Dacian Falxman

[Catiline]

Ok, I'm so speedy the pictures not up yet, but here's the description...


Quote[/b] ]Dacian Falxmen
The falx is a deadly pole-arm in the hands of an expert. Falxmen should be used to carve a path into an enemy formation. Falxmen fight in loose units, as they need space to wield their weapons to full advantage, and do not bother with shields as the falx requires two hands to use properly. They usually fight bare-chested and wear baggy trousers, with only a skullcap for protection. They are best employed to cut a way into tightly packed enemy units, but can also give a good account of themselves against light cavalry thanks to the reach of the falx. The falx itself is a frightening weapon: a curved cutlass-like blade on the end of a long wooden (almost spear-like) handle. Unlike a cutlass, however, the falx is sharpened along the inner curve of the blade, so that the damage on the blow is done with a pulling motion. When used properly a falx can easily hack off a limb or decapitate an enemy, making anyone unlucky enough to face it unlucky indeed

Take that and run with it...

[Catiline]

Description sounds awfully like that picture of a Woad warrior to me btw http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Nowake]

check it here (http://www.totalwar.com/community/unit1.htm)

I was hurring to post it myself, Catiline http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

THe description is good, although they should be depicted as wearing at least some sort of leather armour. The pic doesn't seem to work, so we should wait untill then.

[Kongamato]

I read earlier that the Woad Warrior picture is actually of this unit.

[Longshanks]

I think the Woad Warrior was actually the Dacian Falxmen, since the guy is wielding a Falx.

[Catiline]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/falx.jpg

[Catiline]

Interesting. I suppose he has different coloured trousers to the Woad Warrior. At the time someone from CA said the Woad Warrior picture was wrong, so I wonder what that is...

For reference here the WW

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/woad.jpg

[Nowake]

The dacian looks much better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Btw, that was MikeB who said that the pic is wrong. Something about their webmonkey posting the wrong pic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif His statement can be found here (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=6858;st=0)

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The shading on their trousers is exactly the same...They look practically identical about from the face.

[Catiline]

I think in fact the difference in the face is just in hair and beard colour...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The musclaculture, boots and belt are the same. I think you're right about the beard. Tan-trousers has arm-guards, but I think the blue-trousered has them too, they're just a very similar colour to his skin.

[Nowake]

They said that the falxmen should wear a skullcap, so ... probably that "hair" depicts a skullcap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Vlad The Impaler]

what can i say , the description looks scary but i am dissapointed they dont wear an leather armour , that should be historically accurate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

They sound like they are going to be the equivelant of the warrior monk from Shogun,pretty interesting unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

The description is a good one - perfectly accurate according to the records we have from Rome, including depictions on the Adamlisski monument constructed by soldiers who were in Dacia.

IMO this is the first unit description that CA have managed to get right first time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Things are looking up

[Oaty]

Actually I think it looks more the falxman is wearing an armoured face mask wich was common for Roman soldiers to do

[Hakonarson]

Roman face masks were sporting equipment weren't they - because they didn't have rubber padding on their weapons

[Cobra]

Yeah, the face doesn't seem real enough to be his actual face, to straight.

[Kongamato]

I dont think he is wearing a facemask, I just think that the low-poly model is being viewed at a bad angle.

[Longshanks]

I don't mind that they look similar, but give the Gaul a sword at least He should't be wielding a Falx.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ July 05 2003,01:09)]The description is a good one - perfectly accurate according to the records we have from Rome, including depictions on the Adamlisski monument constructed by soldiers who were in Dacia.

IMO this is the first unit description that CA have managed to get right first time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Things are looking up
Ok Hakonarson, if you know so much about Dobrogea (Schythia Minor) and the Adamclissi monument, and about Trajan column, then please show us were the dacian warrior was fighting bare-chested, excepting very rare cases. They had a tunic at least, and usually had leather armour. Look at that monument again

[Hakonarson]

PR why do you try to change the subject - I was talking about Falxmen. I know that "normal" warriors wore tunics, and that hte nobles often wore armour.

