The Falx

[diegis]

Hmm, first of all, the Bastarnae tribe was eliminated almost entirely, in last century BC, in time of expansion of dacians under Burebista. The archeological evidences related with them disaper almost entirely after that eastern dacian campaigne ( who subded the greek cities from Black Sea as well ). They survive maybe as a small population until first century AC, beeing incorporated in dacian army in time of daco-roman wars. As well, the only falx found was in some dacian sites, no one in suposed bastarnae teritory, in any time period. As well, begining with that period ( like FRONTO say, for ex. ) until today, falx was allways considered a dacian weapon. Maybe, not imposible, such weapons was distributed to dacian allies. There is more kind of falxes types, one of them on medium size, who can be used as both one or two handed, both with or without shield, as well ones "sica" type, and the bigger ones, used without shield. But definately are a dacian weapon.

This is a interesting view of daco-roman wars, including info about falx

[Robert Vermaat]

we have those two monuments which show only Bastarnae with Falx and never Dacians.

How do we know from the monuments that they show Bastarnae?

[Paullus Scipio]

Diegis, that book you referred to is a perfect example of flawed secondary information - it is riddled with errors, and is simply a re-hash of flawed information, without any proper research carried out.
It is not correct that the Bastarnae were not around in the 1st century AD.

Robert wrote:-

How do we know from the monuments that they show Bastarnae?

....I will treat this as a serious question and answer it, though it has the ring of a mere 'doubting Thomas' about it......
Both the Column and Adamklissi were clearly designed to be "read" by their audiences, and to that end, the depictions on it had to be 'stereotypes', whether of soldiers or different peoples, which is why the same 'type' repeatedly appears. On both monuments, three distinct types of dress can be discerned that 'marry up' with the Dacians and their Bastarnae and Sarmatian allies, and are easily recognisable even to 'moderns'. The germanic Bastarnae wear what the Romans thought of as 'germanic' garb - loose trousers, bare chested, bearded and even hair tied in that most distinctive german 'Suebian knot' . Only warriors of this type wield two-handed falxes, and are quite distinct from depictions of Dacians.......This has been the accepted and settled view of scholars on the subject for well over 100 years.

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert wrote:-

How do we know from the monuments that they show Bastarnae?

....I will treat this as a serious question and answer it, though it has the ring of a mere 'doubting Thomas' about it......
Both the Column and Adamklissi were clearly designed to be "read" by their audiences, and to that end, the depictions on it had to be 'stereotypes', whether of soldiers or different peoples, which is why the same 'type' repeatedly appears. On both monuments, three distinct types of dress can be discerned that 'marry up' with the Dacians and their Bastarnae and Sarmatian allies, and are easily recognisable even to 'moderns'. The germanic Bastarnae wear what the Romans thought of as 'germanic' garb - loose trousers, bare chested, bearded and even hair tied in that most distinctive german 'Suebian knot' . Only warriors of this type wield two-handed falxes, and are quite distinct from depictions of Dacians.......This has been the accepted and settled view of scholars on the subject for well over 100 years.

Thanks Paul, it was of course meant as a serious question. The 'doubting Thomas' feeling is all your own imagination.

Ok, this makes it a lot more clear. Only one Germanic ally and we know the name.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for asking the question Robert, and answering Paul, as I was wondering too, but knew it would not be taken as a serious question... :roll: :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Weren't the 'Dacians' a conglomeration of different tribes anyway? Are we inappropriately pigeon-holing?

[diegis]

Diegis, that book you referred to is a perfect example of flawed secondary information - it is riddled with errors, and is simply a re-hash of flawed information, without any proper research carried out.
It is not correct that the Bastarnae were not around in the 1st century AD.

Robert wrote:-
[quote]How do we know from the monuments that they show Bastarnae?

