The military flail didn't exist

[Noradin]

The Greeks were more about spears than swords. They had swords (some of them), but the spear was the primary weapon.

That is because for them wood was a more durable material than metal. Yes the other side can cut the wooden part of a spear if they get the chance to hit it just right, but with a bronze (or worse: copper) sword you have to stop and try to get it back in form with a stone every few minutes regardless, while the one with the spear can still defend themselves.

[Slant]

That is because for them wood was a more durable material than metal. Yes the other side can cut the wooden part of a spear if they get the chance to hit it just right, but with a bronze (or worse: copper) sword you have to stop and try to get it back in form with a stone every few minutes regardless, while the one with the spear can still defend themselves.

Somewhere in Sparta, during a fight between the Athenians and the Spartans... late afternoon...

"Yo, Spartan, hang on a sec, will ya? My sword is bent. Wait. NO WAIT JUST A SECOND! Here... ok, I'm good, let's go!"

Haha... I have to stop imagining these things instantly. :P

[nonameelf]

Every weapon has a counter. And I agree with the OP that the flail is a very unlikely weapon to be found on a battlefield. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if some hulking beast of a knight didn't use it just for the intimidation factor. If you have the bulk, a flail can be very hard to parry. Especially by swords. Try parrying a flail onehanded without the ball hitting you. Unless you happen to wake up that morning thinking "Oh boy, today I feel like fighting against a flail, I'll better take my specialised long-reverse hook just in case!" you're probably fucked. Having said that, getting into an infight with someone using a flail is probably already the winning tactic. What's he gonna do swinging that flail when you're right up in his face?

Well a knight would be in full plate armor, so they'd be using 2 handed weaponry, not a silly 1 handed flail. Shields were not commonly used with plate armor. Shields were for the peasants in mail or for soldiers before the invention of full steel plate armor.

[Khadgar]

Katana made from glorious Japanese steel folded over a thousand times and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth.

Not if you opponent has a weapon designed to disarm you :P

[Slant]

Well a knight would be in full plate armor, so they'd be using 2 handed weaponry, not a silly 1 handed flail. Shields were not commonly used with plate armor. Shields were for the peasants in mail or for soldiers before the invention of full steel plate armor.

Could be, it's a silly weapon regardless. I'd personally think a mace is a superior weapon in any circumstance. I'd prefer a mace even over a sword, for it's all purpose usefulness and easy of application.

[Arewn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGv_UdgHeCQ
He has two other videos on flails.

Seems to be a matter of context. Of course you're not going to bring one to rank-and-file war. And it's not going to be your only weapon, you'll certainly be carrying a side-arm at the very least. But they did seem to be used at times, and could actually be effective for some things.

[nonameelf]

Could be, it's a silly weapon regardless. I'd personally think a mace is a superior weapon in any circumstance. I'd prefer a mace even over a sword, for it's all purpose usefulness and easy of application.

Knights wouldn't use maces either. They'd use a long sword, hammer, axe, pike, anything that requires 2 hands basically. Maces were mostly 1 handed weapons. Steel plate armor made shields mostly redundant and not using both hands was a waste.

[Reeve]

Could be, it's a silly weapon regardless. I'd personally think a mace is a superior weapon in any circumstance. I'd prefer a mace even over a sword, for it's all purpose usefulness and easy of application.

I'd probably go with a rapier, just because I have some concept of how to use one, but failing that I'd go with a spear or bow. Range wins fights, particularly when neither opponent is particularly skilled.

[Nadiru]

Did the military flail exist as part of an army's armory or as a part of army doctrine? Probably not. Did it exist on the battlefield? Very probably; European armies were hardly uniform for much of their history (in fact, uniforms are a relatively recent invention for European armies)

[Deleted]

Katana made from glorious Japanese steel folded over a thousand times and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth.

Superior?! Only when the most dangerous opponents you can face are peasants wearing cloth or leather at best. Samurais would be inferior fighters in a European battlefield against fighters with plate armor, swords and shields. Those sharp katanas would get dulled as soon as munching on those metal plates and shields, and the samurais don't use shields so a line of fighters pushing against them would trample the samurais.

Katana blades aren't meant to strike against heavy armor and shield, they are made to cut flesh.

[Stacyrect]

That is a morning star, not a flail.

Nevermind I was lied to

[Deleted]

That is a morning star, not a flail.

Nevermind I was lied to

Aren't morning stars just round maces?



Oh, apparently flails are also called morning stars.

[Stacyrect]

Aren't morning stars just round maces?

I'm upset right now, I can't talk about it

[jackofwind]

Somewhere in Sparta, during a fight between the Athenians and the Spartans... late afternoon...

"Yo, Spartan, hang on a sec, will ya? My sword is bent. Wait. NO WAIT JUST A SECOND! Here... ok, I'm good, let's go!"

Haha... I have to stop imagining these things instantly. :P

No, in any land battle between Athens and Sparta after the First Peloponnesian War the Spartans get shit on so hard they sue for peace immediately. More to the point, the Athenians just launch their navy and laugh at how weak a citystate Sparta really is, despite all their posturing.