What is your problem with bare chests anyway? Do you think it's an insult or something - that it means we think they were too poor to wear clothes?? Bare chests in the ancient world were a common way for tribesmen to show how BRAVE they were - they are known (or even complete nakedness) among Thracians, Dacians, Gauls, Spanish that I can think of off the top of my head.

You can see Trajan's column Here (http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/index.html) - by all means please peruse it and find me the Falxmen wearing tunics and arour.

Actually I'd be interested in any Dacians wearing armour appart from the kings and chieftans.

[Basileus]

this is a sweet unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

btw it would be kool to have naked units hehe, if i remember right even the spartans where naked in thermopyle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hakonarson]

No the Spartans were not Naked at Thrmopylae - they almost certainly wore bronze cuirasses if nothing else http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

"Naked" hoplites are apparently a later artistic expression ised for "fantastic" and "heroic" scenes, and probably never existed.

What we do know about fightign naked was that it could be dangerous (now there's a surprise&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Livy notes that naked Celtic Gaetati at Telamon in 225 suffered from even the smallest impact of a missile - many of which might've been caught in cloaks or tunics if worn. So even a glancing blow from an arrow might cause a cut on bare flesh when it wouldn't have on a clothed person.

The cumulative pain of these wounds is said to have caused individuals to have gone "mad" (probably with frustration), charged out of hte line and been isolated andpicked off by hte skirmishers.

Livy also notes that hte long thin Gallic shield was insuffciently wide to cover the entire body and that didn't help either.

[Basileus]

your propably right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

300 naked greeks would be a scary sight for the persians though heh

[some_totalwar_dude]

plus consider that the spartens probably practiced homosexuality http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[DrHaphazard]

Whatya mean probably? Theres no probably about it, we're absolutely sure they did.

In any case i think we have missed the bigger picture here. Is this a unique unit (can only be used by one faction)? Are the Dacians a unique faction? These flaxman seem powerful enough, perhaps they are the elite units of the Dacians?

I dunno just trying to milk this news for all its worth i guess.

[Hakonarson]

The weapon is unique to the Thracians & Dacians.

Other Thracians used a weapon called a Romphaia which may have been similar, but they didn't have quite the reputation for charging straight into close combat with it - rather it was used as a close combat weapon once the enemy was disordered by javelins, or if they were cornered & couldn't get away.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ July 06 2003,01:21)]PR why do you try to change the subject - I was talking about Falxmen. I know that "normal" warriors wore tunics, and that hte nobles often wore armour.

What is your problem with bare chests anyway? Do you think it's an insult or something - that it means we think they were too poor to wear clothes?? Bare chests in the ancient world were a common way for tribesmen to show how BRAVE they were - they are known (or even complete nakedness) among Thracians, Dacians, Gauls, Spanish that I can think of off the top of my head.

You can see Trajan's column Here (http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/index.html) - by all means please peruse it and find me the Falxmen wearing tunics and arour.

Actually I'd be interested in any Dacians wearing armour appart from the kings and chieftans.
No Hakonarson, of course not. It has nothing to do with poverty or anything alike. The problem is that the dacians were very organisd when it comes to warfare, and them being perceived as just another barbarian horde is not corect.

Maybe some falxmen didn't wore tunics, but is a sure fact that they usually did, though. The dacian army was not formed from an eterogen mob of barbarians, and the dacian troops were rather disciplined (of course, not in the roman acception of the word)

