Overappreciated Historical Weapons: the medieval FLAIL
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- Please be sure to subscribe to That Works' RUclips channel: / @thatworks
The medieval flail is not nearly as great a weapon as many movies and video games have shown.
Shadiversity on Patreon: / shadiversity
Awesome shadiversity T-shirts: teespring.com/stores/shadiver...
Come join the discord server and have a chat: / discord
Cool video, Shad. You expressed interest in seeing some tests, so I did some. A bit of a comparison between a long-hafted mace, a short mace and a flail. I did the testing on my load cell and put a bit of a video together as a response. Let me know what you think. There's quite a lot of scope for further testing and refinement to find the optimal flail design parameters (length, weight, length of flexible link etc.) if there is sufficient interest... Video link: ruclips.net/video/L3MonegdQJ8/видео.html
This was truly awesome mate, although the tests were not completely controlled like you said, it was still extremely informative!
The formula for kinetic energy is 0.5mv^2.
Assuming the chain allows the weight to swing at 2x the speed of the handle, a flail would deliver 4x the energy of a mace with a comparable weight.
This comment is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
@SixDogsinOz hate to say it but the velocity is based on the energy input based on the same swing of arm and body, the goal is more to concentrate that force on a small point maces do more damage, flails more likely to penetrate padding?
I wonder if the flails biggest benefits are rapid striking speed due to low mass, ease of training your largely novice military force (swing it and smack them) and the ability to turn threshing skill into a useful weapon skill. Spears are the simplest weapon to teach folks to use, and are cheap in regards to metalwork, thus popular and common weapons even as late as pike and shot. A flail can be built from a lump of mass, a strong rope and a stick of wood, chains help resist skilled blades, and clubs need fairly good heft or quality of timber to not smash.
Summary of flail characteristics:
Ease of training peasantry, check. Ease of production, for simple ones check. Lighter to carry than a mace, axe or hammer, check. The flail may not be the best weapon on the battlefield but I don't see them being rare. Although you may bash more of your mates than your foes...
@SixDogsinOz my apologies: i was using my cellphone and was trying to reply to Christopher's comment.
Unfortunately it appears cellphones like to misread clicks.
The visual impact of the Massive flail in the movie looks like a weapon for shock and awe as you mentioned: Not actually terribly efficient as a weapon being too large and clunky while lacking any finesse to actually protect the wielder: he'd be better off arming a Sledgehammer frankly but Rule of Cool wins movies (unless you are the bad guy)
I guess shad doesn't realize that the flail is really a pommel on a leash. End them rightly without running out of pommels
OMG
Flail-wielder strikes an opponent.
Enemy was pommeled to death.
Perfect.
Its like a coin on a string for vending machines. But ending your opponent rightly.
That you, this comment made my day. It had me laughing out loud, for real.
Other things we see in medieval artwork:
-Rabbits torturing people to death
-Giant monster snails
-A surprising number of dudes playing flutes with their butts
I thought those were trumpets they were playing
Devils with face for butt.
@@leyenda6149 That would be a Bugle i believe XD
Dragons, everybody forgets about the dragons.
Birds with beaks going up buttholes and other orifices. Seriously, wtf.
Modern person: "Flails look really cool."
Medieval Artist: "I know, right?"
@Diego Gonzalez seems like a very good reason to me
Flails were used as agricultural tool. Then Hussites changes them a bit so that peasants can fight against knights.
@@jandrexler3224 The flail seems like a kind of signature weapon for the Hussites.
@@jandrexler3224 That flail is pretty much a different weapon though since it's basically a staff flail, because using a short flail with a metal ball at the end wouldn't be good for agriculture either.
Just like how long swords are different enough from great swords to be separate things.
@@user-tzzglsstle585e38there is also the yoyo, the "monkey fist" and "three-pegged-staff" which could all be used similarly to the medieval flail but would ACTUALLY BE USEFUL against attackers! Also they were all weird weapons designed by monks in asia to fight the enemies in weird ways that they weren't expecting
When I was in high school, my buddies and I made a flail by ramming long nails through a good sized ball, filling the ball with wet concrete and suspending a chain into it. We later attached the chain through a bolt in a length of doweling rod.
The thing was terrifying! We swung it around a few times... once, we spun it through a few rotations and through it at a piece of wood and the "spiked ball" just sunk right it and stuck. We didn't fool around it very much once we made it... we all had too much self preservation.
That sounds fucking awesome haha
It's for trolling the guy who hides behind his shield thinking he's safe.
RAH!
Youre absolutely correct! 😮 Thats why it was invented. 🤔
@@ilkkarautio2449 Really? We know this as a fact?
@@enoch13th85 Yes, all the evidence ive ever seen points to that being the case. 🤔
@@ilkkarautio2449 It seems plausible to me that it'd be good for braking shields.
Two-handed flails were used as polearms during the Hussite Wars. They made for very good anti-armor weapons. They were very cheap because most of them were repurposed trashing flails. It became on of the icons of Hussites. Some of those flailheads were even made entirely from metal. Later Mair dedicated one of his treatises to two handed flail.
So while one handed flail is overappreciated, polearm version of it is very underappreciated.
Fun fact: one handed flails are occasionally called cavalryman's flails, while two-handed flails are often called footman's flails. I once had a D&D character concept of a half-orc oracle who used a footman's flail as their main weapon and everyone I knew was like "dafuq's a footman's flail?"
I like flails in D&D because they can make trip attacks!
Michael Gerardi in older versions they could. 5e can’t unfortunately.
@Dragon50275 Sweep the legs, easier with chain and whip-like weapons, and if you mess up you can let go of the weapon instead of getting pulled off of your own feet.
As a note: if you plan on using your weapon to try and trip your opponent, always carry a back-up. sooner or later you WILL mess up that attack, best not to have to try and recover your weapon from the guy now standing over it.
One reason I play 3.5. Also Pathfinder, but I don't remember off hand if flails trip in Pathfinder.
4:46
Oh that thing? Yeah, that’s a Polefeather, obviously. Meant to tickle your opponents to death.
Truly the most dangerous medieval weapon.
i was looking for this, what is it really?
Captain Feathersword must have gotten an upgrade.
@@beanb34n95 It's a two handed pole flail. Usually no chain/just 2 rings making sort of a hinge or very short chain. Think long flexible shaft mace.
