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

[diegis]

I am sorry to say this is not accurate at all. The kingdom of the Getae briefly extended to the Black sea in the reign of Burebista - but after his death split into several parts, and the outlying areas were all lost. We are not precisely told where the borders of Decebalus' kingdom lay, but the borders of the subsequent Roman province provide a good guide.(see attached map). The area east of Dacia and north of the Danube was occupied by the Sarmatian Roxalani (Dacian allies), and to the east of them, extending to the Danube delta was the territory of the Peucini, who occupied it down to Gothic times. To the east of Dacia proper, the pink area north of the river was at the time of the Dacian wars occupied by the Sarmatian Iazyges ( who were Roman allies).

I am sorry to say, but clearly you dont have much knowledge about the history of Dacia. Just look at this (sorry, i know, is wikipedia, but still give you some hints):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmodegicus - this was a Getae king from Dobrogea (Schytia Minor-Black Sea coast) who received tribute from Greek cities there (end of III century BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapyx - Getae king from central Dobrogea - I century BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rholes - Getae king from southern Dobrogea (where Adamclisi is located) -same I century BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyraxes - Getae king from northern Dobrogea, same I century BC.
Before them the area was part of larger Burebista kingdom/empire (who incorporated the area up to Crimeea at Olbia, including Bastarnae who was subdued).
As you can see, up to Roman conquest, the area was under Dacian (Getae) control, and inhabited mostly by Getae tribes.
Sarmatian Iaziges was located west of Dacia during Traian, west of Tisa river, betwen Tisa and Danube, and was brought there by Romans as a buffer betwen Dacia and Panonia. The swift attack and conquer of their teritory by Decebalus was the official reason for Traian to start the second war (it will be started anyway, since both Dacians and Romans saw the peace from 102 just as a pause for reinforcement).

Strabo describes the Bastarnae territory vaguely as "between the Ister (river Danube) and the Borysthenes (river Dnieper)". He identifies three sub-tribes of the Bastarnae: the Atmoni, Sidoni and Peucini. The latter derived their name from Peuce, a large island in the Danube delta which they had colonised.(Strabo III.17) The 2nd century geographer Ptolemy states that the Carpiani or Carpi (believed to have occupied Moldavia) separated the Peucini from the other Bastarnae "above Dacia".] The consensus among modern scholars is that the Bastarnae were, in the 2nd century, divided into two main groups. The larger group inhabited the north-eastern slopes of the Carpathians and the area between the Prut and Dnieper rivers (Moldova Republic/Western Ukraine), while a separate smaller group (the Peucini) dwelt in and North of the Danube delta region ( and south of it too, until the creation of the Roman province of Moesia.) Only the Peucini, therefore, were situated on the extreme northern border of the Roman province of Moesia Inferior, which ran along the southernmost branch of the Danube delta - not that far from Adamklissi.

Yes, it is correct what you said here (well, Adamclisi is way much close to borders of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus then the north area of Danube Delta where Peucini are located). As well Bastarnae wasnt quite on area of Dnieper river (Tyras in ancient times), those area was of Tyragetae (Getae of Tyras), another Dacian tribe. Bastarnae (and even Roxolani) was in fact sandwiched betwen Dacian tribes, and they was like that since Burebista times, when they was conquered by Dacians and was part of Burebista empire.

We have had this debate before - NO 'Phrygian'/Dacian caps are shown, only skull caps, and quite clearly these are the Bastarnae people, all bare to the waist ( no Dacian is ever thus depicted) with in some cases ( like your second example) a 'paenula' over it, most with Suebic/Germanic hair knot, some with skull caps, which might even be simple bowl helmets, though probably not. NOT ONE 'chopper wielder' is dressed in 'Dacian dress'.

Yes, we had this debate before, and yet you still wasnt able to provide some serious scholars who said the same thing as you, that no Dacian is show fighting on Tropaeum Traiani monument. You cant even make a distinction of fighters according with your first image posted (all full dressed) with the ones where they are bare to the waist. How you can distinguish betwen them based on clothes? As i said, just "germanic knot" visible on them make sure that one is a Bastarnae. And the caps are obviously the Dacian cap, that why fighters bearing them (or the ones with bare head, but without "germanic knot") are Dacians, Romans depicted them in such way that a distinction of some sort to be visible, so to be know who's who there.