Bear in mind the fact that, even if in the times of Burebista it is said that they could muster of a force of more than 200.000 men (this number is exagerated by Herodot, of course, but by all means, it sais something - I remember that the follower of Teres I, the founder of the thracian kindom in the 5th century BC, Sitalkes, brought as relieving forces against the persians 150.000 men for the atheniens, in 429 - as Tucidide states, and he is very objective - and they were at war with the scyths lead by Atheas in the same time&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, they could barely raise 50.000-60.000 warriors in the times of Decebal. Counting the allied help to maximum 20.000 warriors, you can just wonder why Trajan needed 14 legions - almost 90.000 legionaries - plus the auxilia - which you can estimate easily as being a force of 60.000-70.000 men, just the combatants - against a handfull of barbarians SO, we have to admit that the dacians were a match for the legionaries, in what matters armament, tactics and generally warfare experience. I can't presume that, being equal in numbers, the dacians would defeat the romans, but they must have been very feared. Just remember the huge numbers the bare-chested gauls had when Caesar conquered them - and he had a maximum of 10 legions and a handfull of german mercenaries stationed in Gaul, which is bigger than Decebal's Dacia.

So we have to presume that the dacians were almost equal with the romans in what concerns the armament and tactics My 2 cents http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hakonarson, didn't want to seem as a hot-blooded patriot or ... whatever.

[Catiline]

Most of the issue in ancient warfare was morale rather than equipment or tactics. Strategy could be better on one side or the other, but in basic terms these armies knew how to actually fight with the troops they had, they had to because of the lack of any meaningful way of transfering commands once battle had started. Clearly there are exceptions, to this, Hannibal, Scipio, and Caesar for example. Trajan wasn't one of history's great generals, though he was competent. In dacia he faced what was a unified state, at least in comparison to what Caesar had faced in Gauls which were a number of disparate tribes, who still gave him a huge amount of trouble under Vercingetorix.

Te Dacians were a real threat to the Romans on the battlefield, ofthat there can be no doubt, and can be demonstrated by the modifications the Romans were forced to make to their armour to combat the falxmen, reinforced helmet, the reintrodution of greaves for some legionaries and the introduction of manicae, modified gladiatorial equipment.

[shingenmitch2]

Prfire --

However good & brave the Dacian was as a fighter -- the point remains that the depiction of the falxman looks to be pretty accurate. I agree with Hak, I've not seen examples of a falxman fighting in leather armor.
I'm also a bit curious as to just what kind of leather armor were you thinking of. Some sort of curiass?

I've seen illustrations of Rhomphia troops using a medium oval-theoros shield and wearing a phrygian helmet, so apparently the Rhomphia (which appears much thinner than a falx) could be used in one had if desired.
-----------

Hak u missed the German tribes in your fighting naked list.

--------------
As to the that other fellows comment about Roman face masks? Seen one too many pictures of the parade cavalry? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Cat ---

No way I absolutely disagree...

Tactics and Equipment WERE the deciding factor in ancient warfare..

How did the Spartans hold off 10x their number at thermopolyae? Was it that they were more brave? Hell no... they had equipment and tactics that the Persians couldn't counter.

Why did Alexander dominate? Tacitcs and Equipment -- the Phalanx -- WAS a combination of correct weapons (sarissa & smaller shield) with correct tactics (the 256-man drilled unit) combined with effective employment (Alexander's generalship)

Why were Roman legions so dominant? Because the troops were braver? No, because they had a system -- with tactics and weapons that matched -- gladius, scutum and pila matched to the cohort/maniple system.

By your own example --- the Romans were countering the falx, not with bravery, but equipment modifications.

If anything you could say that in warfare that "bravery/ morale" evens out... what makes the difference is having superior weapons and armor, and tactics that properly utilize them.

Now, if tactics and weapons are even (as in the Roman civil war), then generalship, troop experience, and esprit de corps become much more decisive.

[Hakonarson]

PR - thanks for your explaination.

I'm one who is of the opinions that there was no such theng as "just another barbarian horde" - all ancient societies were, IMO, complex and organised - they had to be, because there's no other alternative.

the Romans are jsut one we happen to know a lot more about than, say, Dacians. Gauls too to some extent - and in many respects many of these "barbarians hordes" were more complex or more skilled than Rome (or Greece).

So I'm not trying to dis Dacians (hey I like that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif), but I don't see them as being any MORE important or dangerous or brave or organised than most other ancients peoples.

Shingen I think you are wrong.