It was actually banned by the Geneva convention in 1084 for being inhumane
I always thought of it as the ideal cavalry mace... as we all know, hitting something with an object in your hand moving at high speeds sends a lot of shock up the users arm. However, all of the shock of a horse moving at full speed and the users swing would transfer into the chain instead of the arm of the user. Aside from that, though, I don’t see a use for the flail. I wish I had found this video a year earlier, so people could actually read my opinion 😛
I read it, rewatching video
i was going through comment sectuon and i read it
Griffian thank you 😢 means a lot
I don't really know how comfortable I would be using a flail on horseback. One missed swing and your horse could be out of commission
Eli Strauss later on Horses were quite heavily barded (armored) and a flail isn’t as unwieldy as you’d think. A well trained cavalryman could do the job right nicely I’d bet.
Well, there's one thing I can tell in defence of a flail. Have you ever tried to hit really hard a solid piece of armor with something stiff? An axe, for example? Your hand will hurt for the rest of a day, because the stopping power works both sides. That's what the flail saves you from. Whatever you hit with the thing on a chain, howewer hard, your hand won't feel anything. And that's a definite pro.
You need to lighten your grip sligthly at the point of impact and then tighten it again after impact to lessen the reverbration. The stiffer your grip is the greater the amount of force transferred is. That is an issue of the wielders skill and not an inherent flaw of the weapon. Yeah it's a feature and its easier to get a newbie to get around it with a flail. But an experienced wielder of a regular mace/sword/polearm can get around that issue. Good hand padding helps too. The less density your hand has the better off you'll be. You can try it out right now by tossing a tennis ball from hand to hand. When you catch the tennisball with a stiff catcher hand it hurts more. By loosening your grip you let the force escape through your joints and the tool you're using. I used to have the same issue when I chopped wood until I figured it out.
@@Tvalfager While it is true that does lessen the felt impact but it does not completely negate it. Also if you lighten your grip of your weapon you cannot drive the strike in with all the force at your disposal for a decisive strike and you also run the risk of being countered and have your weapon knocked off your hands if you lighten your grip too much.
Also chopping wood and striking hardened metal plates are two very different things to do with very different results in both ends.
(Bashes some guy's head in with an axe)
OOH! OOH! WAUGH!
zameliz I agree, when chopping wood the axe goes through the wood and then hits whatever is underneath. This decreases the force on the thing underneath which also decreases the force on your hand. When for example hitting an armored opponent on the shoulder or his shield, it is likely that a lot of the force goes through him and into the ground, which then goes into your hand. Flails have some advantages when considering this.
Yes, but as mentioned the skill level of the wielder is of great effect. If you have ever smithed, or hit a large pole in the ground, you can loosen up your grip just the split second before impact. Striking at max force does not have to mess up your hand and wrist, even if repeated a lot. Once you mess it up though, you would be in trouble in a battle.
In my opinion you overlooked a big advantage of not having a direct link between the striking head and your arm: with a flail you can swing full force constantly without having the impact forces reacting on your arm while still pressuring the opponent with powerful strikes. I always saw the flail as a really aggressive "chipping away stamina" weapon.
@Dragon50275 As has been pointed out in another comment...actually proper heavy flails can do an incredible amount of damage. To the point of being banned in re-inactments.
They were also banned weapons in tournaments back then. You only ban a weapon for one reason...it is incredibly lethal with limited defensive measures the defender has to stay safe. AKA unfair.
@Dragon50275 chains are great for grappling dont know what you heard
@@Android-dg5ri They're truly excellent for bending around and hitting anyone bearing a shield, as well
@Dragon50275 Thats outright wrong, you slam the guard or handle into the enemies face and then use the momentum to swing the flail while the enemy rebukes. And we have an dead opponent... there is a reason why the flail handle is pretty big.
@Dragon50275 Ok, I have to disagree with that. If you approach a flail user while he is still swinging you will be hit from a angle you wouldn't expect it from. If you have a shield, he will attack the lower frame of the shield to knock the shield out of your hand. If you only have a sword and you approach the flail user, you will be in a world of hurt. A sword cannot properly block a flail... Regardless where you block with your sword, the momentum of the flail head will either wrap the chain around the sword... which will enable a grapple with the flail... or a swordbreak, where the flail user will angle the handle and damage your sword by grinding it with the chain on the flail.
WIth a sword, you can only win if you have a shield against a flail... because swords are not a huge momentum weapon, they are precision weapons for the most part (one handed swords atleast).
If you want to have a chance, you have to let the flail user advance on you and then try to strike his hand... so you can even out the immense momentum the flail can build. You have to catch the opponent in a opening with his flail (most likely when the head is infront of the user and has much less momentum and cannot be used in a arc "overhead" strike).
The use of a flail, this is coming from a flail enthusiast by the way, is to mainly destroy the defense of the enemy. It's much faster to use than a mace because of the chain, and it will, if not destroy enemy armor or shields, greatly damage the defense of that enemy. Plus, because it has a chain, those skilled enough with the flail can wrap the chain around an enemy weapon and possibly disarm them; although I am very doubtful of that. I don't think this weapon is over-appreciated, and I will stand up for the weapon because it wouldn't exist if it had no uses.
In Sparring my brother has wrapped my polearms and sword blade/crossguard more times than I can believe with his two-headed Flail. He's almost certain to strike your hands and fingers if gets close, even behind a shield lol It looks like he can be hit, but the thing is so fast it's like another shield on top of his other shield. You think you finally got that thing out of the way and then, BOP! You just got punched in the face with a shield, or it almost like magic collides with the other side of your head lol
I remember the morning star flail tested on deadliest warrior. It didn't just destroy the analogue head, it ripped off the head, ripped the skull in half, and the brain landed in a seperate place, all in a single blow! You underestimated how powerfull this weapon is. And double speed means 4 times as much kinetic energy, which breaks stuff instead of just pushing it.
If you don't believe me, then tie a hex nut or bolt to the end of a stick to be a mini flail. Then hit stuff with it, you'll be surprised, and it will explain how powerfull a full flail is.
The flail feels like the rampage weapon, when you want to just smash and shred through everything.
There is two main problems in what you said.
First, the weapon is faster BECAUSE of the chain? The chain requires you to to build up more momentum to get a correct swing beforehand. So the chain is literally what makes the flail slower.
Second, "it wouldn't exist if it had no uses". That argument is a huge mistake mate. Let me explain why. First off, there is multiple styles and weapons that have been tried out and quickly found out to be bad. So they exist but have not been used other than by very very very few people who may think it's cool looking or something. But that alone debunks your statement. Not every weapon that has been created is good. Swords for example are quiet bad when compared to 99% of polearms realistically and the sword is still the most popular historical weapon ever BY FAR. Not saying the sword had no uses, but it is definitely overestimated.
