Why did falcata style weapons disappear?

[NeoSpartan]

I....and they employed short thrusting and slashing gladius, which is basically superior to any other sword in the world when correctly utilized. .....

However, I doubt the idiots during the Dark, Feudal and High Medieval periods knew all that...

No disrespect but:
-My hands are also the deadliest weapons on earth when utilized correctly...
-Dark, Feudal and High mediaval soldiers/knights would love to prove u wrong, but ur lucky they ain't around anymore.

Ok enough screwing around:

I don't know my history that well to give you specific reasons why their use (as well as pikes, aspis shield, etc) became less prevelant. However I can tell you that the later Roman Empire, in areas that were properly "Romanized" (Iberia and Gaul bacame so later in the empire) no one was allowed to keep their own weapons. And the roman military basically "monopolized" weapons, thus whatever they produced (gladius, hasta sword, oval shields, etc) was what used. So more traditional, yet effective weapons, were no longer widely used and subsecuently lost.

Also those "idiot" mediaval people developed some pretty sick weapons to deal with what they faced on the field:

[Pontius Pilate]

No disrespect but:
-My hands are also the deadliest weapons on earth when utilized correctly...

Also those "idiot" mediaval people developed some pretty sick weapons to deal with what they faced on the field:

no offense, but those weapons seem a bit crude and don't look very effective. what I mean is that they look like they would get easily stuck in an opponent.

about the gladius...yes the gladius when combined with the training, organization, uniformity, and tactics employed by the legions was nearly invincible and helped Rome defeat many of its enemies etc. the thrusting techinque was particurly devasting against lightly armoured barbarians. the romans knew that even a stab wound a few inches deep could kill a man. but to say that the gladius is superior to any other sword in the world is merely just an opinion and doesn't mean it is a correct statement. to say that it was the best sword in the world at the time is a better statement, but even that is debateable. the simple fact that the Romans eventually prefered the Spatha and other longswords over the gladius is a sign that it wasn't the best sword of all time, which is bascially the point here.

[MerlinusCDXX]

Yeah, Pontius Pilate, they do look a bit crude, but for their function, they were effective. Those weapons were initially designed for footmen of uncertain quality and training to use against mounted, plate-armored opponents. Truth is, any weapon that uses piercing as its damage vector will probably stick when faced with plate armor, and crushing/bludgeoning weapons, unless one is trained in their use and has undergone physical conditioning, are often too slow to allow the type of troops that used these polearms to effectively strike a mounted knight with a solid enough blow to do damage. These polearms were brutally effective against mounted knights because of the various projections and hooks that allowed the user to pull a knight off his horse and strike with the blade facing any direction. The user did not have to worry about turning the blade to get a hit, or in the case of bludgeoning weapons, keep momentum going in order to do damage.

[dominique]

Yeah, Pontius Pilate, they do look a bit crude, but for their function, they were effective. Those weapons were initially designed for footmen of uncertain quality and training to use against mounted, plate-armored opponents.

(here I will use the term halberd to speak about all 6 foot kind of hast weapons)

They look crude, but the martial art associated with it isn't. An halberd is a fancy, close-quarter weapon used against armored infantry. See: http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/lejeudelahache.htm

Essentially, a halberd is an advanced battle axe with swiss knife functions.

Truth is, any weapon that uses piercing as its damage vector will probably stick when faced with plate armor, and crushing/bludgeoning weapons, unless one is trained in their use and has undergone physical conditioning, are often too slow to allow the type of troops that used these polearms to effectively strike a mounted knight with a solid enough blow to do damage. These polearms were brutally effective against mounted knights because of the various projections and hooks that allowed the user to pull a knight off his horse and strike with the blade facing any direction. The user did not have to worry about turning the blade to get a hit, or in the case of bludgeoning weapons, keep momentum going in order to do damage.

You mean the pike. The pike is an anti-cavalry weapon. There as much difference between the tactical use of a halberd and a pike than between a recoiless rifle and an assault rifle. It's not because they used a wooden pole for the pike and the halberd that the weapons are all used in the same way.

The halberd/bill-hook/bec-de-corbin/polaxe blade was not use to pierce through the plate, but through the visor or armpits when the guy in face was down. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiS...eature=related

Oh and by the way, the halberd fighting style was developped to beat sword-and-shield-style. A marian legionnary would have been slaughtered by a burgundian halberdier.

For those who are interested, this shows the basic fighting techniques of this crude weapon used by

footmen of uncertain quality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC...x=0&playnext=1

[Cute Wolf]

Oh and by the way, the halberd fighting style was developped to beat sword-and-shield-style. A marian legionnary would have been slaughtered by a burgundian halberdier.

that halberdiers will dead first if they face TRUE SPQR legionaries. They will become pilum cushions

Dismounted medieval knights didn't use any precursor missile weapons, as they think missile fight was "unchivalrous", so it was their obvious weakness if they face any skilled 2 handed weapons user, which in turns the 2 handed and without shields will easily pawned with crossbows...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

that halberdiers will dead first if they face TRUE SPQR legionaries. They will become pilum cushions

Dismounted medieval knights didn't use any precursor missile weapons, as they think missile fight was "unchivalrous", so it was their obvious weakness if they face any skilled 2 handed weapons user, which in turns the 2 handed and without shields will easily pawned with crossbows...

Actually, dismounted knights often used Halbards themselves, this precluded the use of thrown weapons but in general knights were known to employvery varried fighting styles, making use of everything from twin shortswords to crossbows. As far as vulnerability to pila goes, early knights carried shields and later knights had armour which might well have been pilum proof. For the Romans facing halbadiers would be like facing armoured falxmen.

[Cute Wolf]

For the Romans facing halbadiers would be like facing armoured falxmen.

Like noble falxmen in XGM?

Actually, dismounted knights often used Halbards themselves, this precluded the use of thrown weapons but in general knights were known to employvery varried fighting styles, making use of everything from twin shortswords...

Remind me about these vanilla ninjas (Arcanii)

early knights carried shields and later knights had armour which might well have been pilum proof

Pilum stuck to their shields, making it useless, and at least the pilum will hamper the enemy's movement, and disorganize their formations, which the romans are expert to exploit...

They are still pilum cushions...