Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    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.
    IT was an ephemeral pique in curiosity, don't worry yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  2. #182
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,449
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    IT was an ephemeral pique in curiosity, don't worry yourself
    Just know this, Swords are all about leverage. You have 3 points of leverage. Near the tip, is the weak end, near the hilt is the strong end, and the middle area is the neutral area.

    In the case where you are against a flail, you will want to have the flail make contact with the weak end of your binding if you were to parry it. Binding at the weak end, your goal is to allow your opponents force to continue forward so they are forced to follow through, which you would change directions with your guard or strike.

    If you are bound at your strong end, and a flail comes at you, you will want to control the bind, and keep him locked up with you. Pontentially moving to a half sword technique to bludgeon your opponent with your fist, the cross guard, or pommel of your weapon.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  3. #183
    You can swing and change direction easily with a sword, with a ball and chain once you start your swing you're committed, you don't have much control over the ball other than yank it back.

    Little control. This makes me think the OP article is correct.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Just know this, Swords are all about leverage. You have 3 points of leverage. Near the tip, is the weak end, near the hilt is the strong end, and the middle area is the neutral area.

    In the case where you are against a flail, you will want to have the flail make contact with the weak end of your binding if you were to parry it. Binding at the weak end, your goal is to allow your opponents force to continue forward so they are forced to follow through, which you would change directions with your guard or strike.

    If you are bound at your strong end, and a flail comes at you, you will want to control the bind, and keep him locked up with you. Pontentially moving to a half sword technique to bludgeon your opponent with your fist, the cross guard, or pommel of your weapon.
    Fair, I could "see" what you mean by both descriptions I've always, as others have mentioned, been more attracted to flails, or maces, rather than swords in terms of medieval style combat; but it wouldn't come as a great surprise to find out they were mostly a romantic embellishment from some later era; like a lot of things turn out to be

    Always wished they'd make a jedi "light-flail" for one of their heros :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  5. #185
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    You can swing and change direction easily with a sword, with a ball and chain once you start your swing you're committed, you don't have much control over the ball other than yank it back.

    Little control. This makes me think the OP article is correct.
    That is debatable (much of any martial art is, so take this lightly, lol) It is a completely different way of fighting. You would us motions which would have accessible transitions to other motions. Much like spinning Poi (Raver stuff). You have to use the circular force, and guide it to another circular force using counter balance and such.

    Swords and staves and spears and axes and flails are all quite different in the way you would typically wield them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    Always wished they'd make a jedi "light-flail" for one of their heros :P
    Well, in the Clone Wars animated series, they had Light Whips. They were more like shock whips though. They actually had a whip at the core that was electrified. Mostly used by slavers.

    With that concepts, I could see them making a light flail.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    That video is stupid as hell.

    Beyond that, nobody half serious would ever go to war armed with a Sword as his weapon of choice in the Middle Ages. Swords are sidearms. It's like going into a modern battle armed only with a handgun.

    Spears/Lances>Pole weapons>Maces>Axes>Swords. (Axes only win out because they are cheaper to make and maintain). Plus, plate armor will shit on everything short of Pole Weapons and Maces.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Or you mean the clearly superior version of it, the Quarterstaff?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterstaff
    yes.. its what I meant.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    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.
    Leather armour is another historical unknown. It may have existed but probably wasn't very common. Of course, it's possible it all rotted away and that's why we rarely if ever see any. But historical evidence points to the main options being various kinds of chain, plate (more common in the later periods) and "cloth". The "padded jack" or gambeson is well-attested and was probably the poor man's chief form of armour (together with a helmet, that's non-negotiable). They're composed of heavily layered cloth, which is actually very resistant to cuts. Probably not so much thrusts. Also pretty cheap so you can replace them if they get slashed up.

    I've seen some interesting videos of people trying to replicate "leather armour" - specifically cuir bouilli, "boiled leather" (it's not always boiled, information is scant but it may be treated in other ways). Apparently if you treat it in one of these ways, the leather hardens up and you could make a plate out of it - but it's no longer supple like leather, it's more like stiff plastic. The problem with leather armour (as depicted in pop culture) is that it's supple regular leather, which a sword goes through like butter.