The first coin is not a warrior at all - it is in fact the female personification of Dacia as a Roman province, and like other coins of it's type, it shows "Abundant Dacia" and what you see as a two handed chopper is most likely to be a sheaf of wheat, or several stems at least ( more clearly shown on other coins), not a blade with a fuller!

On the first coin i posted it is clearly saw a two handed sword, one of the symbols of Dacia (yes, depicted as a female). The curved sword have even a visible "blood channel" in the middle,
http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/2hese9 ... 21/000.jpg

and is similar and shape and dimenssions with this one
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope36.jpg

[diegis]

For those who are not familiar with the Adamklissi metopes , here are some examples - note that none wear "Dacian dress" - tight trousers, knee-length tunic, belted, and phrygian caps for chiefs - see left hand figure from earlier post....but compare them to the middle figure....

Well, no one wear the Bastarnae dress either. Look again at your first image (with the "germanic knot" visible on hair of Bastarnae, and all 3 full dressed)


Then look at this (same "knot" on hair in lateral of the head is visible on the fallen warrior, but clearly the one who stand have a long shirt/tunic up to the knees, similar with Dacian ones, and nothing like the Bastarnae from your first image)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope36.jpg
You can see other Bastarnae here, and diference in dress is even more visible ("germanic knot" on head, short shirt)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope23.jpg

Then at this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope34.jpg

And this (a dacian dressed, with a shield and a similar cap (so called "phrygian cap") as the ones from the previous picture)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope35.jpg

And this (as you can see, thight trousers, even if i have no idea how you reach the conclusion who's who looking at their trousers, from the first image isnt clear, and no "germanic knot")

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope32.jpg


Diferent trousers (which according to you make the distinction), some with bare head, some with a cap (phrygian cap), some having the "germanic knot", some doesnt. How on Earth you can say that all are Bastarnae? The diferences as clearly visible, not just betwen your first image (with Dacians, Sarmatians and Bastarnae full dressed), but even betwen bare chest fighters

[diegis]

No. Some swords are actually suited for use on the battlefield.

Oh, ze sword expert iz arrived :lol:

This is probably the only real advantage of the falx.

I am not a native english speaker, so let me rephrase, probably i didnt said to exactly previously. Falx, compared with other swords (as Gladius, for ex., since you mention it) cut better, pierce better (due to its shape, you can hit as with a hammer) and have a longer range, being able to hit or cut the enemy behind a shield, which was by itself a great thing

Pure speculation. Where are the imperical tests that demonstrate this?

Probably you mean "empirical"? I am not sure what "imperical" means? And well, a fellow forumist, WorkMonkey1, just said it made a test with a sickle (similar maybe with a Sica short sword), i am sure a Falx would be even better. It is up to you to trust him or not, but i dont see why not.

Romans faced both Gallic and German shield walls with full height shields.

Romans meet Dacians about the same time they finished the Gauls. In fact by the same time Dacians finished the Celts in central Europe (Boii and Tauriscii alliance) and interesting droped the use of long, right celtic swords arounfd the same time, and soon Falx entered the scene. Germanic armies (or even Celtic ones) can't be compared with Roman legions as organization and training (Celts was occupied and so Germans actualy, reasons why Germania wasnt transformed all in a province of empire can be discussed), but Germanic victories didnt come in pitched battles, but in an ambush (Teutoborg) or a messed up Roman comand (Arausio). Just much later (after Dacian wars of Traian) they start to become actualy romanized from military point of view, and romans tactics changed as well, so no need for large troops equiped with Falxes was needed.

[Dan Howard]

Probably you mean "empirical"?

Yep

Testing a falx against a target tells us little unless the same tests are done with other weapons. How can you say that one weapon is better than another without results from a comparative test?

[Conal]

"Testing a falx against a target tells us little unless the same tests are done with other weapons. How can you say that one weapon is better than another without results from a comparative test?"