Anyway, another thing that you are not taking into account is things like gladiator fights. There have been fights for ENTERTAINMENT and the people fighting there use stuff that is themed or just looks cool very often. A very prominent example would be gladiators fighting with a trident and a fishers net. Thie fighting style is TRASH but it looks cool and interesting. And since those fights were NOT actually tests of skill but mainly entertainment for the crowd, gladiators never really chose what they fight with. They were told what set they needed to use for the purpose of funny and entertaining matchups.
Soooo, this proves that there has been weapons that have been used often, but NOT in serious warfare, for other purposes.
So, the flail is garbage. It has not really been used in actual warfare. And warfare is the true test of a weapon! Obviously armies would want to equip their soldiers with the best possible weapons they can to ensure victory. Thus why polearms are by far the most prominent melee weapon in historical warfare.
Swords were more of a civilian weapon by the way because they are more comfortable to carry around compared to a spear that is at least 2 meters long, but the real kings of warfare were polearms and bows when it comes to normal weapons, not taking into account siege weaponry.
@@ardynizunia9709 Why don't you to make a mini flail and mace with the same head and handle material and see which one hits harder?
@@ardynizunia9709 The Flail is slow and Garbage? Lol! I almost guarantee that you have never used or been hit in sparring with a period accurate Flail! They are ANYTHING but slow!
They don't need any big wind up or momentum to be dangerous. You can cast them forward lightening fast with a short and subtle fishing rod cast like motion. Similar to how people demonstrate fast crushing cast blows with Viking and Migration period swords. In very close quarters they're nearly impossible to track with the naked eye, and subtle movements of the wrist and elbow can send it colliding with the opposite side of your skull or guard in a flash. I didn't believe it until I saw and experienced it first hand, but if it's used to parry with a spinning motion of the chain and you engage the chain with any pressure at all it very often does tightly bind your weapon. They also without fail, on impact by the chain with the rim of Targe and Heater sized shields, certain to wrap around and collide with your fingers. I learned the hard and painful way to wear hand protection on both hands with a shield against the Flail.
The flail is an incredibly deceptive and versatile weapon.
I feel this weapon is probably more effective for mounted knights. Moving in a similar circular manner to a sabre, but with a lot more impact due to momentum.
And less vibration/reverb to the swingers hand on impact.
Little known fact: Shad once fought a whole army of flail-weilding knights with only a sling and a gambeson.
No enemy survived
And machicolations
Not even Shad @_@ ?!?
The sling shot pommels
No enemies survived? Then how did you heard about that story? Shad stopped bragging about his fighting exploits after the romans went after him in teotoburg forest. Sounds like fake news to me. Lol
i heard he was naked
This weapon fits in the category of _"On paper, not that threatening, but if a lunatic spinning one like crazy comes flying at you screaming suddenly it's absolutely horrifying."_
You can say the same about a stapler gun really
@@almightyk11 This sounds like a good premise for a comedy. Now, if only we could get hold of one of the writers of The Office...
@Wyatt Cheng Equally?
@@reidwallace4258 He's either working on a very good distraction or he has lost all sense of safety and willing to die.
Either one seems dangerous.
@@bogustoast22none25 yes... but a flail.
I used to favor them in play fighting (aka mock combat). They are challenging to defend against both due to the chain wrapping around items and the ability of the user to change the direction of the momentum, and the difficulty judging its reach.
One point I'd disagree directly about is using them up close. One-handed flails can be swung with good force in a clinch because you don't need a full arc to make contact because the ball will travel past the plane of the haft. It's very easy to whip it into the back of someone's head and they have no means to defend against the strike in a clinch unless they have your arm pinned.
We used to call them "speed flails" or "speed fails" because we didn't think it was very realistic to whip around a mass of iron with a flick of the wrist, the way you can if it's a foam ball. We also often got hit by them, and they were completely legal in mock combat rules, so what are you gonna do.
Shad! About the flail. The same people that say it is a poor weapon, ban it from their armored sports because of how obviously easy it would damage someone's joints.
It bypasses armor by wrenching the joints.
*duh
The flail is SO effective against armor that it is a banned weapon from ALL armored combat sports.
Ok, this is what I remember from visits to castles in my country. The thing about flail is that it came from Thrashing implements - used to get grain out of husks. It was really popular with Husits as the peasant army was therefore greatly familiar with the implement. They also were quite often much longer, two handed and used from top of war wagons. They proved themselves to be highly efficient against armor of what was much better equipped enemy army. They also aimed mostly for head. So flails are actually highly efficient and were quite prevalent in some part of the world at the certain time.
This usage of the flail would only serve thee specific situations at these specific times, however. I think that the main problem comes from versatility. Spears could be used on foot, on horseback, with a shield, without one, thrown, held, etc. This is why they were so popular, and why the flail suffers.
Shad : "I don't like the flail. Why ? Because it's not a SWOOOORD !!!! "
Shhhh, don't tell people, although I do make it kind of obvious. . .
I'll take the halberd over either of those ALWAYS
...And Swords are awesome.
Don't forget about Sword-Chucks though! The unholy child of a sword and a flail....
Solution, sword blade, on a chain!
A flail is a double-edged sword...
.
.
... wait a minute...
The double-edged sword is a double-edged sword.
Wait.. no it isn't.. well.. it is.. but not in that context!
Might as well say that a flail is more of a double-edged sword than a literal double-edged sword
@@7636kei thats the joke
@@miyukiteishi9051 Well yes but actually no
the flail is a classic sword-like weapon
Shad: Flails are useless in close quarters
Conq: “Observe.”
I love the flail, I know it was probably impractical and rarely used, but it's just very aesthetically pleasing to me, and feels pretty symbolic of the middle ages.
Shad! About the flail. The same people that say it is a poor weapon, ban it from their armored sports because of how obviously easy it would damage someone's joints.
It bypasses armor by wrenching the joints.
*duh
The flail is SO effective against armor that it is a banned weapon from ALL armored combat sports.
I think if I recall a flail was sometimes used on horse back. Rarely for foot soldiers though
@@bogartthestingy9212 I thought some of the reasons for the ban is the chance the ball goes flying off is a lot higher than a well-constructed weapon. Risk of injury to everyone around is a lot less predictable.
But yeah the unpredictable ability to go around armor / shields is a key to the risk for sure.
@@ledorito9091 yes the flail was used on horseback to strike while riding by because it takes away the hand shock that you would get when striking with a mace on horseback due to the combined force of the speed of the horse plus your swing. That is reason that the one handed flail was created in my opinion.
