The military flail didn't exist

[Hammerfest]

The flail and the whip always seemed like just a torture device to me rather than a weapon. In fantasy, they work (especially if they are magical like the whip in Castlevania II: Simon's Quest). In reality, not so much.

[Macaquerie]

Indeed. Soldiers weren't all wearing plate. Plate armor was very expensive, and would really only be worn by nobility who could afford it.

It was mostly leather armor, and mail armor worn by the soldiers.

It seems like a simple steel breastplate would be a lot cheaper than mail just because it's so much quicker to produce, and would give you a lot better protection to boot, and it wasn't exactly new technology by medieval times so smiths would definitely have known how to make them. The early popularity of mail armor probably comes down to the fact that resources were scarce while labor was cheap and plentiful which made it more cost effective, but once the plague killed off a third of the population and labor costs went up, plate armor became economical again.

[Wildtree]

Flails as weapons didn't exist?
I want $20.00 worth of whatever drug that guy was/is on.

There's a decent amount of history about the weapon and it's evolution over time.
Starts with threshing flails being used as weapons by the peasants, like pitchforks and the like.
Goes all the way to weapons that are essentially a crossover of threshing flail and spiked mace.

[Noradin]

Flails as weapons didn't exist?
I want $20.00 worth of whatever drug that guy was/is on.

There's a decent amount of history about the weapon and it's evolution over time.
Starts with threshing flails being used as weapons by the peasants, like pitchforks and the like.
Goes all the way to weapons that are essentially a crossover of threshing flail and spiked mace.

No, that is not it.
It was outlined how some specific design of a flail-like weapon that is a common motive in latter depictions was not really a viable weapon design at the time it was supposedly used in battles (to precise it is never a viable weapon design if the goal is physical effecitveness in battle). That specific weapon design was as far as we know only ever used for show and to intimidate, as well as ornament. There are several such design that we know of so it is by no means something special.
The only thing that makes it special in any way is the obssession modern fantasy games sometimes have for it. Same goes for some other "exotic" weapons that are supposedly special and superiour to the standard choices for some mysterious reason (mostly "it is obviously hard to use due to all its downsides, so the benefits when used correctly must be enormeous or it wouldn't exist"). Most of those are rare, specialized, and not a viable primary weapon if the standard choices are a possibility.

The "flail" in question is the one crusaders use in diablo (or protection paladins in wow in the next addon if you have seen the animations on the frontpage, they are actually a good example of where you can expect that weapon to hit most of the time). Their only real use is intimidation. The basic physics involve make them more dangerous to the wielder than to anyone else on the battlefield. Not only is the power of the backlash higher then the power that can be put into a strike at someone else, it is also tiring and requires space to wield, since it is necessarily slow the other side can easily dodge. Then there is the problem that almost all common weapons from that time have a natural advantage against them.

The only thing they would be really well suited for would be two knights in full plate armed with those trying who can kill the other most painfully and slowly. Well that might work if both of them were berserkers.

Why would you knowingly use a weapon that has a higher potential to harm the wielder than anyone else, even if wielded perfectly the most powerful strike possible is the one against your own body. Why waste metal on something that makes the weapon less effective (the longer chain)?

[Wildtree]

No, that is not it.
It was outlined how some specific design of a flail-like weapon that is a common motive in latter depictions was not really a viable weapon design at the time it was supposedly used in battles (to precise it is never a viable weapon design if the goal is physical effecitveness in battle). That specific weapon design was as far as we know only ever used for show and to intimidate, as well as ornament. There are several such design that we know of so it is by no means something special.
The only thing that makes it special in any way is the obssession modern fantasy games sometimes have for it. Same goes for some other "exotic" weapons that are supposedly special and superiour to the standard choices for some mysterious reason (mostly "it is obviously hard to use due to all its downsides, so the benefits when used correctly must be enormeous or it wouldn't exist"). Most of those are rare, specialized, and not a viable primary weapon if the standard choices are a possibility.

We have physical evidence and proof for their use though.
Has nothing to do with modern fantasy now, I would say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_%28weapon%29

Look at those examples.... Notice also a painting from the 15th century showing one in a battle scene.
And another painting from the 16th century.

Here's a japanese variant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chigiriki

a painting from 1545 - 1547


Unless all the paintings that exist throughout time are merely fantasy, despite the painters being independent from one another, it's safe to say those weapons very well existed and were used.