    I think there's other forms of stiff leather that's cut-resistant, but it's very thick and stiff, wouldn't look the way we've come to expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macaquerie View Post
    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.
    Not really, good steel cost a fortune (earlier armour especially was often iron instead) and each piece was fairly large. If part of it was damaged you'd have to replace the whole plate. With mail, you just make a shit ton of rings. Some rings broke? Pull a few replacements out of the pile, hammer hammer hammer, job done.

    Plate also requires constant care to avoid rust. Mail keeps itself clean via friction, or you can toss it in a barrel of sand and roll it around. Good stuff, mail. It's also quite convenient, collapses when you're not wearing it. Seems heavy if you pick up a full mail coat but when you put it on and belt it, the weight distributes across the shoulders and belt and it leaves you largely unencumbered.

    Good mail is excellent protection against swords and the like, cuts do little to you though a strong thrust MIGHT bust through your rings. Probably wouldn't do much versus a spear thrust or mace blow, but I think the development of plate was actually more to deal with arrows. Though the exact effectiveness of plate versus arrows is debated.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    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.
    I completely agree that like any fight, the fighters are the important factor more than the weapon (I mean unless it's M16 versus limp spaghetti), plus conditions of the fight, etc.

    I have to think though that if it's flail vs short sword, no shield... the flail is only dangerous if you're in its path of swing, and it takes time to reorient it and build momentum for a second swing. Without a shield to protect the flail user, I'm thinking the sword user could wait for a swing, dodge it and charge in for a thrust. At this point the flail user has little means of recovery. There's just so much more wind-up time to get the flail to lethal speed, but a sword can cut and thrust with much less swinging around. And once the flail-user is off balance and the sword-user is inside his guard, his attacks are probably going to be poor anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  8. #188
    I mean honestly, there's a lot of modern weapons that are impractical for military use. There's other reasons for weapons to exist other than military application. Just as I'm sure was the same back then. The flail could have been a civilian weapon, or perhaps a private body guard weapon, applied in confrontations that were more akin to those situations.

    I mean, why don't soldiers carry a .500 S&W revolver as their sidearm? The reasons are pretty obvious though (limited shot capacity, ridiculous amounts of recoil, not particularly accurate over a long distance) But none the less the .500 S&W revolver exists. Because it's a fist full of stopping power and thus makes a good last resort predator deterrence option, whereas as 9mms and .40s are perfectly effective against a human target but would require perfect shot placement to take down a charging grizzly.

    So you have to look at ancient weapons with the same sort of broad lens. Sure, a long sword and a targe would be great in case you ever found yourself in the middle of a military conflict... but what about a situation where you didn't need all that combat effectiveness (and the heft that comes along with it). Perhaps a 15th century bookie would have kept a flail handy for those particularly stubborn account collections.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    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...
    They would be unable to use their weapon as well and the sword guy would have much, much better leverage for getting his weapon free. The flail guy would end up being the one disarmed.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildtree View Post
    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.
    If you look carefully, the type shown in those paintings has three balls, or in the case of the Chigiriki or the Hussites, it was the long two-handed "pole weapon" variety.

    These things may have existed (or may be artistic fancy), but if they did they must've been pretty uncommon. We have few surviving examples that aren't suspected of being Victorian era forgeries/replicas.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    I mean honestly, there's a lot of modern weapons that are impractical for military use. There's other reasons for weapons to exist other than military application. Just as I'm sure was the same back then. The flail could have been a civilian weapon, or perhaps a private body guard weapon, applied in confrontations that were more akin to those situations.

    I mean, why don't soldiers carry a .500 S&W revolver as their sidearm? The reasons are pretty obvious though (limited shot capacity, ridiculous amounts of recoil, not particularly accurate over a long distance) But none the less the .500 S&W revolver exists. Because it's a fist full of stopping power and thus makes a good last resort predator deterrence option, whereas as 9mms and .40s are perfectly effective against a human target but would require perfect shot placement to take down a charging grizzly.

