Dacian Falx

[JeffF]

Hello,

On illustrations of warriors using this weapon I see that the slashing edge is on the inside of the curve (as opposed to the outside like on a samurai sword or a scimitar). Do the archeological finds prove this? It just seems to me that a slashing sword would be more effective with an edge on the outside and is less likely to get caught in an enemy's armor or helmet or body.

Jeff

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

From what I know, not many originals have been found, but yes, they are definitely sharpened on the inner edge. That's what the artwork shows, after all! And yes, it is a brutally effective weapon:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut1.jpg

Matthew

[diegis]

Hello,

On illustrations of warriors using this weapon I see that the slashing edge is on the inside of the curve (as opposed to the outside like on a samurai sword or a scimitar). Do the archeological finds prove this? It just seems to me that a slashing sword would be more effective with an edge on the outside and is less likely to get caught in an enemy's armor or helmet or body.

Jeff

There are few Falxes discovered, mostly in or close to Dacian capital Sarmisegetuza



It was not a main slashing weapon, but used to attack an oponent covered by a shield. So the curved form sharpened on inside was very good for cutting limbs, (schyte style), and the point of the blade was good for piercing helmets from above, over the shield, causing sever trauma.
I dont think was used often as in the picture provided by Matthew, but even if so, the soldier who keep that shield will be badly affected, haven either his helmet pierced either suffering a hard hit in his shoulder or other body part.
Other hits was against the legs, who was easily cut, or against the arms who can be departed from the body in one hit.

Anyway make a search on the forum, there are couple older threads regarding Falx and other Dacian swords

[Lanista]

The picture begs for a caption competition *lol*

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut1.jpg

[Matthew Amt]

Actually, most of the commentary I heard ran something like, "Holy crap!"

It is true that a warrior would rarely aim his falx at an opponent's shield deliberately, unless perhaps he wanted to pull it out of the way so that one of his buddies could get in with a spear. This was basically just a nice visual test of capabilities. I was holding the other end of the beam that supported the shield, and it was a very impressive view! In the following shot, the point would have struck me in the hip, just below my lorica:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut3.jpg

But yes, I think we all agreed that it would be more effective--and more scary--to go *around* the shield!

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Matt wrote:

It is true that a warrior would rarely aim his falx at an opponent's shield deliberately,

I'll say !....as has been remarked before, while this is an impressive display of the power of "two-handed choppers" ( battle-axes, dolabra, rhomphaia etc would all have a similar effect), to utilise such a technique in battle meant instant suicide......before the wielder could wrest it free, he would be perforated by several gladii belonging to the shield-holders neighbours. hock:
All the more suicidal for the wielder being shieldless.......at Senlac/Hastings it appears that the two-handed battle-axe was used by men in the second line, wielding it overhead from behind a shielded front-ranker - a much more sensible proposition, even if the blow was nothing like as powerful as in the photo......

Perhaps the fact that helmets were re-inforced with cross-pieces after the Romans encountered these weapons, but shields were seemingly not, tells us something about the way in which these weapons were really used - overhand against the head, with getting embedded in a shield being studiously avoided. :wink:

[Lanista]

Actually, most of the commentary I heard ran something like, "Holy crap!"
Matthew

Did you try this experiment on a helmet with a cross-piece?

Cheers

Russ

[JeffF]

Thanks for the info, that picture is fantastic. In an attack around the shield it seems that the upper arm of the legionary would be most vulnerable to wounds since the lower arm would be too close to the shield. Do I have that right?

Jeff

[diegis]

I think this drawnings are a little inspired by that demonstration from Matthew pics



If we look to the other 2 Dacians, not the one from the middle (with a hit which we agreed is a bit less probable to be used), but from the left and right, we see that from that position the one from the left as we look have some 3 posibilities to hit, over the top of the shield, to hit the helmet, from lateral, as in the second pic of Matthew, or aiming for the legs of the legionar. The one from the right (the half naked one), if we pass over the already fallen position of the legionar, had even 5 possible moves, a hit from above to pierce the helmet with the tip of the Falx (which i think should be drawn a little more curved, here looks like a mix of Falx with Romphaia, who was almost right or right), 2 from laterals (most probably from the right) and 2 (from right-most probable, and left) to cut the legionar legs. For legionars was hard to know where the hit will come, since at least 3 positions was possible and each of them can cause him very nasty wounds (from skull piercing to amputations)

[WorkMonkey1]

Hello,

On illustrations of warriors using this weapon I see that the slashing edge is on the inside of the curve (as opposed to the outside like on a samurai sword or a scimitar).