[Noradin]

We have physical evidence and proof for their use though.
Has nothing to do with modern fantasy now, I would say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_%28weapon%29

Look at those examples.... Notice also a painting from the 15th century showing one in a battle scene.
And another painting from the 16th century.

Here's a japanese variant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chigiriki

a painting from 1545 - 1547


Unless all the paintings that exist throughout time are merely fantasy, despite the painters being independent from one another, it's safe to say those weapons very well existed and were used.

Maybe you have looked at those pictures after you found them? Notice how they are not the design this thread is about?

This is the weapon desing in question: Traditional Fantasy Weapon Design
Notice the nedlessly long chain, the dangerously short wooden part that leaves your hands in reach of the spiked head?
That is a weapon only designed for self-endangerment above all else. They have the exact same form as those whips monks used to castigate themselves, just made of more robust materials for a more permanent effect. Guaranteed to make you pay for all your sins in just one strike if you mean it.

[Macaquerie]

A painting hardly constitutes evidence of use though, people paint all sorts of crazy stuff. I'm sure flails existed, after all medieval people were probably just as obsessed with cool and outlandish weapons as we are and undoubtedly would have made some just for lulz, but I can't imagine they were anything more than a curiosity. I just don't see how you could feasibly swing one around and NOT hit yourself in the head, especially with your focus being disrupted by all those annoying people trying to kill you and what not.

[Wildtree]

Maybe you have looked at those pictures after you found them? Notice how they are not the design this thread is about?

The weapon shown at the OP is one part of an array of such weapons in use.
I've argued that the weapon went through a phase of evolution. Pretty much how every weapon we've ever invented went through evolution stages.

And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that the flail was a primary and most efficient weapon used by the Hussites during the Hussite wars

[Noradin]

The weapon shown at the OP is one part of an array of such weapons in use.
I've argued that the weapon went through a phase of evolution. Pretty much how every weapon we've ever invented went through evolution stages.

And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that the flail was a primary and most efficient weapon used by the Hussites during the Hussite wars

Yes, I pointed those weapons out myself, but the discussion was about the specific design shown in the opening post, the effectiveness and use of those other designs has been agreed upon since page one.

The design shown in the opening post however is obviously not the result of some evolution to improve its physical effectiveness. Because there is none left.
It is a perfect example how to take a tool that can be used as a weapon and make it into something with no use at all--besides looking scary as ornament that is. All it has in common with the original is the name otherwise it is a closer fit to a whip you'd intend to use for self-punishment. Just that it is made of iron where the whip would have rope.

I suspect that is a reaction to the Hussite wars which led to the original weapon getting banned in some parts and frowned upon in most others. Attributing them with an eternal version of a tool to castigate themselves with instead of the tool they should have used to feed others but used in an uprising would have been something that fit the times and reactions to those wars.
That would then make the design shown in the opening post not a weapon at all, at least not one for harming others.
Instead it would have to be understood as symbol for eternal self-damnation. Exactly what the clerics and nobles of that time thought the Hussites deserved and brought upon themselves.

[Wildtree]

Yes, I pointed those weapons out myself, but the discussion was about the specific design shown in the opening post, the effectiveness and use of those other designs has been agreed upon since page one.

The design shown in the opening post however is obviously not the result of some evolution to improve its physical effectiveness. Because there is none left.
It is a perfect example how to take a tool that can be used as a weapon and make it into something with no use at all--besides looking scary as ornament that is. All it has in common with the original is the name otherwise it is a closer fit to a whip you'd intend to use for self-punishment. Just that it is made of iron where the whip would have rope.

Well, the thing is, that a few people challenge the existence, because some museums had "fake" flails.
I don't believe that conspiracy.

[Chrysia]

Indeed. Soldiers weren't all wearing plate. Plate armor was very expensive, and would really only be worn by nobility who could afford it.

It was mostly leather armor, and mail armor worn by the soldiers.

Actually, plate quickly became cheaper than mail, the arquebus just entered the scene so quickly after the refinement of full plate that it didn't have time to disseminate widely. There are a few records of battles where, if I recall correctly, everyone except the archers were in full plate, and the archers were still partially equipped with plate. The arquebus made plate largely useless, however, except for the cuirass and some styles of plate helm.

[Noradin]

Well, the thing is, that a few people challenge the existence, because some museums had "fake" flails.
I don't believe that conspiracy.

What "fake" flails? Do you mean real flails that were used by farmers as tools and as weapons in battle?