    So you have to look at ancient weapons with the same sort of broad lens. Sure, a long sword and a targe would be great in case you ever found yourself in the middle of a military conflict... but what about a situation where you didn't need all that combat effectiveness (and the heft that comes along with it). Perhaps a 15th century bookie would have kept a flail handy for those particularly stubborn account collections.
    There's quite a lot of evidence of weapon use by civilians, through surviving fight manuals written by trainers (in the late medieval/renaissance I think) who taught people to use weapons for things like duels or judicial duels (in many Germanic countries this was an official means to settle legal matters). Some of them used bizarre and outlandish weapons. Mostly it was clubs, daggers, swords, bucklers etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #191
    Legendary! Gothicshark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.
    Posts
    6,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Guy argues that the flail we all know and love, mostly from D&D never was used in battle. He makes a number of points.

    More at the link

    http://www.publicmedievalist.com/cur...n-didnt-exist/



    Let’s look at the evidence.
    He clearly failed to grasp the actual use of a flail, and who would use them and why. They are not meant as a weapon for foot soldiers or line infantry. They are a weapon for horsemen, used to keep foot troops away from the horse. They are really effective in their proper use, since they are short range and don't require much in the way of aiming or skill, you have to do is move the stick towards someones head and the metal ball with spikes does the rest.

    A similar weapon was also used by sailors to prevent boarding actions. It was known as a blackjack. basically a metal ball wrapped in leather or a small bag.

    The problem that the author doesn't get is the use of flails when done correctly is not flashy or even graceful, the horsemen flail is held in the hand and just held, the movement of the horse provides the energy needed to make them effective. The blackjack was more dramatic until you realize that the use was to hit the back of someones head while they were climbing a rope.

    No flails were used, and they were very deadly, just artists aren't going to paint a guy riding a horse with people having bloodied heads falling to his side wit out a significantly noticeable weapon, heaven forbid death was impersonal and without thought. It's why the term Underhanded is considered bad.

  12. #192
    Legendary! Collegeguy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    6,955
    As I recall, the flail is meant for smashing another opponent in full plate. Not every soldier was using full plate. It was expensive as fuck for the time to have full plate. However, the mace was a better weapon for this.

    No sword can do to full plate what a mace or flail can, so no I don't buy that it was never used. It just had it's purpose.

  13. #193
    I thought that was a morning star. A flail doesn't have a chain.

  14. #194
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugraka View Post
    Gladiator combat wasn't about efficient combat practices though, it was literally all entertainment. They'd give them whatever scraps of metal/wood were laying about and said go and murder each other.
    not at all, sorry :P in fact Gladiators' combat was probably the closest thing to actual skirmish there was in that age, every kind of gladiator had specific weapons and gears that were meant to be used against a narrow range of other gladiators classes, as they were designed to have pros and cons against said opponents (a fitting example is the retiarius against the murmillo, -guy with bare chest, plated sleeve, trident and net- vs -shield and sword guy with heavy armor and very thick closed helm- ... they represented the fisherman and the fish (ah angry fish xD), the inexistent armor of the retiarius was compensated by the limited visual of the murmillo and his helm made to get caught in the net). There aren't gladiators fighting manuals, probably knowledge was passed orally from instructor to gladiator etc, but from descriptions and figurative art we can tell a good part of how it worked. I'm not a archeologist, i say this out of passion and personal researches, but being a very dangerous BUT entertainment-made combat, probably there was almost no stabbing, all slices, and i think gladiators couldn't "invent" random new moves, there was probably a array of what to do and how/where to strike against your enemy. I don't remember flails in there, but i dunno, seems there were actually more gladiators classes than the usual famous ones, as they were often representative of defeated populations (like the Thracian, like Spartacus)

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I thought that was a morning star. A flail doesn't have a chain.
    No.
    The morning star did not have a chain.
    A morning star is a type of mace.

    A real flail has three chain links. Anything more is a weakness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •