However, the mace, being rigid, allows the fighter to follow through the swing with their whole body. That sounds like a really solid piece of evidence. The weapon IS unusal and probably rarely used, but not non-existant or fictive. The flail reaches where the spear and sword and mace, do not. Also, if you can’t attest to its existence, you can’t authoritatively furnish a name. While many old weapons could be used without knowledge (like a broadsword or a quarterstaff), they would be a 100 times more dangerous if the user knew how to wield them. In personal combat he used a buckler and instead of swinging the flail he would snap it it out and back much the same way you would work a bullwhip. Hence, this weapon was mainly used on horseback, so the movements were slightly different than those described in the article. Pistols and sabers were still cavalry weapons into this era and beyond, both short ranged weapons, with the idea that the cavalry had the mobility and/or shock action to close into short range against arquebusiers/musketeers and pikemen and disrupt these units at a range these other weapons are as hazardous to one’s unit-mates than to the cavalryman. A section of chain between the impact surface and the handle would damp that out completely. 4) The mass flail collection conspiracy, or how the New World Order and Lizard People decided that inserting fake flails would advance their nefarious plans. Think I’m wrong? I will be happy to provide further information on these matters if you need it. b.s. a single devastating kill could have dire implications on the morale of their opponents and cavalry was already intimidating enough. Footman’s flails (Modern term) were meant to be used against charging riders. If you are interested in it I can translate something more about, maybe from official site of Giostra del saracino. The Fechtbuch is one of the many texts that modern active HEMA enthusiast reference for their training. A type of military flail known as a “kisten,” which has a non-spiked head and a leather thong, rather than iron chain, attaching it to the haft is attested in the 10th century in the territories of the Rus, likely having been adopted from either the Avars or Khazars. I’ll assume ignorance, because for an actual medieval historian to claim that fantastical illustrations negate the content they are accompanying would be pretty damn criminal. Thus why it is shown in those illustrations as being something characteristic of the exotic East. A weapon thrown from horseback like that could probably break an arm at least. Even if these weapons were rare (like armor, swords etc) they still existed. IF they did exist they would not have been useful in formation… but in one on one combat they would be quite effective… a shield would have been almost useless against it, and you could entangle a sword, spear or axe quite easily. Many such weapons had a bone head or a lighter metal head, and were primarily for civilian use. I remember a book series some years ago called Falcon which related the adventures of a former crusader named Draco DE Montefalcon who was a leader of a band of mercenary warriors, one of the book characters carried a flail of the ball and chain variety with the spiked ball. The idea was that the weapon would hinge and wedge between a horses legs bitin in, and breaking them as they got tangled. Seems like there is enough of a plausible vector for knowledge of it, coupled with natural human ingenuity/stupidity to suggest at least one ambitious idiot would have tried one. There’s a big corpus of Russian research on Russian and Asian one-handed flails. Thats an interesting thought. Also, having many backup options, using a leather belt instead of a stronger chain was non-critical and economical. I suspect it was almost literally of whole cloth, being derived from the depiction of Bishop Odo with a club on the Bayeux tapestry. A rider charging into a formation would look even more frightening swinging a spiky mass of metal around on a chain, about to let it fly. (This usage had them thrown, and would explain why many have spikes on the bottom and top of the handle (I saw a few when I was in Europe). Editor’s Note: Since posting this, I’ve done more research and updated my thoughts on this subject in an article for Medieval Warfare magazine. Please I encourage you to contact your local SCA or other reenactment group and ask for a demo. If there were an older version using rope instead of chain, a sharp bladed edge (to cut the rope) along the edge of helms or other armor might be an artifact to look for to identify both the use of and the origins of this sort of weapon. Okay, I haven’t read all the comments, but I can’t not think about one thing: the assumption that this would be unvieldy and dangerous. If you’ve seen anyone using a nunchaku, who doesn’t KNOW how to use it, you will undoubtely have seen them hitting themselves in various very painful places. The first question to ask is, what was considered as a weapon during those ages? Maybe it was just a metal club though. His usage of it was unique he would either work in tandem with another soldier and use the ball to stick to a shield pull it down while the other soldier cut the fellow down. And if you take it i this sense Something the author missed: Both manuscript depictions of the military flail show it being used from horseback, where formations may not have been as tight. If it is a simulacrum, the original inventors were not weaponsmiths but illustrators. You