....I will treat this as a serious question and answer it, though it has the ring of a mere 'doubting Thomas' about it......
Both the Column and Adamklissi were clearly designed to be "read" by their audiences, and to that end, the depictions on it had to be 'stereotypes', whether of soldiers or different peoples, which is why the same 'type' repeatedly appears. On both monuments, three distinct types of dress can be discerned that 'marry up' with the Dacians and their Bastarnae and Sarmatian allies, and are easily recognisable even to 'moderns'. The germanic Bastarnae wear what the Romans thought of as 'germanic' garb - loose trousers, bare chested, bearded and even hair tied in that most distinctive german 'Suebian knot' . Only warriors of this type wield two-handed falxes, and are quite distinct from depictions of Dacians.......This has been the accepted and settled view of scholars on the subject for well over 100 years. //home.exetel.com.au/bmboats/dacians.htm">http://home.exetel.com.au/bmboats/dacians.htm The fact that warriors was bare chested is not at all a sign of ethnic apartenence. Yes, only the "suebian knot" might be a sign of that, and as you can see in that images, is not that present. About bastarnae, yes, they are present, but they are just a small allied of dacians. Archeology shows that after Burebista campaigne their sites disaper, or become mixed ( and a minority ) with dacian ones, they reamins beeing pushed forward, in nord of Black Sea, and they beeing incorporated in dacian army at the moment of that wars. As i said, it might be very posible to receive weapons as falxes from dacians, is true, but the weapon is clear a dacian one ( even romans at that times considered such, and there is no mention of recurved bastarnae swords, just dacian ones ).

[diegis]

Weren't the 'Dacians' a conglomeration of different tribes anyway? Are we inappropriately pigeon-holing?

Yes, they was a conglomeration of diferent tribes ( finaly united in kingdooms ), but all of them beeing considered as nort thracians. However, they use in daco-roman wars allied troops, in a way kind similar with roman auxiliar troops, like roxolan sarmatians as heavy cavalry ( similar in way with later cataphractari ) or bastarnae, all of this beeing incorporated in their army as auxiliars. But they was not considered dacians

[Casmin]

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.

[MeinPanzer]

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

I'm referring to the Dacian wars in the broadest sense here and to the Adamklissi metopes and Trajan's Column.

....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

No, I mean minimum. The rhomphaia could have evolved earlier than the early 4th C. BC, but an example simply hasn't survived. Likewise, the rhomphaia could have been used after Valerius Flaccus' mention, but no trace exists in the literary or archaeological record of it.

Bastarnae with a blade and wooden shaft the same length, that reference can hardly be anything other than a Falx

Why would he refer to it as a rhomphaia? And numerous examples of excavated rhomphaiai have blade and shaft of equal length.

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

So what differentiates a rhomphaia and a falx, then? If it's the curvature of the blade, when does a blade become curved enough to be a falx? And that mention above of Bastarnae carrying rhomphaiai, how would a soldier wield a thureos and a rhomphaia in combat if a rhomphaia (or, if you take it to be a falx, a falx) could only be wielded two handed?

....I will treat this as a serious question and answer it, though it has the ring of a mere 'doubting Thomas' about it......
Both the Column and Adamklissi were clearly designed to be "read" by their audiences, and to that end, the depictions on it had to be 'stereotypes', whether of soldiers or different peoples, which is why the same 'type' repeatedly appears. On both monuments, three distinct types of dress can be discerned that 'marry up' with the Dacians and their Bastarnae and Sarmatian allies, and are easily recognisable even to 'moderns'. The germanic Bastarnae wear what the Romans thought of as 'germanic' garb - loose trousers, bare chested, bearded and even hair tied in that most distinctive german 'Suebian knot' . Only warriors of this type wield two-handed falxes, and are quite distinct from depictions of Dacians.......This has been the accepted and settled view of scholars on the subject for well over 100 years. Smile

As Diegis has commented, it is not nearly so clear cut as you think. Why would subordinated allied troops be allowed to wear the cap that marked the Dacian nobility?

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:-

The rhomphaia could have evolved earlier than the early 4th C. BC, but an example simply hasn't survived. Likewise, the rhomphaia could have been used after Valerius Flaccus' mention, but no trace exists in the literary or archaeological record of it.