- - - Updated - - -

Superior?! Only when the most dangerous opponents you can face are peasants wearing cloth or leather at best. Samurais would be inferior fighters in a European battlefield against fighters with plate armor, swords and shields. Those sharp katanas would get dulled as soon as munching on those metal plates and shields, and the samurais don't use shields so a line of fighters pushing against them would trample the samurais.

Katana blades aren't meant to strike against heavy armor and shield, they are made to cut flesh.

Pretty sure he was mocking all the weebs in the world.

[Noradin]

Every weapon has a counter. And I agree with the OP that the flail is a very unlikely weapon to be found on a battlefield. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if some hulking beast of a knight didn't use it just for the intimidation factor. If you have the bulk, a flail can be very hard to parry. Especially by swords. Try parrying a flail onehanded without the ball hitting you. Unless you happen to wake up that morning thinking "Oh boy, today I feel like fighting against a flail, I'll better take my specialised long-reverse hook just in case!" you're probably fucked. Having said that, getting into an infight with someone using a flail is probably already the winning tactic. What's he gonna do swinging that flail when you're right up in his face?

Yes there is some counter for every weapon, but for the one handed flail with that long a chain, there isn't just an exotic counter somewhere, no the two weapons you could expect to be most numberous are perfect for the job (scythe, and halberd, and anything similar, the twohanded flail works well, too).

Yes, you have a hard time parrying it with a sword, but they are at an disadvantage parrying you, too. Their own weapon hinders them and there is no way to improve it. It doesn't work well with a shield, either, so you are basically wasting one hand you could make use of otherwise.

A flail with that long a chain is simply stupid.
The chain is a weakness, it can be trapped and it can be broken.
It prevents all parrying you could otherwise do with a weapon.
If you were to try and use a shield with it you'd either have to use only one kind of strike or open up your defense everytime and since it is incredibly slow for its reach that is deadly.
The worst part is that due to physics if the opponents dogdes (again, it is slow for its size, because it laggs behind) it will turn on the wielder with more force than you could ever hit the opponent with.

Even plate amour didn't make dodging impossible (you can do handstands in those, they are incredibly mobile given the amount of metal involved), if the other side has a sword they need to dodge once, then they are in position to thrust at you while you have to dodge your own weapon, same goes for anything long and pointy.
If they have a scythe or anything with a hook at the end you can parry them and due to the physics involved they have to be much stronger and more skilled to keep their weapon due to backlash than you need to be to disarm them (could endanger bystanders, but then, the presence of that weapon always does).
If you have a shield: dodge or use its edge against the middle of the chain and you will be able to trap their weapon leaving you free to attack with yours, even if they have a shield: they cannot use it in that situation unless they are lefthanded to begin with.
Someone with a hammer or a flamberge might be at a disadvantage, but then with the hammer you can still dodge and keep your distance from the chainweapon, something the whielder cannot do and keep using it, and a flamberge is for show anyway, you still have the option to use it for thrusting which the flail offers no defense against.

There is only one way to use such a ball on a chain at the end of a stick (somewhat) effectively in battle: If the stick is very long and you are in the second row, protected by your peers, then you can use it to strike down from above on those holding shields opposite to you, cannot choose whom to aim for though, since everyone else on both sides will be holding sticks (mostly with hooks) so it is straight down or causing a mess on both sides.

The other problem is costs for the metal and what those balls with spikes at the end are most effective against.
Someone who has plate amour likely also has training to use it. They will know how to counter you, even if they learned just for fun and in case someone uses ropes or chains in desperation. Those who do not have the training would be using things you could use more effective weapons against.

So in the end, that kind of flail is for show. Yes, it can be used if you must and maybe it might be better than bare handed even if you are good, but in most cases just the stick would serve you better and the stick with the spikes at the end certainly would.

[Reeve]

No, in any land battle between Athens and Sparta after the First Peloponnesian War the Spartans get shit on so hard they sue for peace immediately. More to the point, the Athenians just launch their navy and laugh at how weak a citystate Sparta really is, despite all their posturing.

Not really a fair fight. The Athenians had the goddess of war on their side.

[Khadgar]

Superior?! Only when the most dangerous opponents you can face are peasants wearing cloth or leather at best. Samurais would be inferior fighters in a European battlefield against fighters with plate armor, swords and shields. Those sharp katanas would get dulled as soon as munching on those metal plates and shields, and the samurais don't use shields so a line of fighters pushing against them would trample the samurais.

Katana blades aren't meant to strike against heavy armor and shield, they are made to cut flesh.

Katana's are vastly superior to European Broadswords though, even against plate armor.

[Noradin]

Could be, it's a silly weapon regardless. I'd personally think a mace is a superior weapon in any circumstance. I'd prefer a mace even over a sword, for it's all purpose usefulness and easy of application.

You underestimate thrusts, those are the most problematic attacks to defend against on a battlefield (besides arrows you didn't see coming).

[Stormspellz]

Isn't there plenty of evidence of flails in Roman gladiator combat?

[Dug]

Isn't there plenty of evidence of flails in Roman gladiator combat?

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.