Correct. I have seen a Gladius make little of those matts the Katanakas like to cut. I have also read that a big bowie can do the same.

[Dan Howard]

Exactly. Claims about the fantastic cutting ability of the falx aren't so fantastic if the same results can be achieved with a pile of other swords under the same conditions.

Please stop calling it a "blood channel". The English term is fuller. It is used to help adjust the weight and balance of a blade. Fullers can't be used to tell whether an item was intended for combat since they also appear on tools.

[Paullus Scipio]

Diegis Anton wrote"

I am sorry to say, but clearly you dont have much knowledge about the history of Dacia. Just look at this (sorry, i know, is wikipedia, but still give you some hints):

Sheesh! Again with the insults! I can assure you that I know as much about ancient Dacia as most people,having studied ancient history for over 40 years, and certainly enough to know that the version of "Greater Dacia" that you propose and hint at is not supported by the evidence ( only by those with a romanticised view of a supposed 'Dacian heritage')....yet again you post a load of inaccurate speculations, unsupported by any evidence except for "wiki" excerpts which have nothing to do with the subject matter !! :roll: :roll:

To begin with you should take the use of the word "king" in various Roman authors with a grain of salt for it is often used of quite small tribal rulers - and those references merely refer to the 'splintered' groups following Burebista. The whole region was inhabited by peoples of Thracian/ Getic stock, with the related Dacian peoples to their west. These areas were over-run ( and ruled by) migrant peoples so that in the first century AD the areas north of Roman Moesia/Danube were ruled by Roxalani Sarmatians and Celto/Germanic Bastarnae ( and specifically Peucini along the Danube and at it's mouth). Your errors are many, but to give just one example, the Roxalani were never ruled by Burebista or any other Getae or Dacian King. It is true that Burebista weakened the Bastarnae, which in turn allowed the Roxalani to move south and west into the Wallachian plain, but when this latter occurred in the first half of the 1st C AD, Burebista ( now a modern legend in Romania) had been long dead! The result of the Roxalani invasion was that allegedly 100,000 'Trans-Danubians' ( i.e. Dacian and Getae peoples) fled across the river and were allowed to settle in Roman Moesia between AD 62 and AD 66....but I don't have either the time or the inclination to discuss your inaccurate version of the history of this time and place.

I'm not going to bother arguing about who is shown in the metopes either - here are a couple of the last ones, one showing Dacian prisoners and the other Bastarnae - I'll just leave it to the viewer to decide which is which and who the 'chopper wielders' resemble......I wish I could post better resolution but the limit of 512 kb here is ridiculously low..... note that the Roman soldier in undress and the single prisoner figure both wear 'paenula' type cloaks, and anyone can see they are not 'shirts' as Diegis calls them.

and interesting droped the use of long, right celtic swords arounfd the same time, and soon Falx entered the scene.

Strange, then, that typical 'La Tene' celtic straight swords appear on the trophy base of the column....but perhaps they are Roxalani or Bastarnae weapons? :lol: :lol:

[diegis]

Sheesh! Again with the insults! I can assure you that I know as much about ancient Dacia as most people,having studied ancient history for over 40 years, and certainly enough to know that the version of "Greater Dacia" that you propose and hint at is not supported by the evidence ( only by those with a romanticised view of a supposed 'Dacian heritage')....yet again you post a load of inaccurate speculations, unsupported by any evidence except for "wiki" excerpts which have nothing to do with the subject matter !! :roll: :roll:

I apologize if i ofended you, i just understanded from your previous post that Adamclisi was closer to Peucini then to Dacian Kingdom borders, and that Schytia Minor was inhabited back then by Peucini or so. If you didnt said that, sorry if i offended you. As well i didnt have time and mood to search for Dio Cassius exact words (or those historians quoted there), if you dont believe what he said aboute those Getae local kings, you can search for him, but i never saw anybody saying it wasnt like that

