Philippines Panabas Vs Dacian Falx! ...Weapon Comparison 

A claw hammer is a tool and you can't hurt anyone with it.

if it's heavy enough to be used on wood it's almost definitely too heavy to be useful as a weapon. Example: the huge difference between a combat axe and a wood axe. Less difference between combat weapon and grass or hunting tool, of course.

This is hilarious 😂

Like a Swiss billhook?

I once tried to tell a realtor friend that the stationary device he uses to pound for-sale signs into the ground could be the realtor's greatest weapon.

Yeah, it is first time I have seen it described that way and I have watched it ton of these videos.

There were a few edits. Which one was yours? Were you one of the anonymous editors?

@@cancerhands - i had edited the first sentence - it is now "The panabas, also known as nawi, is a large, curved sword used by certain ethnic groups in the southern Philippines. " - it was "forwards-curved" before, i changed that to "backwards-curved", and now it's only "curved".

​@@Herbert_EderAwesome! People like you and those who help update inaccurate information are why humanity has hope. Thanks! 😁 Just to note, there was another big edit made just before you that ran through the entire article to change all of the many descriptions of 'forward curved' to 'backward curved', while also adding in some explanations. The first sentence that you edited seems to have been overlooked during that edit. It might be useful for you to edit your comment to state more specifically that you edited the first sentence only, but not the rest of the article. Aside from that, keep up the good work and thanks again! 😊

I will see what I can do

Netfllix Trese (animation) used different Philippine weapons, the panabas included. :) in Pinoy fantasy series, i think the series Bagani (ABS-CBN) featured weapons inspired by the panabas.. also in "Mulawin/Ravena" lore (panabas inspired weapon)

Wrong. The falx was not used by the celts, nor was it similar to the kopis or seax.

you're right :)

I remember when we were all younger if you cited Wikipedia at college, they would laugh at you and say that’s not an actual source now people legitimately take it as a source times sure have changed😢

@@laksivrak2203 Yeah, I guess everyone with serious academic integrity stopped laughing, after several studies showed Wikipedia to be on average just about as accurate as academic textbooks. (Look for yourself, plenty of articles out there on the topic) IMHO, there is much to the idea that many people form self aggrandizing/serving ideas about the accuracy of informational sources that are NOT supported by evidence.

As far as I’m concerned all wikis should be taken with a grain of salt (a five pound bag in some cases). Always check the references (if any) for accuracy and completeness. There are not a few wiki pages that look and read as scholarly and convincing but are based on utter trash. In this case though I agree completely. If Our Host can’t be taken as an authority on the subject, who can?

@@markfergerson2145 Surely ALL unreferenced sources should be approached with scepticism, not just Wikipedia, since It's fundamentally intellectually dishonest to have two different standards of veracity, that are applied based on whim. It's not like everyone with a clue doesn't know there are many text books out there with egregious errors, wikis just get fixed quicker and at lower cost. If only I could post links........

@@Blowfeld20kinteresting - can you cite the studies please?

A two-handed sword has shorter reach than a one-handed of similar length.

as far as i remember, the falx was (at least according to some chronicles and images on Trajan's column) almost exclusively used by footsoldiers. not sure about larger blades being used in formation, but it sounds interesting as a possibility :3

​@@alexhulea2735Formation fighting was often a lot looser than is typically depicted in the modern era. They did pack people together to resist missile fire, but didn't really fight in that close order. Even phalangites (who were more densely packed than, say, Romans) fought an arms width apart from each other. Plenty of space to move a falx around in.

@@BiTurbo228 Actually it is the other way around. Formation fighting was a lot tighter than depicted in movies or other modern renditions. In the phalanx formation shields were supposed to overlap and your right side of the body was actually protected by the shield of the person who was standing to your right. So the formation was VERY tight.

@@DukeOfTheYard It really wasn't. We have primary sources that describe how much space is supposed to be between men in a fighting formation. For Greek phalanxes it's an arms width from each other: when marching you reach out forwards with your arm, ball your fist and place it on the shoulder of the man to your right. When forming up, you then pivot 90 degrees so you end up an arms width + the thickness of a body from the next man. That is the fighting width of a phalanx, which they inherited from earlier hoplites. Roman legions were a little looser than that, arranging their fighting width by holding their arm out sideways with an extended hand and placing it on the next man's left shoulder, ending up an arm's width + a shoulder's width away from each other. Both legions and phalanxes had a tighter formation they could employ where shields would overlap, but this was _not_ used for fighting. It was used to receive missile fire when they weren't threatened by close combat. As soon as close combat was a risk, they spread out into their fighting formation of a little over an arm's width.

Saw a modern picture the other day with a woman holding a scythe with a very long straightbshaft and a falx style blade also very long, eastern Turkey or there about. Scythes used to look like that very long ago, can be seen on early medieval paintings.

I think I saw one once on the internet like a Kukri on one side and like a Parang/Panabas on the other...Asian? Seemed like a good idea.

Not funny. Appropriate and intentional. Way it is intended to be used.

@@DavyRayVideo, what was funny about it was it happened so fast, but if you don't think it was funny that's your business

There is indeed doubt about whether the change in equipment was to deal with Dacian tactics or not. From what I know the manica was used before but nowhere near as commonly as during the Dacian wars, at least from what I can gather. The helmet remains a big question mark as do many things, shame that not much of the Dacian wars survived...

