Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Falx
The falx was a weapon with a curved blade that was sharp on the inside edge used by the Thracians and Dacians. The name was later applied to a siege hook used by the Romans.
Falx is a Latin word originally meaning 'sickle' but was later used to mean any of a number of tools that had a curved blade that was sharp on the inside edge like a sickle. Falx was thus also used to mean the weapon of the Thracians and Dacians, and the Roman siege hook.
In Latin texts, the weapon was described as an ensis falcatus (whence falcata) by Ovid in Metamorphose and as a falx supina by Juvenal in Satiriae.
The Dacian falx came in two sizes: one-handed and two-handed. The shorter variant was called sica (sickle) in the Dacian language (Valerius Maximus, III, 2.12) with a blade length that varied but was usually around 16 inches (41 cm) long with a handle one-third longer than the blade. The two-handed falx was a polearm. It consisted of a 3-foot-long (0.91 m) wooden shaft with a long curved iron blade of nearly-equal length attached to the end. Archaeological evidence indicates that the one-handed falx was also used two-handed.
The blade was sharpened only on the inside and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. It may be imagined that the length of the two-handed falx allowed it to be wielded with great force, the point piercing helmets and the blade splitting shields – it was said to be capable of splitting a shield in two at a single blow. Alternatively, it might have been used as a hook, pulling away shields and cutting at vulnerable limbs, or striking the edge of a strong shield. The inward curving point was still able to pierce the armour or flesh of the target behind the shield, rendering even the most reinforced shields much less effective against a falx wielder.
Trajan's column is a monument to the emperor's conquest of Dacia. The massive base is covered with reliefs of trophies of Dacian weapons and includes several illustrations of the two-handed falx. The column itself has a helical frieze that tells the story of the Dacian wars. On the frieze, almost all the Dacians that are armed have shields and therefore cannot be using two-handed falx. The exact weapon of those few shown without shields cannot be determined with certainty. The frieze of Trajan's column also shows Dacians using smaller, sword-sized falx. However, this column is also largely stylized, with the sculptor believed to have worked from Trajan's now lost commentary and unlikely to have witnessed the events himself. A further problem is that most of the weapons on the monument were made of metal, which have since disappeared.
The Adamclisi monument, built by Trajan to commemorate the Romans who lost their lives in the Dacian counterattack in Moesia, is thought to have been constructed by the soldiers who fought there, so it may be more accurate. This column shows four distinct types of falx, whereas Trajan's shows only one type that does not resemble any on the Adamclisi monument. Because of this, historians disagree on which depiction is correct, but it has been pointed out that if the Trajan's column falx are correct, then there would have been no need to modify Roman armour. Both columns show the Dacians fighting with no armour apart from a shield, although some on the Adamclisi are wearing helmets. Some historians believe that armour was not depicted to differentiate Dacians from Romans, as both used the same style of shield. Other sources indicate that Dacians by this time had undergone Romanisation, used Roman military tactics, and sometimes wore Roman style scale armour. It is likely that the nobles at least wore armour and, combined with the falx, the Dacians would have been a formidable threat.
Marcus Cornelius Fronto described the large gaping wounds that a falx inflicted, and experiments have shown that a blow from a falx easily penetrated the Romans' lorica segmentata, enough to incapacitate or kill a majority of opponents. These experiments also show that the falx was most efficient when targeting the head, shoulders, legs and especially the right (sword) arm, which was generally exposed. A legionary who had lost the use of his right arm became a serious liability to his unit in battle.
Hub AI
Falx AI simulator
(@Falx_simulator)
Falx
The falx was a weapon with a curved blade that was sharp on the inside edge used by the Thracians and Dacians. The name was later applied to a siege hook used by the Romans.
Falx is a Latin word originally meaning 'sickle' but was later used to mean any of a number of tools that had a curved blade that was sharp on the inside edge like a sickle. Falx was thus also used to mean the weapon of the Thracians and Dacians, and the Roman siege hook.
In Latin texts, the weapon was described as an ensis falcatus (whence falcata) by Ovid in Metamorphose and as a falx supina by Juvenal in Satiriae.
The Dacian falx came in two sizes: one-handed and two-handed. The shorter variant was called sica (sickle) in the Dacian language (Valerius Maximus, III, 2.12) with a blade length that varied but was usually around 16 inches (41 cm) long with a handle one-third longer than the blade. The two-handed falx was a polearm. It consisted of a 3-foot-long (0.91 m) wooden shaft with a long curved iron blade of nearly-equal length attached to the end. Archaeological evidence indicates that the one-handed falx was also used two-handed.
The blade was sharpened only on the inside and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. It may be imagined that the length of the two-handed falx allowed it to be wielded with great force, the point piercing helmets and the blade splitting shields – it was said to be capable of splitting a shield in two at a single blow. Alternatively, it might have been used as a hook, pulling away shields and cutting at vulnerable limbs, or striking the edge of a strong shield. The inward curving point was still able to pierce the armour or flesh of the target behind the shield, rendering even the most reinforced shields much less effective against a falx wielder.
Trajan's column is a monument to the emperor's conquest of Dacia. The massive base is covered with reliefs of trophies of Dacian weapons and includes several illustrations of the two-handed falx. The column itself has a helical frieze that tells the story of the Dacian wars. On the frieze, almost all the Dacians that are armed have shields and therefore cannot be using two-handed falx. The exact weapon of those few shown without shields cannot be determined with certainty. The frieze of Trajan's column also shows Dacians using smaller, sword-sized falx. However, this column is also largely stylized, with the sculptor believed to have worked from Trajan's now lost commentary and unlikely to have witnessed the events himself. A further problem is that most of the weapons on the monument were made of metal, which have since disappeared.
The Adamclisi monument, built by Trajan to commemorate the Romans who lost their lives in the Dacian counterattack in Moesia, is thought to have been constructed by the soldiers who fought there, so it may be more accurate. This column shows four distinct types of falx, whereas Trajan's shows only one type that does not resemble any on the Adamclisi monument. Because of this, historians disagree on which depiction is correct, but it has been pointed out that if the Trajan's column falx are correct, then there would have been no need to modify Roman armour. Both columns show the Dacians fighting with no armour apart from a shield, although some on the Adamclisi are wearing helmets. Some historians believe that armour was not depicted to differentiate Dacians from Romans, as both used the same style of shield. Other sources indicate that Dacians by this time had undergone Romanisation, used Roman military tactics, and sometimes wore Roman style scale armour. It is likely that the nobles at least wore armour and, combined with the falx, the Dacians would have been a formidable threat.
Marcus Cornelius Fronto described the large gaping wounds that a falx inflicted, and experiments have shown that a blow from a falx easily penetrated the Romans' lorica segmentata, enough to incapacitate or kill a majority of opponents. These experiments also show that the falx was most efficient when targeting the head, shoulders, legs and especially the right (sword) arm, which was generally exposed. A legionary who had lost the use of his right arm became a serious liability to his unit in battle.