Why did falcata style weapons disappear?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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...

[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.

[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.