Falx vs Panabas

I would choose the falx. It is a bit more versatile as it can be used to hook opponents or make cuts from odd angles(hamstring). If I remember the panabas was more of a finishing weapon than a combat weapon, but I might be wrong. The falx caused the Romans to redesign their armor, so it must have been pretty effective.
 
tedwca said:
I would choose the falx. It is a bit more versatile as it can be used to hook opponents or make cuts from odd angles(hamstring). If I remember the panabas was more of a finishing weapon than a combat weapon, but I might be wrong. The falx caused the Romans to redesign their armor, so it must have been pretty effective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If your weapon is effective enough that it forces your enemy to redesign their defenses, you've got a pretty good thing going. :D:thumbup:
 
I would think that depending on the situation. The Panabas looks like it would have in advantage on an open field because of its longer reach and handle.



It reminds me of the Naginata but on steroids.
 
To me the Panabas' superior cleaving power makes up for the hooking ability of the Falx. However, I think the Falx seems as though it would be better defensively, so it is difficult for me to choose.

Anyone else have further thoughts on the matter?
 
The panabas exists in other blade configurations as well and handle length varies. Most of the information linked so far is about its use by the Moros of Mindanao but I've heard stories about its use on Luzon as well. According to what I've been told it was used more as a clearing tool or scythe there and the examples I've seen have a thinner bolo-like blade suited to cutting tall, thick grass in sweeping strokes.

The story is that the panabas was used by young men against experienced rebels turned bandits armed with swords. The only way for the young men to challenge the bandits' superior skill was to use reach to their advantage. This supposedly became the basis for the Kabaroan style of arnis.

A bit of oral history and folklore from another part of the Philippines.
 
I'd actually say that the falx is a more versatile weapon than the heavier panabas with the curved cleaver end (which seems less of a combat weapon than an executioners weapon). The falx also looks like it would be more effective against massed troops with heavy armor and shields. I think the lighter, more agriculturally oriented panabas would come into its own, however, in smaller skirmishes against more lightly armored or unarmored foes where mobility, speed, and recovery is more of an issue.

Either way I think there's a lot of similarity and the two sort of blend into each other in the middle ground.
 
The falx was very efficient at breaking armor, it could easily pierce through roman shield and helmets. As far as i know the falx was not widely used weapon but it was used by special units of the Dacian army.
 
What about the Indian kora? ;):thumbup:

ph-0.jpg
 
That kora looks like a wicked chopper that would be nasty against shields due to that hooking potential. Blade shows some similarity to the falx and panabas but the hilt would definitely put it in a different category in use. I'd expect the original two to show more similarity to a dadao in use than to that kora because of the elongated hilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top