Maybe it could be the fact that ran helmets were segmented, so certain weapons could break those hinges? By segmented I mean those flappy ear protection things

Which could lead some, I suppose, to conclude that a khukuri is good for cutting/chopping wood (or flesh), while certain types of scythe is good for cutting grass… 😁

@@peterchristiansen9695 crazy, right? Who'd have guessed? 🤭

This. My understanding of how falxes were used is in a bit of a draw cut, in addition to hacking motions.

That's right - no edge on that side!

@@Herbert_Ederaha, that makes sense then. Thanks for replying. If I could bend your ear once more though, why couldn’t it be sharpened on both sides? Is there a reason?

@@balaam_7087 There can be a multitude of reasons, that's a whole discussion there. You may take a look at a video by Skallagrim - look for "The Pros Cons of Single-Edged Swords vs. Double-Edged" There is a lot more to it than "just sharpen the other side", it's also about blade geometry, maintenance, time and costs of production, ....

@@balaam_7087 That gets complicated really fast. The conversation about single vs double-edged swords is very complicated. Short answer is it wouldn't be prudent to just sharpen the other side of a dedicated single-edged sword. The cross section for a single edged sword is like a triangle and a double-edged sword is like a diamond (overly simplified, but to illustrate the point). You'd have to remove a lot of material to change the triangle to the diamond shape. A sword does need a certain amount of mass to cut through stuff. Lighter doesn't equal better and removing material like that also makes it weaker. Now the question of why isn't every sword in the world double-edged and would that be better is even more complicated and is a much more complicated answer than what I'll type in a comment.

I'm not sure that distinction is really correct. Lots of steel was being made in the Roman era - Roman swords are made of steel. I have not honestly looked at the composition of archaeologically found falx though. And as for 19thC Filipino weapons, I have to say that they tend to be fairly soft in my experience, having restored a fair number. While most of them are probably steel, I don't think they were generally very hard at the edge, and they were edge-quenched rather than spring tempered, so they are also able to be bend and straightened. They are not springy like a European sword.

Destruction of the legionnaires helmet anywhere in the pipeline Matt? Idk why keep thinking about that.

​@@scholagladiatoria So, This is me recalling stuff from years ago; and I may very well be miss remembering this. but what I under stand is a lot of the Iron was, Ive seen said to be a high carbon iron, rather than steel. I suppose its arguably a question of semantics regarding Steel", but one that would likely be noticed, particularly on large single pieces of metalwork. IIRC case hardening was the method at the time, but that was variably of too little carbon, or over hardened, effectively becoming cast iron, and not true steel. Flaxs are typically large and would impact integrity over that of say a gladius, or spear with the same issues. Larger the object the more likely the flaws. Filipino weapons were using even if relatively soft south Asian (and fairly plentifully produced) steel would be better on the whole. Roman era European metal work being inferior to 10th century Europe, let alone Asian steels. But Again I accept if wrong in this.

@@tisFrancesfault- From the Philippines. Based on Japanese records when they were planning on invading Korea, they also plan on invading Taiwan and Luzon (the Philippines biggest island) years before the Spanish colonization. They recorded from their spies and scouts that the island of Luzon has plentiful of good Iron and gold (still a major mining resource). Though I don’t think the Steel production in the island is comparable to that of Japan and China. Yes, Steel production quality improved when the Spanish came and were applied in making very good knives, Blades and Gun manufacturing, but I think the modern process wasn’t passed on to the Native Traditional Sword making sphere (probably, the traditional sword smiths were suspicious and weary of the newer techniques). My Father is former army officer and was dispatched into the deep south during the 70’s to handle with our own "Troubles" with Islamic terrorist. He also collected various antique Swords that he brought home. The real antique Moro or Southern Philippine swords tend to be more smaller, darker and thinner. I agree with Matt, they are much softer than most modern blades. They are very Sharp and yes, from my father’s experience in the south, they are very capable in cutting a persons head off. If I compare it to Northern Philippine made sword replicas, that uses more modern techniques, the comparison is quite noticeable even to a non-expert (like me) I think this stubborn use of old techniques even to near modern age is the reason why most South East Asian swords tend to have smaller blades than in those North East Asian countries. Funny enough, the modern replica, though are tougher, feels harder and sturdier, doesn’t chop wood as easily as those authentic ones.

@@jesseshort8 there's an channel that used an falx against an mild steel helmet, and it goes through. the video is called "Dacian falx Vs Roman armor & shield equivalents!"

I believe he talks about Sicas in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Db7JtQ0Iur0.htmlsi=y0dU51QtrYHpTtyY

Could be wrong here, but I have read that the sica was used by Thracians and one distinct use was to reach around shields and hamstring the opponent. Of course I may be misremembering but that's what I have for you. Edit. I just got to the part of the video where he says what I said lol

@@matthiasthulman4058

Actually scythes where like that ar the time. Modern ones has had two thousand years of improvement. Still exists scythes like that.

@@EattinThurs61 care to explain what you mean by "like that"? Like what?

The Falx blade is much more sword like, basically a saber edged on the wrong side. It may have been inspired who knows. The War Scythe was originally modified farm equipment, but that's a polearm.

@@AlexandruVoda Ancient "scythes" or sickles of the regions were probably built about like falx, for most part. Scythes like we know today, with long handle, blade at the right(ish) angle to the handle got popular much later. Majority of the world was still reaping with sickles all the way into 19th century. In 1 century AD Romans supposedly were using some pretty modern-like scythes sometimes, Dacians probably not.

Yes, in Tagalog region too... panabas/pangtabas/pantabas... all derived from "tabas" (to trim/chop).

The kopesh is kind of like that but unique in many other ways