Bravery is not the same thing as morale IMO. Bravery is what individuals have, morale is what groups have - bravery will allow a man to fight against eth odds for his own honour or whatever, but group morale (or lack of it) is why some armies cut and run when things go wrong, while others stubbornly keep fighting.

In the case of the Spartans, equipmemt helped them when the Persians tried to fight hand to hand, but the Spartans eventually succumbed to a hail of arrows - at which point their equipment may have delayed their demise but was essentially useless.

As soldiers the Spartans however weer both brave and as a group they had high morale, so they weer individually prepared to fight to the death, and collectively also.

These characteristics allowed them to stay behind in teh first place, and then to stay in place when death was certain - delaying the Persians a few more hours perhaps.

IMO morale CAN be improved by training, drill, good equipment and confidence in leadership - Alexander's pikemen are a great case in point - a generation before they were nothing but a fairly "ordinary" bunch of hill tribesmen. Phillip II converted them into highly effective regular pikemen in a matter of a few years by introducing drill, organisation, titles, etc.

So I think Romans DID often have better morale than their "barbarians" opponents, even when the barbarians were individually braver - how brave is someone fighting naked compared to someone who needs a full suit of armour??

[Catiline]

Shingen you're right about the bravery v equipment argument, but that wasn't m6y point. Hak's expressed my thoughts already. Morale was, is and will be the key issue in warfare. Bad example, but the reason we're here is ther TW games, and I at least will always commit high morale troops to combat before low morale ones, egardless of what srt of troops they are

[shingenmitch2]

Ummm.... I think ur actually agreeing with me Hak. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I think what we're differing on is our definition of morale. I have been defining morale only as confidence and willingness to give battle.

Yes, how brave was that naked warrior? Very brave. Where did it get him? dead. Difference? Technology (as expressed by weapons, and tactics that used them to their fullest.)

I would consider drill/training almost inseperable from tactics--simple Roman formations would be impossible without it. Morale is hard (if not impossible) to separate from training -- training and reliance on a system (if it is a successful one) does build confidence. But is it "that confidence" or the actual "use of a good system" that translates into battlefield success? It has to be a bit of both, but I would slant heavily on the side of system.

Like I said, all things being equal, esprit-de-corps and discipline make the difference. (Roman civil war, Peloponesian conflict for example) But in most situations all things weren't equal, and the most unequal of all is usually military technology.

You are correct that the Spartan discipline (which I guess is an expression of their morale) is what gave them the fortitude to stay and fight in the first place.

BUT the reason they were still fighting after the first contact and into a second day is that their armor and tactics gave them battlefield superiority -- man for man -- far beyond their Persian counterpart. (this will also helps one's morale)


Cat ---
I would agree that you want to lead with your best troops.

But morale is a tricky issue... my troops could have crap fighting spirit, but if, after contact, their weapons/tactics are allowing them to slaughter their enemy, I guarantee their morale will pick up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. The reverse is also true, I could have troops who are raring to fight, but if they are being mowed down, that fighting spirit will tend to evaporate. Success breeds confidence.

And yep, we are here because of TW's morale system -- because it is the only game that models it halfway decent and units don't act like fearless robots http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif hehe, unless of course I join that 99999 florin game...

[Vanya]

GAH

Vanya's main concern here is actually quite basic, if not absolutely essential, in the grand scheme of things...

Vanya wonders whether these bare-chested barbarian ruffians are using faux falx? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

GAH

[Nowake]

Have been gone for a while, so this may seem as a little late. About the dacians the debate is still on, but I think I explained my point.

Morale: the romans and barbarians had very different conceptions about morale. The romans had a military tradition, the legions competed for bravery and glory (remember how Caesar mobilized his troops against Ariovistus, by threatening them that he will continue his campaign with only his most trusted legion, the Xth; all his troops offered their services after that). The barbarians were, as you say it, brave, but they were not an army; they were just warriors. I know this is a superficialy explained point of view, but I have no time right now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif