Why did falcata style weapons disappear?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure about specific reasons, but the kopis and falcata are not that effective in my opinion. The Romans themselves knew it, and they employed short thrusting and slashing gladius, which is basically superior to any other sword in the world when correctly utilized. The slashing technique of sword attack has quite a bit of disadvantages, such as slashing was and is never as effective as a clean, strong thrust. Only the largest swords were effective in this mode of attack. Few types of armour can withstand a thrust on the other hand. The slashing motion is also difficult in the crowded heat of battle, and it exposes your body to a counter-stroke as you move the shield aside to slash. The Romans knew this, and so they used the gladius, instructing the legionaries to use their large, rectangular scutum to cover themselves as much as possible and attack in brief clean thrusts to the side of their shield. All this time their body was unexposed.

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

That is a steaming pile of horse manure.

To begin with the Gladius was a point heavy weapon which was known for being a brutal cutting blade. The Greeks were so horrified by it they demanded it be banned. The Roman response was, "Well you would say that, you lost." The Gladius is a cut-and-thrust weapon, not a pure stabbing blade, if it were it would taper to a point, rather than having a broad blade.

As far as the Gladius being, "basically superior to any other sword in the world", lets have some fact's about the basic infantryman's weapon.

1. Point heavy to the extent that effort is required to prevent the point of the blade dipping.

2. Heavy, on the bad side of 1KG, often closer to 1.5 and only the narrower Pompeii pattern regularly drops below that weight.

3. Low quality, particually from the late Republic onwards, one sword examined showed base incompetance in the forging which resulted in the sword edge being ground to the point that the outer layer of low-carbon steel was removed and the edge formed of uncarbonised iron.

4. Generally speaking the pattern of later Gladii is inferior, the swords become broader towards the point, have a broader point and lose their leaf shape. Personally I would say that this simpler design was a result of mass production and poor materials as an attempt to reduce breakage/maintain an edge on bad steel.

As an armour piecing weapon the Gladius is underwhelming, though its stout, broad point do give you some hope of forcing mail links without damaging the weapon a narrower point would do a better job.

The Gladius is a brutally simple weapon and relatively easy to use because it is a short sword, but the advantage the Romans had was in their drilling and the uniformity of their gear. They excelled at being uniformly average, which is a wonderful thing in an army, it means you have no very weak points.

[Aemilius Paulus]

To begin with the Gladius was a point heavy weapon which was known for being a brutal cutting blade. The Greeks were so horrified by it they demanded it be banned. The Roman response was, "Well you would say that, you lost." The Gladius is a cut-and-thrust weapon, not a pure stabbing blade, if it were it would taper to a point, rather than having a broad blade.

I never said it was purely a stabbing sword. I am not such an idiot. However, the legionaries were trained to mainly thrust and stab, as it was much more effective.

I also said that is was the best sword when properly utilized, and the Romans did know how to properly utilize it, unlike numerous other people. Gladius was the best in the sense that when employed by the Roman legionary, it was superior to other swords. It is true that the Romans probably never used steel for making their swords, which does mean that the gladius was not of great quality. However, I never claimed it was. The technique the Romans used was clearly superior, and the legionaries had extensive training, unlike most of their opponents. That is why I said it was the best in its time. If not, then give me an example of a more effective sword. Think about what you read carefully before proceeding to slander.

[blitzkrieg80]

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

care to support this completely subjective, if not grandiose statement with some empirical data?

he spoke against your argument and you should not speak as if you're an expert if you're afraid to have someone speak against your argument, or you could attempt to word it in such a manner that there is no possible objective attack- which was not the case here... i agree with Phillipus. You forgot to mention that the Romans DID NOT in fact invent the weapon and DID in fact borrow the technology like many other 'superior Roman' tactics and technology. If it weren't for the need to adapt to prowess of the Italic tribes early on, Rome would still be fighting quite different and quite outdated. Without a decent reason to adapt, there is little technology innovation...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair I did pour scorn upon Paulus but to be perfectly honest his basic thesis that the Gladius was best because the Romans used it is horrifically flawed. It's like saying the Doru spear is best because the Greeks used it to fight off hordes of Persians, not to mention Thrakians and other "barbarians".

I would further argue that the main advantages the Romans had were lots of men and a lack of total incompetance. Prior to the Marian reforms, at which pointevery legionary became a state-equipped mercenary with gear at the upper end of what most other civilisations use to equip their warriors, Roman victories were engineered as much by their enemies as their generals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, and those Halbards are very complex and deadly weapons, not at all crude. They're very sophisticated can-openers which you use to extract a knight from his tin suit.

[||Lz3||]

Even if they're ugly... I bet you wouldn't like to be in front of one.

And now to the gladius thing... I also bealive that they chose it cause

1-It was cheap and easy to make.
2-Any "idiot" can cover and then stab, no need to get good with the sword

Rome won a lot of wars just by sheer man power (ask Hannibal, or Pyrros (sp?))

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh, and those Halbards are very complex and deadly weapons, not at all crude. They're very sophisticated can-openers which you use to extract a knight from his tin suit.

Yep AFAIK it's the swiss army knife of choice for the medieval foot soldier... For instance that hook can help you prevent enemies from escaping, dismount mounted oponents..., the spike at the side then will pierce even the best plate armour (at least if you keep your halbard assortment up to date) and the tip is no less effective than a sarissa. Combine this with more mobile support troops and you have a very effective anti-armour force which can readily adapt itself when faced with light infantry, spearmen or even archers. Plus: halbards can actually be used to good effect (if you're skilled with the weapon anyways) in the dark.

One good solid hit with any end of the halbard and you'll probably not live to tell the tale.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You missed the axeblade below the hook, that think would take a man's head, or arm, or whatever, clean off.

[Watchman]

Pretty sure the weapons NS proved a piccie of are known as "bills", a weaponised gardening (specifically, hedge-trimming IIRC) tool that was something of an English specialty. Although remarkably similar hook-bladed polearms were used by the Italians and Ottomans, and the notoriously bewildering (and obscurely named) array of High and Late Medieval European polearms had no shortage of diverse designs which in various forms provided the same functionality. Give or take a few; staff-weapons could get awful specialised.

Main reasons for the general move towards powerful two-handed weaponry from around the 1300s onwards were on one hand their general versatility and effectiveness against cavalry, and the increasing ubiquitousness of good body armour among even common soldiery which on one hand rendered shields increasingly superfluous and on the other plain necessitated ramping up the raw destructive power employed to bust through.

Anyway, back to the falcata-kopis thingies. I was under the impression they were somewhat tricky to make and thus comparatively expensive for blades of their size? In any case, they didn't really fit into the Roman tactical system and as that pretty much dominated the entire Mediterranean military scene for centuries it is not surprising the concave blades fell by the wayside. Conversely the Romans' remaining troublesome neighbours - chiefly the diverse barbarians of Central Europe and the Iranians to the east - went for long straight two-edged blades instead, which the Romans eventually adopted too. Down the road you then had the assorted late Migration Period and Medieval single-edged choppers with a straight blade and flared edge, which AFAIK provided cleaving performance comparable to the falcata/kopis type while being structurally rather simpler and, hence, cheaper. (The first Medieval falchions may have been modified meat cleavers used by militiamen...)