Get a standard agricultural hand sickle, then go at a wooden shield with it. It makes one hell of a mess, the inside curve aids with the cutting. They don't even need to be particuarly sharp to go several inches into wood.

Sharpened up and on a two handed grip I would not want to go up against one!

[Ron Andrea]

The picture begs for a caption competition *lol*

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut1.jpg

The presence of all those camera-wielding legionnaires must have really pumped up our falx user. :wink:

[Thunder]

Matt wrote:

It is true that a warrior would rarely aim his falx at an opponent's shield deliberately,

I'll say !....as has been remarked before, while this is an impressive display of the power of "two-handed choppers" ( battle-axes, dolabra, rhomphaia etc would all have a similar effect), to utilise such a technique in battle meant instant suicide......before the wielder could wrest it free, he would be perforated by several gladii belonging to the shield-holders neighbours.

Hardly, considering the shield-holders neighbours would also be being attacked as well. Unless we're discussing one mad Dacian versus several Romans. Besides, the falx-wielder has considerably more reach than a Roman with his lengthened kitchen knife.

[Paullus Scipio]

That must be a doubtful proposition.....unless all the falx wielders strike simultaneously! For it is but the work of an instant for the 'kitchen knife' holder to gut the falx holder ( while he winds up for a swing, let alone struggling to free his weapon from a shield)....what's more it needs room to swing such a weapon - so he's going to be facing several Romans in close order - so one mad Bastarnae ( No Dacian is shown wielding a two-handed falx either on Trajan's column, or the Adamklissi monument) would indeed be facing several Romans. In a battle. you don't just fight the man in front of you!

Even one-on-one I'd opt for the Roman kit over the Bastarnae warrior's armament every time - despite the 'terror weapon' effect of the falx...consider what is about to happen to the central falx wielder in the picture in the next heartbeat/split second, just from the man with the split shield.....the falx wielder is as good as dead.....:wink:

[Ron Andrea]

It may be that the falx evolved as a weapon used against similarly armed and organized (or, disorganized) foes--where it was quite effective--and was used against the Romans because it was the weapon at hand. Lots of weapons and tactics effective in a bar brawl or a one-on-one duel become a liability fighting against a legion in formation or a phalanx, but if it's the best you've got and the Romans have marched into your country, you fight with what's in your hand.

[Thunder]

That must be a doubtful proposition.....unless all the falx wielders strike simultaneously! For it is but the work of an instant for the 'kitchen knife' holder to gut the falx holder ( while he winds up for a swing, let alone struggling to free his weapon from a shield)....what's more it needs room to swing such a weapon - so he's going to be facing several Romans in close order - so one mad Bastarnae ( No Dacian is shown wielding a two-handed falx either on Trajan's column, or the Adamklissi monument) would indeed be facing several Romans. In a battle. you don't just fight the man in front of you!

Even one-on-one I'd opt for the Roman kit over the Bastarnae warrior's armament every time - despite the 'terror weapon' effect of the falx...consider what is about to happen to the central falx wielder in the picture in the next heartbeat/split second, just from the man with the split shield.....the falx wielder is as good as dead.....:wink:

Actually, it's surprising what small spaces you can use a pole weapon in. An overhand slash/chop will generally do the trick and kill your opponent, and you can maintain relatively close order with it. Lateral swings with pole weapons are relatively uncommon in that they build up less momentum and aren't appropriate for close-quarters combat, whereas overhand, longitudanal swings use gravity to build up more momentum, and require far less space.

And, of course, the beauty of the falx is that you don't need to use it with that mad swing. Sit back and use the point to punch holes in the Romans helmets while until they have to step out of the formation (and thus be cut in half).

Myself, I'd take the falx, and a scale cuirass, and some greaves maybe. Get enough such soldiers, some training and you have a shock cadre that's going to tear open a Legionary line of battle.

Two-handed pole weapons are murderously effective weapons. Bills, Vougles, halberds, longaxes, falxes - brutal, you can use them very effectively in a relatively tight formation and they're fantastic against armour.