This style of sword, with the forward blade curve seems so powerful and practical, expecially in a world of chain maille and shields, that I cannot figure out why it was so popular with the celts, but went out of style.

Why did such an efficient weapon stop seeing use? or I should ask, did it?

I know the Kukri remains popular to this day in India, but why would it go out of use in Northern Europe?

For that matter, the leaf blade so popular in the bronze age, why did it fade in popularity?

A simple answer would probably be the people of the time found that other designs were as efficient, or so close as to make the difference irrelevant. Therefore things like the falcata and the leafblade were replaced by designs that were just as deadly but easier to manufacture.

I know that "celts" is a catch-all-term, but that the greek are supposed to be celts too now is a new one to me.

I guess that each times have it own inventions. Curved blades shaped on the concave have it's own properties, very different from straight sword with broad fuller.

I guess that we haven't seen something like falcata in medieval for the same reason we haven't seen two handed swords or long protective crossguards in roman times.

Someone just haven't invented/liked it/thought that's a good idea.

Maybe it is a question of reach. Medieval swords are generally longer than antic swords. And a long falcata would be really heavy weapon.

A possible reason may be that the main areas where the Falcatta/Kopis was used i.e Spain, Greece and Italy all fell under Roman rule eventually. The general opinion is that the Romans used a system of combat based upon close-in sword fighting; valuing the thrust over the cut. A curved cutting sword like the Falcatta would seem unsuited for this style of combat. As they had no use for it, the Falcatta fell out of use in favour of straight swords.

David, that does actually make the most sense. Falcatas give up thrusting potential. I guess my thought was that 24-30 inch axes were so common, and a falcata seems to be a better weapon in that length, and serve a similar function, in a better-balanced package. (but it would also be much harder to make, and more expensive).

Thanks for all of your thoughts on this to everyone.

Patrick, your answer was also very helpful, thanks.

Greek seems to have changed little...quite fortunate!

M.

there's a good thread on the falcata here...http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729

Hi.

I have a real soft spot for these recurved swords, and I'm always happy to see more interest in them.

It must be pointed out, though, that Iberian Falcata and Greek Kopis are not the same sword by different names... They are different swords altogether. If you were to compare hostorical examples side-by-side, you would see differences aplenty, especially in the hilt/handle area, and also in the overall blade shape, including cross-section.

The Macedonian Machaira, interestingly, resembles a Celtic Falcata more than it does a Greek Kopis. Again, a comparison will show this. I have always liked the design of the hilts of these beautiful weapons... Comfortable to hold, and made in that shape to stay in the hand when jarred by hitting a harder target. Ingenious...

Now, historically, the Kopis was used by both the Greeks AND the Persians. I don't know who had it first. At that time, I would say that the ability of this design to cut would have been far, far superior to anything else ever seen, which is why it was adopted by both sides. A Egyptian/Canaanite Khopesh, by this time obselete would also have had a similar ability in it's time, as well.

While speaking historically, I once thought that the Khopesh was ancestor to the Kopis (it was the similarity in the names, I think...), and the Kopis the ancestor to the Falcata. I have since been advised and have found that this is not so.

No-one has ever tried to disagree that the Machaira led to the Nepalese Khukri, though, as it was the standard sword of the Macedonian Cavalry, and as Alexander himself always fought riding Bucephalus, it would probably have been the type of sword that Alexander used himself. It was used to kill lions by a certain religious group, the name of which escapes me, but which I will eventually have to look up again, as it is annoying me. It's right on the tip of my tongue...

Romans loved Iberian Celtic swords. Each and every Legion adopted the Gladius Hispaniensis, right? And after adopting it, the only major modification that ever seemed to have been made to the original Iberian design was an eventual addition of length. I have also heard of the Falcata having been used by certain Roman troops, although other forum members will know a lot more about this than me.

The last thing I would like to add that everyone here seems to be grossly and oh-so-mistakenly under-estimating the thrusting ability of the European recurve designs! The shape actually pulls the blade further into the wound, and they have enough point and presence to easily penetrate the armour, and enemies, of the day...

It's my opinion that it was simply a case of more (and safer) techniques being possible with a double-edged sword in a close, shields-up, stabby-stab battle, and the improvements in ore and forging that led to the decline of recurved swords in Europe. That's all...

I believe the yataghan(sp) was a longer version of the falcata, probably though stemming more from the kopis, and was used by Ottoman era turks.

I forgot to post the image from Trajan's collumn... And I have another similar straight bladed "Kopis/Falcata" like form from the Baltic.

ks

---

 Attachment: 67.39 KB

Dacian Falcata-Like Grip From Trajan's Column... Probably a Falx

 Attachment: 108.25 KB

Polish Baltic Coast from the Oksywie Culture 2nd century B.C. to 1st century A.D.

Maybe a falx was a cheaper option?