I can sort of see your logic.....the caution of saying'the earliest/latest we know of', I guess.....but I think that logic flawed in a 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' kind of way, because if you follow it then nothing is certain! (O.K......that is of course correct :lol: ).
As with most things ancient, I think we have to accept 'Balance of Probability' as our criteria...and based on our knowledge to date, the rhomphaia was mostly used in the third-second C, B.C.........

Why would he refer to it as a rhomphaia? And numerous examples of excavated rhomphaiai have blade and shaft of equal length.

.....for the rather obvious reason that when he looked at the Falx of the Bastarnae in his own age, he thought the weapon from the same region described in the histories was the same ( though overlooking that Plutarch says, using Scipio Nasica's eye-witness account 'straight rhomphaia, heavy with iron' ).....and who knows, maybe by the definition he was using, the Falx was a rhomphaia e.g.

So what differentiates a rhomphaia and a falx, then?

Good question ! Valerius Flaccus evidently thought them the same....Whatever we decide, I guess...
How about;
"The rhomphaia's blade was straight or only slightly curved, while the falx's blade was significantly curved. " ( wikipaedia definition !)BTW, the slightly curved examples(very few) are likely to have been deliberately bent and it is quite likely that all rhomphaia were straight in practise.
Or how about:
rhomphaia = long, spear-like straight weapon 120cm aprox with blade and handle of similar length (blade60-80 cm, tang 50-70 cm) used by Thracians from 4C, B.C; essentially a polearm used for cutting or stabbing. Can be used single handed with shield in spear fashion, or as two-handed pole-arm.
Falx = cutting axe/sword-like weapon with pronounced curved blade aprox 90 cm long in total, with short two handed grip 35 cm long, only sutable for cutting, due to pronounced curve.Blade is on concave side of weapon. Used by Bastarnae tribesmen in 1-2C, A.D.

The major difference is one of purpose and design and function - they are two different weapons to do two different things. 8) 8)

Why would subordinated allied troops be allowed to wear the cap that marked the Dacian nobility?

....Just because Dacians used caps in this way does not mean that other people could not wear caps !! All peoples had headwear ! :wink:
...and what evidence is there that Bastarnae or Sarmatian Rox-Alani Allies were ever 'subordinated' ? On the contrary, the evidence on Trajan's column, where they send separate embassies Trajan clearly implies they were independent, as does the fact that following this embassy ( at the start of the second war) neither Rox-Alani nor Bastarnae take part in the second war, but sensibly observe the apparently generous terms they obtained from Trajan after the first war. We are also told that Decebalus pleaded with his neighbours and Allies to join him in the second war, evidently in vain( see epitome of Dio). So hardly 'subordinated' ( not to mention that neither at Adamklissi or on the Column do Sarmatian Rox-Alani or Bastarnae fight side-by-side on the same battlefield as Dacians ).
All this , of course, is subject to the caveat that our knowledge of these wars is fairly scanty....if only Trajan's 'Dacica', apparently modelled on Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' had come down to us !!

My apologies, Diegis, but there are errors on almost every page of that book ( at least the ones on the site) and I don't have the time, nor is there room enough here to deal with them here......it would take a major essay/book !

[diegis]

Ruben wrote:-

Why would subordinated allied troops be allowed to wear the cap that marked the Dacian nobility?

....Just because Dacians used caps in this way does not mean that other people could not wear caps !! All peoples had headwear ! :wink:
...and what evidence is there that Bastarnae or Sarmatian Rox-Alani Allies were ever 'subordinated' ? On the contrary, the evidence on Trajan's column, where they send separate embassies Trajan clearly implies they were independent, as does the fact that following this embassy ( at the start of the second war) neither Rox-Alani nor Bastarnae take part in the second war, but sensibly observe the apparently generous terms they obtained from Trajan after the first war. We are also told that Decebalus pleaded with his neighbours and Allies to join him in the second war, evidently in vain( see epitome of Dio). So hardly 'subordinated' ( not to mention that neither at Adamklissi or on the Column do Sarmatian Rox-Alani or Bastarnae fight side-by-side on the same battlefield as Dacians ).
All this , of course, is subject to the caveat that our knowledge of these wars is fairly scanty....if only Trajan's 'Dacica', apparently modelled on Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' had come down to us !!