have a strong argument, so leave out the personal attacks. not good. So it’s possible that at least a few of the flails from around the time of Marco Polo’s journey were attempts to make the nun-chaku more difficult to defend against. Which is actually a redundant title because all maces had various styles of ‘spikes’ and flanges on it’s head/striking surfaces. Pretty sure he’s saying that one possibility is that, contrary to some of his earlier claims, the ones in museums are authentic, but it was a very uncommon weapon used only briefly. Prove it in the comments…, Editor’s note II: Quite a few people have been leaving comments talking about the existence of the two-handed flail. BUT, if the question is: did For example, a weapon that was rarely used and only by specific classes of people would only appear in certain areas of record as opposed to weapons in more common usage. Your second example is the most terrible exemplar of how terribly myopic historians are. They also are not what I’m talking about above. Why would something that isn’t a weapon have steel chain? God help you if you miss, and hit yourself or the thing flies out of your hand. ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Ms.Thott.290.2%C2%BA_080r.jpg ) Just like with some weapons of nazi germany, these flails most certainly HAVE existed, but most certainly did not become mass produced and were not effective in combat, thus they were often abandoned to rot in the field. I’d add that Barding armor would have been very expensive, and someone who could afford it, could also afford a sword. Despite the weapon’s popularity in pop cultural depictions of the Middle Ages, the flail was almost certainly an invention of the imaginations of later people. Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Yes you’re probably correct-can’t recall where I heard the warrior-clerics using maces story. But the result is the same, dead end. As a tournament weapon, the flail would nicely fill that role. But unfortunately Konrad, and his the artist here also wanders into the fantastical, like with this, my favourite of the images in the manuscript. Consider that by 1500 [when the Met dates it] arquebusiers and pikemen are the mainstays of the army.” In a world of guns and 20-foot-long spears, this flail would have been worse than useless on the battlefield.”. Some kind of source would be great. . (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). As for the musings about being unwieldy, especially the “Lord of the Rings” examples. 3) Those arguments about why it is a bad design apply to plenty of other alleged weapons of the period – and a proper historian would know that firstly, not all weapons are designed to be employed in the limited fashion you describe (for example the ‘tightly packed formation’ isn’t an issue for mounted troops), and secondly, apparently sub-optimal weapons are not uncommon – meaning either humans did things that weren’t 100% a good idea (Gasp!) flagship definition: 1. the best or most important product, idea, building, etc. The Leibrüstkammer in Vienna has a “Schlachtgeißel” from 1515, which amounts to a one handed flail (Saal III/A177 – in 1976). Would have been quite effective , and despite wearing a close helm for safety ,suffered no recoil or out of control strikes to my head or body , from horseback against lighter armoured infantry the results I believe would have caused shocking head and upper body injuries. The one handed flail was actually called a ‘Morning Star’. I can see it causing a lot of damage if it connected, but if you missed, it could be a disaster. another example of European medieval scholars just assuming everything East of Damascus was interchangeable). Since you mention recoil: One potential advantage may be that the flail design reduces the recoil force that transfers back to the user’s hand, thereby reducing fatigue. Probably true, which could be why it fell out of favor. 1) You don’t make factual assertions about things you can conclusively not prove – ‘they didn’t exist’. This was achieved by their unique design and awkwardness that flew in the face of traditional training. If that hypothesis is true then it would mean at some level the Chinese weapon was not totally unknown in Europe as a concept. It gives two things: Cutting it down to a one-handed design would be a reasonable experiment. Such a device would certainly break a horses leg in short order and the dynamics of it would diminish the possibility of the weapon bouncing back. All good and dandy, but the main aspect of the ball on chain, from a mounted position, is that I can hit the head of my shielded opponent, and or, grab the back of his shield and pull it away from him…. While use in tight formations was certainly impractical, that says little about the use in single combat. Val Cunningham Special To The Star Tribune, Remembering How It Was in the 'Before Times'. There’s no reason to degrade the person you’re talking with unless you have a weak argument that can’t stand on its own logic alone. Is it possible to use carbon dating on these? Arguing that something is plausible doesn’t get around the fact that we don’t have the evidence for them existing as a combat rather than ornamental/ceremonial weapon. Ever hit a solid object with a bat and get anything from the tingles to complete temporary loss of the use of your arm? Take for example, this illustration based on the famous Song Dynasty (960-1279) compendium of military knowledge that was rich with illustrations