@@ledorito9091 Also, It was likely used after the initial lance charge, when you are stuck leg to leg against other mounted cavalry or leg to torso against footman you need something with short handle and that you can use from awkward angles that you wouldn't have to deal with while on foot.
Another note about the flail, you're practically forced to telegraph any given swing due to the nature of having your weight on the end of a floppy chain, you can't do little wrist powered "pokes" with the weapon, or the weight will just flop around, which I'm sure makes it quite easy to evade and block, nor can you feint convincingly. Pair that with the ergonomics of using this weapon in a formation, every time you swing the weapon you'll be a danger to the men around you.
Not really. You don't pull back your hand for a swing which of course would telegraph your intentions.
When fighting with a chain weapon you keep it in constant motion before attacking. And you also don't swing it in the same way all the time. You switch between basic circles, figure eights and directions. It's actually really hard to see it coming and the reach surprises opponents who aren't used to it.
It's not a weapon to use in formation though. It certainly requires some space around you. It's not a good weapon for tight spaces.
@JoeRingo118 This is an example of what happens when you maintain a constant swing without the ability to parry, which is a problem the flail has. ruclips.net/video/xTWjJDh87SE/видео.html Note, this problem is more extreme whenever your weapon is shorter than your opponent's, which is very often going to be the case unless you're going up against an axe or a mace.
@@MrVoixe You would parry with a shield, you can't parry with the flail regardless unless it has a prodigiously long shaft.
@@thewhispererindarkness9117 Indeed, but you can't maintain that constant motion in an unpredictable way with a reasonably sized shield in your other hand unless you choose to move it further off to the side, which would then open you up, practically making the shield worthless, or forcing you to go back to the initial problem of having to telegraph each swing.
@@MrVoixe Why would you not be swinging it above your head for this purpose? That's always how I've seen them.
Next episode of Overappreciated Historical Weapons: the Sword.
Swords are awesome, but almost useless against full plate, or even good mail. Doesn't stop "lightsaber" moments in movies.
Especially the katana, if anything a parry from a longsword would snap it in half
Add to the fact that to properly use a sword, you needed to undergo a sizable amount of training, while training in polearms, axes, etc could be taught to conscripts in a matter of weeks along with other drills.
@@TheCompleteMental that's just the other extreme it's a decent sword for it's purpose. It's not godly and it's not a twig.
The katana is good at cutting, better than the longsword by a slight amount because of the shape, but because of how it was built a katana will bend, a softer spine is to blane whike european spring still just makes the weapon more flexible and strong throughout. European metals were just better, japan didnt have good materials.
ruclips.net/video/w_3W1zg683A/видео.htmlm55s
Especially since the pen hurts more than the sword! I mean... What weapon is less dangerous than a pen poking you in the ribs? XD
the flail is just a pocket ankylosaurus
Lmao
anky tails not that flexible, but nice dinosaur reference
I have seen pictures of the flail used to disarm shields, you hit the top of the shield with the shaft and the head swings behind the shield to either hit the arm or the inside of the shield, in this context the chain was used to get around or over the top of things opposed to direct strikes.
sry for a 3 year reply but this came up in a conversation recently. shield reach around makes perfect sense.
I love those flails where the chain is the exact length needed to destroy your own hand.
Well back then they wouldn't make flails that had the chain length to hit you're hand, correcte me if I'm wrong!
Well it’d only hit your hand if you weren’t hitting your target or anything really before it could swing back around and do that.
Split a nail messing with one at an armored combat showcase. Would not recommend.
Change your grip. Remember, Newton's laws apply even when you don't know what they are. And don't take advice about an activity that requires strength, athleticism, dexterity, etc. from a guy who was picked last for dodge ball.
@@fallensamurai7195 this guy obviously never played with anything but this sister's Barbie collection.😊
Flails were used during the Hussite wars. Also, they appear to have been mostly used by armored knights on horseback to finish opponents during a rout. The flail was used also during the Joseon Dynasty of Korea. In Russia, it was the Kisten, which used a leather strap instead of a chain. Scholagladiatora did a test using maces and a flail versus hard and soft pumpkins. The flail was devastating and much more powerful than the mace. The flail was also impressed into service from peasants who also used it in the field. So it had multiple uses outside of military combat.
Yeah, in Western Europe it's uncertain if one-handed ball-and-chain flails were used. They were at least very rare, they are almost always depicted being wielded by people from far back in history or distant countries. The Russian Kisten were definitely used and might have inspired the depictions of these flails by foreign people.
The military flail was also used during the Hussite Wars by the Hussite infantry themselves. Generally, the Hussite infantry were not trained soldiers, and were mostly farmers. Those farmers had practice with something else-- the agricultural flail, which looks similar to a big wooden nunchuck. The military flail worked well allow those untrained farmer infantry to fight effectively against the heavily armored and trained mercenaries of King Sigmisund. If you want to conduct a test, match an untrained farmer with a sword against a professional soldier, then test again with an untrained farmer using a military flail against that soldier, and see if his chances of survival improve.
Can you provide a link to that or a full title of the clip/article, would love to see some pumpkins smashed :3
They were also supposedly used by Finnish peasants during the so called ''cudgel war'' in the 16th century. Thing is though, the idea of Finns fighting with clubs was largely the invention of the Swedish nobility in support of John III of Sweden, since they viewed Finland as a rather backwards place. In truth simple polearms and hunting crossbows mixed with some firelocks would have been their main weapons, but I can't say that the talk about there being some clubs and flails is entirely incorrect as they were peasants, and I'm sure that at least a few of them didn't really have access to proper weaponry, especially something that was useful in hand to hand combat, a lot of Finns were hunters so crossbows were plentiful, but pikes and stuff perhaps not so much, but then again those really aren't that hard to make. The Finns who fought might have been mostly peasants, but the rebellion was led by quite rich men.
ruclips.net/video/2kvwI4NQpW8/видео.html
Around 1 h in
I think if this thing was used at all it was probably used in the off-hand against (or on the main hand with) a shield.
About the only real practical use I see out of the thing is maybe land some head blows over and around a shield in the hope it'll ring his bell loud enough to disorient him so you or your mate can stab him.
It may have also been used in dueling at the fare or joust games. I could forsee it echoing back to some of the more odd and entertainment designed weapons from the gladiator days.
I think you may be right, it may have been an outlier specifically for getting around shields.
You could swing it over your head to gain momentum, and then direct it towards your enemy to strike. That might mean a person trying to block it with their shield might break their arm. Then, when they are in pain, you finish them off with a knife or a second strike.
