of Rome, actual examples of falxes have been found in Dacian hillforts, so it was almost certainly not just a weapon of the allies in this case.

...... two points spring to mind.....

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 !

2.One hears of this, but are these unequivocal two-handed falxes, or merely sica? Even if they are, refer to point one.....

[MeinPanzer]

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.

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.

[Paullus Scipio]

Certainly a difficult one to be certain either way, but a parallel with the rhomphaia from the same region springs to mind..........the weapon was certainly in use but apparently restricted in time and space to certain peoples, and not in widespread, or general, use among the peoples of the region.
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)

While varying sizes were doubtless in use, as per the archaeology, it would be wrong to totally ignore the iconographic evidence.....at least until better evidence comes along. :? ?

[diegis]

Well, the falx i believe was one of the weapons of this kind, like a curved blade, on diferent sizes, with a handle of diferent sizes, and who was specifical to dacians. Romans themselves named such weapons as dacian, and at Adamclisi, is not yet certainly wich is the dacians and wich their allies ( there is still controverses ). Falx swords, as we agree about them ( a big curved blade, and a big handle for both hands, but, as in another thread was show, there was too one handed falx ) was only found in dacians archeological sites. Maybe dacians give such weapons to their allies ( as roman gived spatha for examples to their ), who knows, but for sure is a dacian weapon. The fact it was used in small amounts, and "disapear" after roman wars show, for me, the fact that was a weapon created to breake the roman wall shield, used mainly like a schyte, to cut legs, or as a kind of hammer, with the top hitting the enemy head, over the shield, depending of scutum position. Other kind of hits was posible ( as cutting even the shield, remember, a person from that times, who work in the woods to cut trees since childhood, have the skill and power to do such hits, thus i think it was not done too often in battle ), or hook the shield and pull, to imbalance the enemy and make him more vulnerable on some direction of hit, or hits over the scutum edges, to damage arms.

[Donciorate]

The idea comes to mind that if they are found in hill forts then they could have been used as a type of siege breaking weapon. If a man is trying to scale the walls wearing roman armor he is pretty well protected but with a hooked blade you can reach past neck guards and under shoulder plates to inflict damage from above.

[MeinPanzer]

Certainly a difficult one to be certain either way, but a parallel with the rhomphaia from the same region springs to mind..........the weapon was certainly in use but apparently restricted in time and space to certain peoples, and not in widespread, or general, use among the peoples of the region.

I'm not so sure about the rhomphaia finding restricted use chronologically. Its minimum lifespan was from the late 4th C. BC (earliest actual examples) until the 1st C. AD (Valerius Flaccus' mention in Argonautica, though this perhaps could be referring to falxes).

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?

While varying sizes were doubtless in use, as per the archaeology, it would be wrong to totally ignore the iconographic evidence.....at least until better evidence comes along. :? ?

I would argue that it is dangerous to place too much emphasis on the iconographic evidence, especially since the iconographic evidence in this case is two monuments created by foreigner observers relating to a single campaign.

[brennivs - tony drake]

The point about the Manica I looked up the find in the UK from Carlise is dated to 105 AD - 140AD, this could be from a soldier posted to Brittania and brought it with him. it was a bit late to look up until today I have the newspaper cuttings and a report somewhere. The other find is from Bowes and I think dated to late 3RD-4TH AD.
It may have been a private bought item by the troops under Domitian along with the greaves before Trajan may have made it a general issue Item.
Regards Brennnivs

[Tarbicus]

especially since the iconographic evidence in this case is two monuments created by foreigner observers relating to a single campaign.

Huh? Where do you get this info? What are you talking about?

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:-

Its minimum lifespan was from the late 4th C. BC (earliest actual examples) until the 1st C. AD (Valerius Flaccus' mention in Argonautica, though this perhaps could be referring to falxes).

....don't you mean maximum possible lifespan - and stretching a point at that ?...after all, we only hear of its use in combat around the second C BC. And since Valerius Flaccus 1st C AD reference is to Bastarnae with a blade and wooden shaft the same length, that reference can hardly be anything other than a Falx

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)

I would argue that it is dangerous to place too much emphasis on the iconographic evidence, especially since the iconographic evidence in this case is two monuments created by foreigner observers relating to a single campaign.

...well, like so many things 'ancient' the evidence is scanty, and as I said, subject to change...but for now, we have those two monuments which show only Bastarnae with Falx and never Dacians, Valerius Flaccus' reference to Bastarnae and some archaeological finds which confirm the existence of the weapons (exactly as shown on the monuments, which must say something about their accuracy ) , but tell us nothing about how they came to be in the archaeological record ( e.g. gathered up by Roman troops after the campaign and taken to forts for disposal? c.f. rounding up weapons after the Jacobite rebellions, or 'the Great Sword Hunt' in Japan) or who carried them..... :? (

So, what evidence we do have points to Falx-armed Bastarnae, and zero, nil, no evidence at all for it ever being carried by Dacians ( other than the accident of some archaeological finds, which can't even be said to raise a strong possibility, for reasons set out here.....)

On balance of probability therefore, Bastarnae used Falxes, Dacians did not. QED! D

Tony, don't forget the Newstead manica also, originally thought to be a thigh defence by Russell-Robinson.