My apologies, Diegis, but there are errors on almost every page of that book ( at least the ones on the site) and I don't have the time, nor is there room enough here to deal with them here......it would take a major essay/book !

Hmm, your theory is a little wrong. First, you said that bastarnae can be recognized because they are bare chested, and have that suebian knot. Dacians ( nobles ), however, are allways recognized after their specific cap. This is what you said, that the images are done in a such way that the "readers" recognize who is who. Following your logic, why dacians cannot fight bare chested ( after all, beeing a hot day there, and in the heat of fight, this will not be something unusual ), or even tie their hair in a germanic way, but bastarnae can wear a specific dacian part of clothing ? I am clueless. About sarmatians and bastarnae beeing "subordinated" to dacians, well, this can be debatable ( at least for sarmatians, bastarnae was not at all a important "player" in the events ), but, as a rule, sarmatians fight integrated in dacian strategy of war, a war of dacians against romans, executing the plans of Decebal ( btw, at Adamclissi, fought both dacians and sarmatians, in the same battle, not separated, maybe contigents of one was not intercalated with others, as well as roman legionares not intercalated in begining of battle for ex, with moor auxiliar cavalry ). Decebal haved even bigger strategic plans, one of the slaves of roman governor of Moesia, captured in a common daco-roxolan punishment raid in south of Danube ( roman governor was leader of roman troops who captured Decebal sister ), by roxolan king ( executing Decebal orders, at governor "vila", to capture his fammily ), was send to parthian king, with a request to start a war against romans, but, unfortunately even for parthians, they refuse ( couple years later they will be ocupied by romans as well ). This is some facts who bring the conclusion that sarmatians was at least a close allies, executing the comands of dacians, and about the fact that in second campaigne they not fight, is not unusual, even local dacian nobles make separate peace with Traian. And about the book, well, is too general what you said. Maybe explain just some errors, not an entire book review, i am really curious.

[Paullus Scipio]

Diegis wrote:-

Hmm, your theory is a little wrong. Not my theory, but the common opinion of over a hundred years worth of archaeologists, historians and many eminent scholars... First, you said that bastarnae can be recognized because they are bare chested, and have that suebian knot. ...some have the Suebian knot, but not all... Dacians ( nobles ), however, are allways recognized after their specific cap. This is what you said, that the images are done in a such way that the "readers" recognize who is who. I did not mention caps as being a 'distinction' - all peoples, Dacians, Bastarnae,Sarmatians and Romans are shown at different times on the two monuments wearing caps and other types of headwear...this is not one of the features that make a distinction.. Following your logic, why dacians cannot fight bare chested ( after all, beeing a hot day there, and in the heat of fight, this will not be something unusual ), or even tie their hair in a germanic way, ...because this would confuse the 'audience/reader, obviously - this is a specious argument to turn Bastarnae into 'Dacians' by those ( like the Romanian government under the communists and Ceaucescu), who seek to peddle a warped view of history for their own ends... but bastarnae can wear a specific dacian part of clothing ? see above - caps are not unique to Dacians... I am clueless

but, as a rule, sarmatians fight integrated in dacian strategy of war, I don't know of any evidence for this - we can't even be sure of how the Romans conducted the campaign, let alone Dacians or Sarmatians... a war of dacians against romans, executing the plans of Decebal -..We know nothing of Decebalus' plans, AFIK.. ( btw, at Adamclissi, fought both dacians and sarmatians, in the same battle, not separated, ..I am not sure what you mean here - on the Adamklissi monument, only Bastarnae are shown in combat scenes on the Metopes, though all three types appear as prisoners on the crenellations... maybe contigents of one was not intercalated with others, as well as roman legionares not intercalated in begining of battle for ex, with moor auxiliar cavalry ). ... again, not sure what you mean...on the column, legionaries, auxiliaries and Barbarian Allies(symmachiari) all fight 'intercalated', unlike their enemies...

As to your anecdote about Decebelus' plans to involve the Parthians, what source are you using here?