@@GothamClive no not unless you hit them in the arm just the blocking it with the shield might dent it but if the force was enough to break his arm through the shield it would probably be enough force to knock him off his feet anyways even a warhammer would have a hard time breaking someones arm through a proper metal shield, also a broken arm would not mean someones incapacitated during combat depending on how bad the break is it might give you a few seconds before he drops his shield and just uses his primary weapon
Personally I would like to echo an argument I saw on Lindy's channel. A commenter there suggested that the weapon might have been used for cavalry. I would like to support this notion.
The main difference between the bastard sword and a scimitar, is that the curve of the scimitar makes it easier to make clean cuts without getting recoil, when striking while on horseback. This is why early modern european cavalry started using sabers.
Much the same, it could be argued that the difference between a mace and a "morning star" flail, is that the chain allows the attacker to not be hit with much recoil while striking from the saddle. The argument that Shad makes about motion could also factor into this, as a blow from a man on horseback would negate much of this.
In summation, I believe this weapon could have been used as a sidearm for mounted knights against footmen, in case their lance was lost. The reason for its scarce sourcing could be that A) a sword would be a more popular sidearm, as it's more useful in case you're dismounted. Or B) it could be that medieval sources simply referred to them as maces.
But please don't take my word for it, I simply thought it could be a possible application for the weapon. I have no sources to back this up.
@@theposhdinosaur7276 Absolutely. Now I'm not an expert on medieval weapons, but as a German you see dark age relics all the time all over the place. Seeing a morning star used by a foot soldier just looks wrong to me. I only ever saw them on Knights who use them from above, where most of the negative aspects (like hitting yourself) are rather minimized.
Random soldier: Haha you will never get past my shield!
The idea of how the flail was used is the problem - it isn't a straightforward bludgeoning weapon like a mace. In crush tests we tried It isn't as effective against heavily armoured or padded opponents. But it will easily dent a helmet and shatter a skull or bones. Think about the sling on a trebuchet. Acceleration is key - with a low mass object on the end of a chain you can produce incredible speed and it's amazingly accurate when used correctly. if the chain makes contact with a shield lip it can accelerate the mace head over the lip of the shield, striking behind. You can also whip a flail very effectively, and I never once hit myself with it. I used a flail for years - it hooks through your belt - no carrying issues. a leather grip and loop means it stays in your hand, and it intimidates like no other weapon. And lastly, it isn't tiring to use, little energy passes up the weapon and there is no jarring, and this is especially useful from horseback where you are less likely to be wrenched in your saddle from a stuck weapon. And ultimately, this is where the war flail shines.
Tony G needs more likes!
You answered a question I had in your comment above. The flail seems like a 'meh' weapon for infantry, but from horseback, I can see it being far more effective. It does seem to me to be an excellent cavalry weapon.
Another comment/question I have is about the origin. I'm not a historian, but I recall reading somewhere that the war flail is an adaptation of the threshing flail used in grain agriculture. It would have been something a levied peasant would have ready access to, and if the weapon proved useful, then the military powers that be might be inclined to adapt the tool to improve on that functionality.
Thus, like any tool, the war flail has a specific use case. Good general purpose weapon? Probably not. Good at it's intended function? Most likely very useful.
the flail reminds me of the nunchaku - and i immediately thought that flails definitely required some skill to use. if you're bad at them, then obviously you hit yourself (just like nunchaku). also just like the nunchaku, the articulated segment allows the weapon to whip over obstacles, and there is also a possibility of entangling or even breaking the opponent's weapon.
@@kythian I trained as an historian, was a writer on medieval topics and had my own forge for a while, where we conducted experimental archaeology on weapons and armour. You are correct that many historians believe it was originally a grain threshing device later converted over to a military weapon. The exact date is unknown but earliest examples seem to date in the eastern parts of europe as early as the 7-8th century (KOTOWICZ, PIOTR N. (2008). While the more common variant found favour in central europe between 12-14th century where the development of plate armour made it less effective. The distinction between the peasant and military weapons are robustness and design (naturally the primary purpose shapes the weapon). It was a niche weapon, and has been much maligned through misunderstanding of use.
@@alveolate - Spot on. A peasant levy could use a grain flail in battle (as can be seen in the weapons used in Germany in the peasants revolt) easily and they can be devastating - but unskilled use could be precarious.
Sigmar, bless this ravaged body.
Rags? What?
Lol, hey Rags! great to see you mate ^_^
Sigmar's fury flows through those who serve!
Rags, how does this keep happening? First I find out you watch Nutnfancy, now you're also a Shad fan.
Whoever made the first flail did it ok the way that they did it.
shad: we can't trust medieval art
also shad: we know war darts are far more prevelent then shown in media since we see it in medieval art
Yeah, well, one can't trust medieval art when it comes to actual effectiveness and realism (cue medieval art showing swords piercing straight through metal helmets and breastplates). But you can at least trust that medieval art can show *prevalence* and commonality by how much the subject in question has been drawn.
Imagine how much coordination youd need to dual wield flails
Chinese martial arts do that sometimes.
@@spinhook888 forgot its name but there is a chinese weapon that is a heavy spike on one end and a curved blade scickle on the other end attached by flexable links between.
Theodore jr Carpenter sounds like a kusarigama, the Shinobi character from For Honor uses one.
Kind of similar to the "Meteor Hammer", basically two weights joined together be a long string which is pretty cool for a weapon.
Shaolin monks, baby
Ah yes, instead of studying for my final at 8am tomorrow I'm learning the advantages and drawbacks of the medieval flail. Go me.
You never know man
Same lol
Can relate, m8
Plot twist: His final is ON the topic of medieval history.
@@Nicoder6884 You know, I'm an archaeology major. I might actually be able to pull that off. You mind if I cite you for inspiration for my thesis defense? (You too Shad)
In conclusion:
If you're prone to rolling Nat 1's, this weapon is your worst nightmare
Two of my party members would have died from flail suicide if it wasn't for my being a paladin
@@demonking86420 you should have just let em die just like ppl with peanut allergies
@@captnwinkle there's two big reasons why my character wanted to save them: tiddies
My character gen rolls are always amazing. My campaign rolls are usually awesome as well until it comes to combat. I think I've only rolled 2 natural 1s but I hardly hit my targets. That is why I always play a rogue. Skill checks for days and I almost always exceed the dc in those. My rap battle name is Nat 20© aka Crit Hit©.
Played DnD one made a monster slayer bugbear with dual wield flails . I felt the pain every roll. Maybe landed one hit at the end of the campaign xD
Have you seen the Sandroman video on war wagons? A very interesting point was brought up that the Hussite farmers were far more familiar with pole weapons and threshing flails than other weapons, and so it made sense to equipment them with more battle-ready versions of equipment they already knew how to use (flails).
