Why did falcata style weapons disappear?

[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...

[Pontius Pilate]

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.

once again, as with Aemilius Paulus' previous statement this is debateable and just an opinion. there is really no sure way to know who would win in a fight. the two fighting styles were utilized in different time periods nearly a thousand years apart. weapons and fighting styles used centuries ago wouldn't exactly stand up to weapons today would they? I'm just trying to say people shouldn't throw around opinions like they are facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Like noble falxmen in XGM?



Remind me about these vanilla ninjas (Arcanii)



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...

I don' think so, Norman knights in particular are pound-for-pound better than Roman legionaries, bigger, more highly skilled and better equipped. The Normans were also diciplined, unlike many later Knights. If the pila stick in the knights shields they can discard their shields and use their axes or spears. Hardly a forgone conclusion.

[Cute Wolf]

Well, sicilian norman knights, in M2TW are capable to charge without orders... I don't know if they are disciplined... but ...

discard their shields and use their axes or spears. Hardly a forgone conclusion.

are they carrying 5 weapons (lance, sword, axe, spear, halberd, with shield) in the same time?

[Emperor Burakuku]

To compare the roman legions to the medieval pikemen... why? The roman legionaries were good at facing infantry in general but their weapons and equipment were not designed for facing heavy cavalry; we all know what happent at Carrhae and in other confrontations against well organised cavalry forces such as the parthians or against sarmatians or huns in later periods. The late roman empire, especially in the East, adopted some of these new tactics and equipment. The equites catafractari and clibanari, the later tagmata regiments, et caetera were elite cavalry inspired from the east and their main purpose was to face the new threat of well organised heavy cavalry. Why? Because the legionaries were the best infantry out there, but they were not perfect. They also hired the foederati, barbarian "mercenaries" who used their own tactics and also other kind of auxillia.

After the fall of the WRE the new germanic conquerors imposed their way of life based mainly on the new gentilic order. There we have the Early Middle Ages and the feudal relations born from the mixture of the old ways with the new ways. Warfare changed along with that and the new feudal overlords in Europe adopted new millitary tactics in which the cavalry was much more importand then before. Weapons changed also. Pikes were needed. At Nicopolis, the turks administrated a crushing defeat to the Western Army, using pikes like those Neo Spartan posted above. They used the hook to get them off the horses. As far as I know the ottomans were the first that did this, but not much later, these weapons were adopted by the Italians in Lombardia and by the Swiss pikemen who defeated both the austrians and the french using the schiltron (a formation wich was older anyway - as far as I know the korean spearmen that the huns brought along with them used the schiltron... I might be wrong though).

Both the swiss pikemen, italian foot soldiers or burgundian halbardiers (or the Janissary in the Ottoman Empire) were considered some of the best infantry forces in Europe during the High Middle Ages. Monarchs were hiring these mercenary infantry to stand against the opponent's heavy cavalry and later, but as the weapons developed (from simple spears, to pikes, to billhooks and poleaxes and later halberds, whatever) they began to be used against infantry also. It was said that a halberd in the hands of a swiss peasand was a deadly wapon. And there we go: these kind of weapons spread in Europe through the Middle Ages from a paradoxal need to confront that wich was imported and perfected centuries before from the same need – to confront heavy cavalry. Romans adopted the catafractari from the partians. Through time the later conquerors perfected them resulting in the western heavy cavalry – a deadly weapon. Then again the westerners imported a new weapon from the east when at Nicopolis sultan Bayezid gave them a bloodbath. Not only because of the hooks used to get them off horses but they were proven quite efficient. History is sometimes paradoxal.

Regarding the legionaries vs dismounted armored knights… why would they dismount anyway? AFAIK that’s like deliberately giving an advantage to the enemy.

Legionaries vs pikemen is more like legionaires vs phalanx to me. A different kind of phalanx maybe. Who knows what might have happent? Well the romans did defeat Phillip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus, and also Antiochus III at Magnesia but that’s quite different. In the 1st place because those armies were very different from their medieval counterparts, and in the 2nd place because face to face, legionaries vs phalanx were proven ineffective at Cynoscephalae. Pillum or not it was that tribune’s decisive maneuver that won the battle with romans attacking the macedonians from the rear.

Legionares vs swiss halberdiers I say it’s like… comparing a T34 with a modern tank. T34 was the best tank of his time not because it was the strongest armour, but because it was cheap, easy to produce and in less time then the german heavy tanks. Also it had a good engine and was highly versatile. But comared to a M1 Abrams… what’s the point?

Anyway sorry for the bad spelling and Happy Holidays to everyone.

P.S The name of the thread was " Why did falcata style weapons disappear?" I guess it was obsolete at the time.

[Marcus Ulpius]

I'm by no means a specialist, but I think that falcata and similar weapons demanded better and more extensive training than Roman gladius. The main question is - whether falcata was used by the "elite" units or was it a common weapon in Thracian armies? If it was an elite weapon than the answer is simple.

The Roman strategy was based on simplification and uniformity of the army. As opposed to many other ancient nations the Roman legion was a relatively uniform unit. Most soldiers had similar equipment and similar training. That was one of the most important inventions of the Romans. The army was no more a mix of few "champions" or elite units and a large mass of militia with poor equipment and even worse training. When Roman general was leading his men he knew what he can expect from them, what they can and can not do. The result of this uniform army structure was the unification of the weaponry and training, so the choice was made in favor of cheaper, easier to use, but effective gladius and not an expensive difficult to handle falcata.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, sicilian norman knights, in M2TW are capable to charge without orders... I don't know if they are disciplined... but ...



are they carrying 5 weapons (lance, sword, axe, spear, halberd, with shield) in the same time?

M2TW? So what?

At Hastings in 1066 the Norman cavalry performed several abortive charges and help draw away sections of Fyrd. They were a diciplined fighting force, and no, they weren't carrying five weapons. General a knight would carry spear (lance is not really appropriate here), sword and shield but some used Norse axes when dismounted.