Quote Originally Posted by Namenlos View Post
Dear all:

What do you think of the following line of reasoning?

1) The Romans were famous for adopting to the tactical challenges they encountered during their wars of conquest (e.g.: Pilum, Manipular system)

2) The most well known example of a Zweihänder employed in Antiquity: The "Falx".

3) The Romans encountered the Falx during the Dacian wars. It gained the notorious reputation of being able to penetrate armour and helmets of its Roman adversaries with an ease not experienced before.

4) Assumption: This penetration power can be mainly traced back to its employment as a Zweihänder. No superior weapon manufacturing etc. involved.

5) The Romans reacted by strengthening their helmets and shoulder protection.

6) This specific reaction would have not been needed if they had encountered Zweihänder on a relevant scale before.

7) Conclusion: Zweihänder do not represent a tactically relevant weapon in regard to the time frame of EB (at least when we exclude the hypothetical conflicts with cultures the Romans did not encounter before 1 AD).

Best wishes from Cairo - Peter T.
The rhomphaia/falx and the kind of Celtic sword discussed here are two very different kinds of beasts, so they can't really be equated in the way you have done so here.