Makes me wonder if flails were primarily used from horseback. That way you could get it spinning, smash an opponent as you ride by, and very little if any of the force would be transferred to the rider, less risk of losing your weapon or getting unhorsed.
The point of a flail is that you can hit as hard as you can without hurting your wrist and loosing the shaft.
That sounds SO wrong
Sounds useful to me. Time to attach a metal spikey ball to my dick so I don’t lose my shaft ;)
That’s why there’s no flail November, correct?
Flail? *YOU MEAN THE HAND TREBUCHET*
Hahahahahaha!
Nah, that's the sling. The flail is more like the melee trebuchet.
Being able to hurl a 200 gram pommel over a distance of 100 meters!
More like hand grenade, as everyone in range is likely to get hit.
People who reply something funny > people who reply something overly literal
I see one reason for the double headed flail: if one chain breaks, you got one more
Nice video. Quick note: check the usage of grain flail during Hussites wars. Add spikes on grain flail + place a peasant on the wooden wagon to get high ground. Boom! you upgrade your unskilled peasant into a footsoldier with 10yeats of experience and defensive advantage.
You REALLY should research the Husite rebellion, where flails were fielded in high numbers, and proved to be highly efficient against horsemen.
These flails had much longer shafts than ones usually seen in artwork, and were usually deployed by soldiers standing on top of wagons.
These weopons that are like spears except the have the ball and chain whre the blade tip would be arent called flail. I dont know excactly what they are called but we are talking about the one handed close combat weapon
Damn, if only there was a distinguishable connection between having many pesants in your ranks and seeing a massive usage of weaponised farming tools, as grain flails and scythes.
@@user-kf6vv2qq1h Doesn't change the fact that they worked really really well.
@@Dakerthandark for a pesant weaponry - sure. Not that good, if enemy have archers, since good armor is out of the question. Nor these were as good as spears against cavalry. And I doubt those were handy in tight ranks. But easy to make and use.
I am from czech so i know husites wery well. They WERE flails and they WERE usefull. So much useful that the husite leader Jan Žižka was one of few generals in history that never lost a battle. So save speeches about archers etc
Magikarp Used Flail. It's Not Very Effective.
LOL that's a good one. It's splash though.
Flail a universal move that only happens if you actually have the patience not to end the battle before it runs out of moves.
Or your just so bad bad at Pokemon that you get beaten by a fricken Magicarp.... :(
@@Tauntaun707 Wow, imagine being so bad at Pokemon that you don't even know that Flail is a normal-type move that Magikarp learns at level 30. Granted, it's dumb to not evolve Magikarp at level 20 just so it can learn Flail, but the point is it *can*. Struggle is the move that any Pokemon will use if it runs out of all available moves. And by the way, I've been playing so long that I own a copy of Pokemon Blue.
XD
Things heating up in the Pokémon fandom.
Legend
Of all the arguments you used, that last one about how difficult it is to carry around is honestly the most convincing. Difficulty of use is just a matter of training, and you're guaranteed to find some people, maybe not an enormous amount, but plenty who are willing to put in the work needed to use something so intimidating. But with it being that complex to carry and draw, that would put a lot of people off who otherwise wouldn't care about difficulties.
Much like the Wii remote, flails needed wrist straps to prevent the warriors from accidentally throwing their weapons away mid-combat.
Shadiversity: uploaded 40 seconds ago
me: *clicking intensifies*
Could say they were...flailing around looking for a new channel
Ilya is a freaking boss at the forge tho
From some previous full contact tourney fighting experience, I found a very simple loop flail to be a highly effective offhand weapon.
My loop flail was essentially a relatively short shaft (18"-20") with a doubled back length of heavy chain fastened to the end, forming a loop that extends slightly shorter than the shaft if the shaft is held upright.
It was used in combination with an arming sword or falchion and swung so as to essentially create a "shield" or disk of chain that would tie up any strike that it intercepts.
It was also very effective when used to strike at an opponents sword when the chain wraps around the blade, allowing you to "open the door" by pulling their sword down and get a good undefended strike, or even in some cased disarm them entirely.
the same exact thought came to my mind. I also could imagine wielding a flail and a buckler to great effect.
Was I the only one waiting for the “TE AFFLIGAM” when I saw conq?
That's incredibilis
Etf is a yeaffligam?
I was thinking about Conq's dumbass this whole video and seeing him appear was surprising.
A flail has the following advantages:
- Doesn’t have a solid connection so you don’t feel the vibration when you hit something hard like an armour
- With a flail, if you have a shaft of 80cm and a chain of 40cm you can hit an opponent 120cm away with the same ease as with an 80cm mace except it will hit twice as hard as the said mace. So you can hit things that are further away harder with more ease.
- It can temporarily wrap around other weapons like swords, war hammers, maces, axes, even wrists so you can control your opponent while parrying.
- you can parry with it !!! (because the chain bit can absorb blows)
- small shields are useless against a big flail, it can hit your hand behind the shield
- the extra speed can help you crack or bend the opponent’s armour along with everything beneath it (shock damage vs pure blunt pressure damage)
Totally agree. Don’t forget that those balls on chains was really smaller that modern pictures shows us. Small, but quite heavy ball means small square of contact. That’s mean that you can crush someone’s scull much more easier that any other weapon. Not only skull, even armor.
And also it has advantages when u using it in squad. But it requires some synchronous movements.
Articulated clubs such as a flail are just as effective as a parry wepon than an offensive weapon; absorbing and deflecting blows without transferring the energy to the user, and a high potential to entangle your opponents weapon. And the mace itself is very difficult to parry against.
I believe the percieved danger to the user is overestimated. *All* weapons are potentially dangerous to the user, but the knight (or whatever) who chooses to employ it does so with the full familiarity of practice and confidence of use.
My Encyclopedia of Weapons (David Harding ed.) lists the war flail in use on 3 continents, spanning the 14th century up to the 19th century. And the idea of an articulated club exists to this day in modern flexible coshes. Perhaps not prevalent, I posit it was ubiquitous; and over a long period of time across a wide area of many nations. Definitely *not* recherche. And I would postulate the articulated club is *more* prevalent today than the sword.
The "morning star" variety with the spikes are particularly suited for use against a suit of armor. It's usage while mounted consists of mostly swinging away, but unmounted and paired with a sword being the primary weapon, (no need for a sheild because you're wearing it) the mace makes an excellent parry/trap and as a counter offensive; i.e. parry with the mace while delivering a blow with the sword, immediately followed by a counter-strike with the mace to the head or neck region, or shatter an arm or leg regardless of armor.