of military equipment of the day. They simply aren’t discussed. Similar to a pike or halberd, but not so unwieldy in close quarters as long as it was used for overhead strikes only. Stating that a flail is useless against guns and pikes is just a non-argument vs its existence, or worse. They were a way to get around a shield, either over the top or sweeping beneath it to entangle the legs. That would further lead to the possibility (or likelihood) that some weapon smiths would have tried to replicate it. It's a bird? I don’t think they would break an arm like that. A *real* super-powerful, magical dark elf would *never* do that. Find 34 ways to say SMACK, along with antonyms, related words, and example sentences at Thesaurus.com, the world's most trusted free thesaurus. Here in Belgium you can find some in flanders if you are interested. Concerning its practicality it is not to be connected with tight formations. One, it’s on a long staff and so its area of lethal effect is held safely past the head and hands of the wielder. It makes me wonder if it was intended as a one-strike weapon (break & entangle the opponent; bearer lets go on a successful strike)…. That sort of flail– developed from the agricultural threshing implement– is very well attested. Plus, these affairs tended to last hours and swinging a sword overhead for 3 hours may *sound* like fun but most folks couldn’t do it. They have appeared in a range of medieval movies and books, and they are held in the collections of museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Always fun to see some article on the internet insisting that the traditional weapon of one’s homeland (of which numerous examples exist, and which was still in use as a civillian self defense weapon as late as the early 20th century) never existed, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Russian_flail_16.jpg. The italian version shows more correct information. In 1530 pope Clement VII indeed made a decree that outlawed this but not only this “weapon” from war and jousting for two reasons. These authors compare its usage with the «montante» (the iberian baroque two-handed sword, ~175cm tall and weighing about 2.5 kilograms, with the obvious caveat that you can’t thrust with it. Confused about my answer, let me explain. The Globe and Mail offers the most authoritative news in Canada, featuring national and international news Depending on what you use to create a skid steer boom pole, and it's design, under the strain of lifting it can break and damage you or your skid steer loader. This isn’t the only case of this. Maces – as often blunt as spiked – were one of the weapons of choice for mounted combat against armoured opponents, and it seems that the Schlachtgeißel is a variant for this – effective for blunt impact against armour plates. As to the “flail,” I suspect that, it was developed from the horseman’s goad or whip, which Dr. Sturtevant mentions in passing, directly into an ornamental form as a symbol of authority (not unlike the small flail carried by the Pharaohs of Egypt), showing that the commander (?) In a tightly packed formation, a swinging weapon would be as likely to brain your fellow soldiers as it would your enemies. As you start by saying it’s difficult to prove a negative. What D&D calls a ‘Morning Star’ is in fact nothing but a spiked mace. But this one, too, probably never saw military action. I don’t know if the flail was in much use (probably not), but I hardly see any evidence of it being a modern invention. Provided that a one-handed flail would have been used primarily on horseback by a warrior trained in its use and familiar with its properties, it isn’t a far leap to assume that the trained warrior would have a fairly good understanding of the weapon’s post-impact properties. I have the same idea using crossbows on Christians was frowned on at one time You can see some videos for the montante here: I would expect that if a flail did hit someone, it would cause serious damage but impend your usage (you need to put it again in motion, which can be more clumsy due to its flexible nature) whereas the montante, being rigid, can be pulled back into action with more ease after striking home. Can you give a source for that please? My intrusive thought here is that it may have been a lightweight, discardable weapon, one of several different tools in the belt for a fighting man looking for any extra edge. Next thing you’ll tell me is the Bohemian Ear Spoon wasn’t real! Maybe like a weaponized censer? 2) Sources that have as little evidence as yourself to back their points of view do not add veracity. Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). So it may very well be a rarely-used or non-existing weapon to the Europeans to the West of Poland, supporting your article. The first two are from manuscript editions of The Travels of Marco Polo—and the flails are held by warriors from the Middle East. The lance, sword, and mace were always better ideas. Can you spell these 10 commonly misspelled words? Learn more. The basic movements include wide sweeps, continual movement and not a lot of aiming. A military flail of this kind is depicted in a very small handful of mostly late-medieval manuscript illustrations. There are much easier weapons to learn to use that will reach past the shield with less practice (flexible weapons are much less predictable and more complicated than fixed weapons), and momentum is lost on impact–there is very little follow through with even a massive flail.