Or do you mean those iron balls on a chain with too short a grip at the other end?
I wouldn't call them by the same name as the ones farmers used, but that does not mean I consider them "fake".
I just do not think they were supposed to be wielded on the battle field instead of the other version.
They were used as symbols and as decoration. That does not make them fakes. They are still old and had a purpose at the time they were made.

You wouldn't call a medieval crosier a "fake" just because bishops didn't use them to catch sheep, would you?
So why would we call a flail "fake" just because it changed its purpose twice. A symbolical purpose does not make the object a fake, does it?

[Runenwächter]

Frankfurt school of critical thinking type of historian piece of shit click bait is what this is.
It takes 50 dollars, 2 determined slightly intoxicated russian youngsters and a smartphone to see if his hypothesis really hold up.

[AeneasBK]

How do you parry a flail?

[Reeve]

How do you parry a flail?

Preferably by blocking it with a shield, hooking it on the chain part, or just by stabbing the flail user with a spear before they ever come into range.

[AeneasBK]

Preferably by blocking it with a shield, hooking it on the chain part, or just by stabbing the flail user with a spear before they ever come into range.

So of the one example of a parry, wouldn't you just end up with them having a lock on your weapon? (And vice versa, but hey the wielder was at least expecting it).


Like if you aimed to parry the chain part, the head will just spin round your blade, and then either hit you anyway or leave you with a weapon with a chian wrapped around it...

[Kathandira]

So of the one example of a parry, wouldn't you just end up with them having a lock on your weapon? (And vice versa, but hey the wielder was at least expecting it).


Like if you aimed to parry the chain part, the head will just spin round your blade, and then either hit you anyway or leave you with a weapon with a chian wrapped around it...

No use discussing the variables of combat really. It is an endless topic with no verdict at the end. The flail wielder would have ways of defeating the defense of a sword wielder. And a sword wielder would have ways to defeat the defense of a flail wielder.

[Reeve]

So of the one example of a parry, wouldn't you just end up with them having a lock on your weapon? (And vice versa, but hey the wielder was at least expecting it).


Like if you aimed to parry the chain part, the head will just spin round your blade, and then either hit you anyway or leave you with a weapon with a chian wrapped around it...

If you're using a polearm, you probably have a much stronger grip on your weapon than the 1 handed chain mace user. So even if the flail entangles the polearm, you can just yank the chain mace out of your opponent's hands, easily disarming him, and then use the pointy bit on your polearm to stick your opponent in the face.

[AeneasBK]

No use discussing the variables of combat really. It is an endless topic with no verdict at the end. The flail wielder would have ways of defeating the defense of a sword wielder. And a sword wielder would have ways to defeat the defense of a flail wielder.

Sure, I didn't mean to ask what would happen if you had a guy with a flail vs a guy with a sword. It just struck me that if you, for example, had no shield, there would be very little in the way of "defense" against a flail, as opposed to a more static weapon like a mace or sword; because you wouldn't be able to parry the weapon in the same way.

If you're using a polearm, you probably have a much stronger grip on your weapon than the 1 handed chain mace user. So even if the flail entangles the polearm, you can just yank the chain mace out of your opponent's hands, easily disarming him, and then use the pointy bit on your polearm to stick your opponent in the face.

Fair cop.

[Kathandira]

Sure, I didn't mean to ask what would happen if you had a guy with a flail vs a guy with a sword. It just struck me that if you, for example, had no shield, there would be very little in the way of "defense" against a flail, as opposed to a more static weapon like a mace or sword; because you wouldn't be able to parry the weapon in the same way.

In a dueling situation, it would be interesting.

If it was single handed combat (1 man with only a flail, and 1 man with only a short sword) It would all depend on their skill level. Part of skill and experience, is to learn how to defend against various situations. It would be too hard to tell.

But if you are only interested in the specific situation where a sword and flail were to meet, there are ways for a sword to deal with it. If you were able to draw your opponent in to strike at you, and you caught him with the weak end of your sword, then allowed the flail to run off leaving the flail low, giving you the chance to strike high, you could kill him quickly.

Depends if the flail wielder knows the feeling of a weak end deflection, and knows how you counter it though.

Too many variables. lol The above description could quickly turn into a 10 page essay on each step of the way.

- - - Updated - - -

I began describing the finer points of weapon binding, and how it effects the outcome of the duel. But it was already looking like a wall of text, so I deleted it. If you really want to discuss this, I can write it up, but it would be a lengthy read.