Whether war flail, mace, morning star or articulated club; I think it was used much more than what the host has proffered.
ᏰĪᏝᏝ ՇÎρɧᏋƦ
Fuly agree, this is a powerful weapon. Even if the speed is twice as fast, it will deliver a blow with FOUR times the energy. This because kinetic energy is equal to the square of speed. At three times the speed it delivers a knock with nine times the energy compared to a mace.
Speed is everything, way more powerful than mass. K=m*v², E=m*c². Also the reason why car accidents at higher speeds are far deadlier.
"It can temporarily wrap around other weapons like swords, war hammers, maces, axes, even wrists so you can control your opponent while parrying."
If the chain is wrapped, then would it also make the flail unusable? Worse, if the chain is tangled with the shaft of a twohanded weapon (like a polearm), there's a chance that your opponent could yank the flail out of your hand.
Moreover, would a flail require too much room to wield on the battlefield, since you need to swing it? A long weapon like polearm may also require room to wield effectively, but at least their shaft is safe to be hit with - your flail is not.
Having both used and defended against the flail in combat (HEMA), I must say that Shad severely, severely underestimates its effectiveness. In those close-up situations, where you're shield to shield with an opponent, all you have to do, generally, is strike the top of their shield with the end of the flail's handle, and the chain snaps the weight around and bashes them in the head with tremendous force.
If they push back with their shield extended, they can't reach you. If they hold a sword up as well, they can't attack you, and chances are the weight will hit them anyways. You can also go for the side and strike the ribs, which, even through a breastplate, can knock the wind out of someone or break a rib.
The flail is a devastatingly effective weapon and can do damage on par with or greater than a hammer.
I suspect it was a gladiator weapons, it works well in sparring, and can very easily give an advantage when fighting to first blood, but is much harder to get enough force and control of to penetrate armor in real combat.
I've always heard it described as a weapon to be used against a solid shield defense, typically when you have multiple weapons available.
It also seems to have a better reach
I agree. Having fought in larp battles (including iron larp) I also see one thing underappreciated (and I believe a reason multiheaded flails existed) - tangle effect. In a line battle where it's a shield to shield wall, the flail is hard to defend from without either raising your shield so high you expose your legs to the flail-wielders comrades with more usual weaponry or block it with your weapon which then can easily get tangled by the flail and then yanked out of your hand where he pulls back. If the opponent is experienced with fighting against flail it will become a contest of strength and if he is not - after the heavy hit by the flail directly into the weapon it is super easy to it being just yanked away. That will leave you empty-handed and next time he tries to hit you, you have to raise that shield .
@@Carewolf Nah, I believe it is battlefield specific. In a gladiatorial setting (1on1 etc), it's easy to just block it right under the head and make it more than just completely useless but downright hindrance. In a battlefield where shield formations hit into each other, the combat is much more packed and restricted making defending against it so difficult.
I’m a big fan! Being a leather worker, wood carver and scabbard maker you have provided a ton of great information! Between you and a couple of guys like you that you work with that have there own channels have been very helpful
Excellent breakdown of the pros and mostly cons of this weapon. A fascinating but greatly romanticized weapon by the modern imagination.
"The chain should be shorter than the haft"
*shows a picture of a chain longer than the haft*
Welp rip the dude's hand.
Literally!
'Meanwhile in Castleveainya'
Looks neat though, and it has to since it's from a videogame (For Honor).
@@DaveLambertITA yep thats conqueror the only flail wielding character in the game(i would also love for shadiversity to make a series on the different weapons and weapon combos the characters use in for honor)
That's always been my concern, most images show the chain way too long.
Don't flail me now, Shad!
Just a quick reminder: impact force is derived from the kinetic energy, which rises lineraly with mass, but quadratically with speed, meaning if you have flail heat twice lighter than mace head hitting enemy at double speed it actually hits with twice the impact.
Hi. Fails were pretty common in Bohemia in 15th century. Peasants rebelled against a catholic church and used their farming equipment (flails for beating a crops) added some spikes and with a few wagons won many battles against a crusader knights. (Hussite wars)
In fantasy a flail could be a great weapon for a Giant, depending on its size, especially during sieges. Basically a wrecking ball.
However, wrecking balls were *VERY* dangerous which is why they are not used anymore
I think a giant weilding a warhammer or any large two-handed weapon would be equallt terrifying
When arming giants against small humanoids, I'd consider giving them baskets of gravel.
They could throw it in the air like a catapult, resulting in a sleetstorm of heavy shrapnel falling on the heads of humanoids.
I don't think armor or even shields would offer good protection against walking siege weapons.
@@Tennouseijin Yeah I agree.I always thought that Wun Wun should have gathered some hefty rocks to launch at the Bolton forced in Battle of the Bastards, Game of Thrones..or a big wooden beam like he uses in Hardhome. Imagine how much he could have fucked shit up
drthmik but flails are designed with a shaft that’s longer than the chain and ball, I have to disagree with shad a bit here because yes the flail can be more dangerous to the user... if the user never trained with it and/or is retarded.
Flail’s base power is dependant on the user’s current HP. Even with the move Endure or the held item Focus Sash, flail strategies are typically unreliable.
Not if you have enough max potion to spam, like a real trainer, ha!
Especially when you get weather pelting at your face!
Endeavor + Quick attack is far more useful
Wait, is that a Final Fantasy Tactics reference? lol
@@joynelbonetdelgado4952 Pokemon reference!
4:48 the tickle stick. It was banned at geneva
I have found that when there is a weapon that few can master or that is very difficult to master it can have a devastating effect on an opponent. I much like Shad had no love or skill for the flexible weapons. However when sparing with someone who did I would find myself at great disadvantage because I didn't really understand the weapon having avoided it. So extrapolate that to the battlefield, one side has never trained with or against them is suddenly faced with the other side who only has a few who are trained but because the know the enemies weapon as well as their own, they perform well. Much like nunchaku, there a few that can use them in a fight, but those few who can, put on quite a show. Also this is probably a weapon that takes time and work to find the best ways to strike I doubt the same arm movement used for a mace would be the best for a flail. Btw I forced myself to work on learning the flexible weapons and while not my favorite they are much easier to defend against now and it improved my ability with a solid weapon greatly. So there is another possibility a training tool. You learn quickly to make your plain of attack well and maintain it once you have practiced with these kind of flexible weapons. Just my couple coppers.