[Paullus Scipio]

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.

1.Left figure.Dacian wearing belted long sleeved tunic, split either side, tight trousers - the garb of Dacians as shown in particular on the Column.
2.Centre figure - Germanic/Bastarnae, bare chested, (but here with poncho/paenula style cloak), loose baggy trousers, and 'Suebian knot'(not always present, though hair is always centre-parted).
3.Right figure. Sarmatian in short sleeved coat/kaftan, split at front to high waist, knee length 'cavalry' boots, 'page boy/pudding bowl' hair-cut

[diegis]

Diegis wrote:-

Hmm, your theory is a little wrong. Not my theory, but the common opinion of over a hundred years worth of archaeologists, historians and many eminent scholars... First, you said that bastarnae can be recognized because they are bare chested, and have that suebian knot. ...some have the Suebian knot, but not all... Dacians ( nobles ), however, are allways recognized after their specific cap. This is what you said, that the images are done in a such way that the "readers" recognize who is who. I did not mention caps as being a 'distinction' - all peoples, Dacians, Bastarnae,Sarmatians and Romans are shown at different times on the two monuments wearing caps and other types of headwear...this is not one of the features that make a distinction.. Following your logic, why dacians cannot fight bare chested ( after all, beeing a hot day there, and in the heat of fight, this will not be something unusual ), or even tie their hair in a germanic way, ...because this would confuse the 'audience/reader, obviously - this is a specious argument to turn Bastarnae into 'Dacians' by those ( like the Romanian government under the communists and Ceaucescu), who seek to peddle a warped view of history for their own ends... but bastarnae can wear a specific dacian part of clothing ? see above - caps are not unique to Dacians... I am clueless

but, as a rule, sarmatians fight integrated in dacian strategy of war, I don't know of any evidence for this - we can't even be sure of how the Romans conducted the campaign, let alone Dacians or Sarmatians... a war of dacians against romans, executing the plans of Decebal -..We know nothing of Decebalus' plans, AFIK.. ( btw, at Adamclissi, fought both dacians and sarmatians, in the same battle, not separated, ..I am not sure what you mean here - on the Adamklissi monument, only Bastarnae are shown in combat scenes on the Metopes, though all three types appear as prisoners on the crenellations... maybe contigents of one was not intercalated with others, as well as roman legionares not intercalated in begining of battle for ex, with moor auxiliar cavalry ). ... again, not sure what you mean...on the column, legionaries, auxiliaries and Barbarian Allies(symmachiari) all fight 'intercalated', unlike their enemies...

As to your anecdote about Decebelus' plans to involve the Parthians, what source are you using here?

Hmm, here we go again. First, about Decebalus and his plan with parthians of Pacorus, this info apeares in a letter of Plinius the Young thru Traian, involving a slave, Calinderos, sent by Decebal to Pacorus, after was captured by Susagus, the roxolan leader, who atacked the "vila" of Labenius Maximus, roman governor of Moesia, ( as a revenge against him and his family ), who lead the troops who captured Decebalus sister. This is why i said that Roxolans acted coordinated by Dacians. About your views of bastarnae vs. dacians, i think you contradict yourself, and try to impose your ideas ( 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 ? ). 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. Well, this maybe not fit in your views, and you try somehow, but in a childish way, to denie that. And, yes, in time of comunists, was sometime gived an exagerated "view" to dacians, but not in the way you said ( btw, still dont see any errors presented by you, and reffering to that book ). Dacians was presented as some "poor", but hard working peoples, who fight until the death with "rich" romans, invaders who try to steal their land and richness, for they worked hard before, a kind of workers vs. greedy kind of "capitalists". It was not about weapons or battles, nor silly "battles" about who haved falxes, and who not. That is a kind of childish "fight", even romans, ( like Fronto ) present them as dacian ones, as well iis in that images, who you try to change their understanding. As well, on Traian Column apear a falx at the base of construction, and dacian warriors weilding one handed falxes, looking exactly like bigger ones, but in a smaller dimension. Falx was just an adaptation of a smaller one ( usualy named sica ), to deal with roman shield wall.