To begin with you should take the use of the word "king" in various Roman authors with a grain of salt for it is often used of quite small tribal rulers - and those references merely refer to the 'splintered' groups following Burebista. The whole region was inhabited by peoples of Thracian/ Getic stock, with the related Dacian peoples to their west. These areas were over-run ( and ruled by) migrant peoples so that in the first century AD the areas north of Roman Moesia/Danube were ruled by Roxalani Sarmatians and Celto/Germanic Bastarnae ( and specifically Peucini along the Danube and at it's mouth). Your errors are many, but to give just one example, the Roxalani were never ruled by Burebista or any other Getae or Dacian King. It is true that Burebista weakened the Bastarnae, which in turn allowed the Roxalani to move south and west into the Wallachian plain, but when this latter occurred in the first half of the 1st C AD, Burebista ( now a modern legend in Romania) had been long dead! The result of the Roxalani invasion was that allegedly 100,000 'Trans-Danubians' ( i.e. Dacian and Getae peoples) fled across the river and were allowed to settle in Roman Moesia between AD 62 and AD 66....but I don't have either the time or the inclination to discuss your inaccurate version of the history of this time and place.

Yes, they was "tribal kings" if you wish. And yes, we already agree that Peucini was located north of Danube Delta. Roxolani was located probably north-west of them, and Bastarnae in north. Dacian tribe of Tyragetae was located north east of them (later will be mentioned too Costoboci and Carpi in the same areas, thats why i said those tribes was sandwiched betwen Dacian ones). And yes, they had some attacks in south too, but those "transdanubians" was relocated by Romans (dont have time now to search but is gived even the name of Roman commander who did that) to weaken the pressure of "barbarians" from the north, they wasnt refugees. And during Decebalus time those Wallachian plains was part of his kingdom, and Roxolani was his allies, fighting as auxiliars in Dacian army

I'm not going to bother arguing about who is shown in the metopes either - here are a couple of the last ones, one showing Dacian prisoners and the other Bastarnae - I'll just leave it to the viewer to decide which is which and who the 'chopper wielders' resemble......I wish I could post better resolution but the limit of 512 kb here is ridiculously low..... note that the Roman soldier in undress and the single prisoner figure both wear 'paenula' type cloaks, and anyone can see they are not 'shirts' as Diegis calls them.

Same images at a better resolution can be saw on wikipedia, in fact i even posted some of them comparatively. I still didnt saw any source (as some serious historians) saying that isnt any Dacian in the fight images depicted there. And, is hard to sat who's who looking at the full dress peoples, then at the half dressed ones. Only things to make a clear distinction is the "germanic hair knot" (for Bastarnae) and the cap (or bare head without that knot) for Dacians.

Strange, then, that typical 'La Tene' celtic straight swords appear on the trophy base of the column....but perhaps they are Roxalani or Bastarnae weapons? :lol: :lol:

I think Sarmatian (and even Dacian) heavy cavalry used such long right type of swords, yes (as Roman cavalry used Spatha). What i wanted to say is that infantry didnt use it anymore probably. I agree is not a 100 % sure thing, but since archeological discoveries didnt produce much of such swords (not even as much as Falxes i think, and usualy considerated from BC period), neither are observed clearly on the Column (or Tropaeum Traiani), they was probably out of use or in limited use (just for some cavalry units).

[diegis]

Exactly. Claims about the fantastic cutting ability of the falx aren't so fantastic if the same results can be achieved with a pile of other swords under the same conditions.
.

The shape and construction of a Falx (and even of a Sica) is better for cutting (curved inside edge is specialy done for that) and piercing (can be used in a similar manner as a hammer) and is much better then any other sword to do that even to an enemy protected by a shield (even a big one as Roman scutum).
Right swords (as Gladius or Spatha) are better at stabing, and even slashing, corect. Even if some type of Sica tryied to make a compromise betwen cutting/piercing and stabing (it wasnt for nothing the weapon of choice for assasins in Rome, who was called "sicarii").

[Thunder]

I know only a small amount of this:

1. The falx, in essence, is a scythe blade mounted on a short haft. It is not a sword. It is a polearm, like a bill or a voulge or a war-scythe.
2. Such a weapon would, with it's heft, momentum, weight and power, tear through armoured troops like they weren't there.
3. Roman tactics basically consisted of a lot of armoured troops.

To describe it as a 'super-weapon' is inaccurate. It is simply another polearm, admittedly, one a thousand years prior to the mass use of polearms, and the reason it became popular is the same one that other polearms became popular - military proliferation of heavy mail (and plate) armour on a large scale, necessitating the use of a specific anti-armour weapon like a polearm to defeat these bodies of armoured troops.

[Dan Howard]

The shape and construction of a Falx (and even of a Sica) is better for cutting (curved inside edge is specialy done for that) and piercing (can be used in a similar manner as a hammer) and is much better then any other sword to do that even to an enemy protected by a shield (even a big one as Roman scutum).
Right swords (as Gladius or Spatha) are better at stabing, and even slashing, corect. Even if some type of Sica tryied to make a compromise betwen cutting/piercing and stabing (it wasnt for nothing the weapon of choice for assasins in Rome, who was called "sicarii").

Saying it repeatedly still doesn't make it true. Where are the comparitive test results to support this?

[nina]

hello diegis
falx and sica are latin terms.
Those terms don't designate only the Dacian weapons.
The Jewish zealots were called sicarii at the rebelion in Jerusalem, 30 years before Dacians wars so the term was in use before Romans encounter the Dacians.

[Matthew Amt]

I know only a small amount of this:

1. The falx, in essence, is a scythe blade mounted on a short haft. It is not a sword. It is a polearm, like a bill or a voulge or a war-scythe.

Not quite. It's more of a pruning bill, as we've said. Scythes are not the same, nor are sickles. I'll agree that it is not a sword, though!

2. Such a weapon would, with it's heft, momentum, weight and power, tear through armoured troops like they weren't there.

What?! That's a pretty bold claim! If you look at the photo I posted, you will see that the shield *stopped* the falx. It did cut pretty deep, but in a combat situation that falx-man would be down with a gladius in his guts a second or two later. While I again agree that the falx is a nasty weapon, and probably more likely than most others to penetrate shields or armor, hundreds of years of battle descriptions involving various polearms never mention that they could "tear through armoured troops like they weren't there". In fact, a quote from the Battle of Flodden springs to mind, in which an English writer notes that the Scots were so heavily armored that they kept fighting even when several bills hit them at once. Do you have any evidence that the falx was THAT effective in battle?

To describe it as a 'super-weapon' is inaccurate.

Agreed!

It is simply another polearm, admittedly, one a thousand years prior to the mass use of polearms, and the reason it became popular is the same one that other polearms became popular - military proliferation of heavy mail (and plate) armour on a large scale, necessitating the use of a specific anti-armour weapon like a polearm to defeat these bodies of armoured troops.

Basically what Paul suggested above. But note that its use did NOT lead to victory over those armored troops!

Vale,

Matthew

[Olaf]

Interesting discussion here.
Though I am indifferent if the two handed falx was actualy a designated weapon and what people it was used by, it is quite significant that it does not only appear on the Adamklissi metopes but is also featured on the Tropaeum base next to other implements of war.
I would find it strange if the Romans would dedicate such space in these monuments for a simple makeshift defensive tool used only once in a small skirmish.
There is however one important issue with considering this weapon to be overly effective.
I do posses a (blunt) Falx myself that I have tried to use against varouis opponents in controlled freefight bouts and I would not consider it to be a good weapon for an unarmored user to utilise.
If you look at the spectacular picture of the sharp Falx splitting the Scutum, you see that the wielder has extended himself quite far, has wedged his weapon in the Scutum of his adversary (though I doubt this would happen very often under battlefield conditions) and would not be able to react in any way to a counterattack.
In short even if he managed to wound his direct adversary he would be very dead by a stab form the next Roman opposing him.
The Falx is simply to shorthandled to give the reach - and thereby tactical flexibility and protection - that true polearms provide.
I doubt if a mass of unarmored shieldless combatants would be very suitable as shock infantry against ordered Roman ranks, even if these would not utilise their pila against this mass of unprotected targets.

As for the superior cutting abilitys of curved weapons it should be noted that almost all weapons designed for an efficient cut have the outward curvate sharpend and not the inward curvate.

[Paullus Scipio]

I would find it strange if the Romans would dedicate such space in these monuments for a simple makeshift defensive tool used only once in a small skirmish.
There is however one important issue with considering this weapon to be overly effective.
I do posses a (blunt) Falx myself that I have tried to use against varouis opponents in controlled freefight bouts and I would not consider it to be a good weapon for an unarmored user to utilise.
If you look at the spectacular picture of the sharp Falx splitting the Scutum, you see that the wielder has extended himself quite far, has wedged his weapon in the Scutum of his adversary (though I doubt this would happen very often under battlefield conditions) and would not be able to react in any way to a counterattack.
In short even if he managed to wound his direct adversary he would be very dead by a stab form the next Roman opposing him.
The Falx is simply to shorthandled to give the reach - and thereby tactical flexibility and protection - that true polearms provide.
I doubt if a mass of unarmored shieldless combatants would be very suitable as shock infantry against ordered Roman ranks, even if these would not utilise their pila against this mass of unprotected targets.

As for the superior cutting abilitys of curved weapons it should be noted that almost all weapons designed for an efficient cut have the outward curvate sharpend and not the inward curvate.

The mere fact that the "wagon massacre" is the subject of the Adamklissi monument, and also shown on the Column demonstrates that it was no mere 'small skirmish', but a major battle, and probable invasion of Roman Moesia. To understand this, one needs to know a little more. The geography makes these hills a natural bridge, some 25-30 miles(40-48 km) wide avoiding what were marshy valleys, between wallachia and the rest of Europe. They are the gateway to southern Europe and a crossroads, where many roads meet - from here an invader has the choice of heading south to Greece and Byzantium/Turkey, or west into Bulgaria or Serbia and on into Europe having outflanked the Danube barrier.The area was thus of utmost strategic importance - many ancient and mediaeval battles took place in and around Adrianople, not so far south of Adamklissi.
There are in fact three monuments at Adamklissi, the first two commemorating what must have been a major Roman defeat in the 80's AD, probably the defeat of Oppius Sabinus, but perhaps that of Fuscus. First there is a great mausoleum/tomb, 125 ft(60 m) in diameter, and opposite it is a large altar 40 ft(19 m) square, with the names of the dead engraved in column after column (c.f. the U.S. Vietnam memorial). Due south of this is Trajan's great 'Tropaeum/trophy', dedicated (importantly) to Mars Ultor/Mars the avenger. Evidently Trajan trapped the "wagon people", defeated and massacred them, men women and children implying they were wiped out. (Significantly, in 179 BC, at the invitation of Philip V of Macedon, an alleged 60,000 Bastarnae, accompanied by their women and children in wagons crossed the Danube, intending to displace Philip's enemies the Dardanians, but the invasion ultimately failed when Philip died.....)
The most likely explanation is that history was repeating itself and the Peucini/Bastarnae were invading to recover their lost territories south of the Danube.....

I would certainly agree with Olaf's comments regarding the 'falx' as a weapon - hardly ideal ! This tends to support the idea of an 'improvised' rather than a 'designed' weapon, for surely the first thing one would do is lengthen the handle ? Olaf's comments about the lack of success when using it as a weapon perhaps demonstrate that those metopes depicting 'chopper wielders' are not just Roman propaganda, but perhaps quite true to life.... :wink:

Btw, you can still buy 'falxes' in their various forms as tools, as Jim Webster has pointed out to me.....as you can see, it hasn't changed much down the centuries....Here are the instructions for use, and if you look at some of the metopes they are being used in exactly this fashion !!

"It is imperative anyone using a garden slasher is fully aware of how to use the tool and the potential dangers to both themselves and those around them!
For clearance of scrub the garden slasher should be held with one hand on the heel and the other halfway along the shaft. The garden slasher should be swung through a wide arc bringing the hand along the shaft to meet the one at the heel towards the end of the swing. The cutting relies on the momentum of the swing rather than energy from the user. Both hands should be kept on the shaft at all times, do not end the swing hanging on to the end of the shaft with one hand. The garden slasher is a dangerous tool if not under control."