@HappyandAtheist dancers can be awesome when they understand how synergistic the two are, my soon to be ex was a master in martial arts then took belly dancing, she looked at me and said it is all grounding and ungrounding and proceeded to work me around the room as if I was nothing but a child, wish I had that.
The flail is for mounted combat. If you used a mace it would have been ripped from your hand. The chain dampens the shock of a good hit.
Not for the other guy.
This is my opinion too. With a downward swiping motion it makes it unlikely to hit your self and gives a better reach then a mace too. But I also think they weren't used often as it may not be better then a sword.
Was about to say the same, got no sources on it but that is the usual explaination I got by castle guides and it's the way flails are depicted in medieval art.
''grabs the chain instead''
I see the risk of hitting the horse for accident
The flail just looks cool and hella intimidating. That's the reason its used so often in media. And honestly, i'm ok with that.
Has anyone considered the pole flail ? Of course the chain and weight would have to be cut down to prevent grappling
Hussites used flails quite extensively, but they were the two-handed, long shaft versions, converted agricultural tools. Hussite army started as rebels, thus most of the levies were peasants. Peasants use the original flail for getting grain off the stalks after the harvest.
Thus they were used to using it, had the timing (flailing the grain is done in several people who coordinate their hits by singing a rhythmic melody) and, moreover, flails were abundant. Add a few spikes on the "head" and you get a weapon your levies know how to use.
May I just say, Shad, that your bookshelves in and of themselves are awe-inspiring. Of course, your content is also brilliant. Keep up the awesome work!
The sword has a point, but the flail mace no sense.
I apologize again. I'll see myself out. Again.
I may need an intervention.
Please do. Your family loves you and wants the better you
@@cesargeney5268 They've dealt with this my entire life. I'm not sure why they've not taken steps to end this sooner. Maybe they like it!! That settles it, more awful jokes and horrid puns for everyone!
@@mike7652 Oh Jebus we lost him
don't ever stop
@@ElijsDima I'll take that as an indication to continue, and possibly increase in frequency, the terrible humor I'm so fond of. My sympathies to you all.
A flail isn't actually dangerous to the user at all if you have even a basic understanding of how it's used. The end can't just suddenly whack you unless you try to actually hit yourself.
Sure it can be dangerous you give it to an untrained person. Otherwise they are just as safe as a sword.
You are however right that it's not as versatile as a mace or sword. Most chain weapons can't be used effectively in close quarters, they needs a lot of space to swing and take more time to master than other weapons.
@@binarekoharijanto4586 if you're using any weapon, at all, you're going to telegraph an attack. Anything that creates a motion outside of normal movement is going to telegraph. You telegraph with a flail no more than you telegraph with anything that isn't meant for puncturing. If your argument against the flail is 'telegraphing', I strongly encourage you to only fight with pokes.
Ah but what if you run the chain through the haft of the flail, so you can adjust the chain length at will?
Amazing how everything you said about telegraphing did nothing to support your claim.
You do not telegraphing anymore with a flail than you do any other weapon, period. If your concern is telegraphing, then stop using a weapon. Finally, physics says otherwise. Go grab some decent cord and string it to something heavy(ish) walk outside and spin it. Twitch your wrist and notice the difference.
A person fighting with any weapon that has a chain or a jointed link to any other weapon does not stop moving that weapon. Once in motion you keep it in motion.
Get out of fantasy.
No more time than moving your hand if you're using a two-handed grip.
@@binarekoharijanto4586 A chain weapon does not telegraph. You don't pull back your hand and swing, you keep the weapon in constant motion; figure eights and circles. It's difficult to see it coming, more difficult in fact than a mace or sword.
There cannot be anything more terrifying than someone in front of you wielding a flail with malicious intent.
The first time I became aware of the genius that is Ilya Alekseyev was when he competed on Forged in Fire. I think that was the spiked shield episode, in which he put together a very convincing win, using much of his armorer's skillset. He's a tremendous craftsman and I am thrilled to see that his new RUclips channel appears to be succeeding (380K subs so far, to which I added my own just now - not at AWE Me levels yet, but nothing to sneeze at either). Thanks for the rec and the info (hadn't heard about the DEFY debacle). And incidentally, it appears that the debacle didn't end up sinking AWE Me (though it may have launched That Works). They've been posting again, and Man at Arms: Reforged is going strong with Kerry from Baltimore Knife & Sword (I think he's Matt's brother) leading the way.
I kind of want to see a series based around reworking medieval video game characters, from their armor and loadout to techniques.
Who knows, maybe you can help people with fan creations, too.
#respectful_redesign
yes please
I second this
That usually doesn't work well because magic is involved...
Scientific magic only rule, or rework magic into something more simple
My favorite Historical Flail was one wielded by the Witchking in LOTR.
Well this one was surely badass. Probably it would rip the wrist off of any normal wielder thou XD (gotta love fantasy weapons)
His works because of super strength. You HAVE to dodge it, any hit is catastrophical
The actors had a lot of laughs with the actual replica of the digitally implemented flail you see in the movie. Iirc Jackson had one made and brought at the set and it was so heavy no one could lift it.
@@dandare9055 for get wrapping the wrist you would be luck if it didn't wrip off your whole arm.
@@mrpolskija Yeah I remember watching the behind the scenes stuff and didn't they make multiple replicas? Because the first ones were too small in Jackson's opinion.
"Bring me my flail. Ahh, Friede. What stops thine ears? Please, my flail, right away..."
Flails don't need any big wind up or momentum to be dangerous. You can cast them forward lightening fast with a short and subtle fishing rod cast like motion. Similar to how people demonstrate fast crushing cast blows with Viking and Migration period swords. In very close quarters they're nearly impossible to track with the naked eye, and subtle movements of the wrist and elbow can send it colliding with the opposite side of your skull or guard in a flash. I didn't believe it until I saw and experienced it first hand, but if it's used to parry with a spinning motion of the chain and you engage the chain with any pressure at all it very often does tightly bind your weapon. They also without fail, on impact by the chain with the rim of Targe and Heater sized shields, are almost certain to wrap around and collide with your fingers. I learned the hard and painful way to wear hand protection on both hands with a shield against the Flail.
The flail is an incredibly deceptive and versatile weapon.
the flail was a weapon of cavalry mainly to use against the fantasin / paysant for are listed intimidating and the lack of protection of the enemies (peasant). we use it by twirling it on the side (when we were on horseback) to spawn the head and make noise. variant of the weapon exists ex (with hooks to knock down the man in armor) the weapon was more use for intimidation.
sorry for the spelling I'm french
I don't see the horse really liking a large object whizzing past it's head every second or two so mounted while more plausible I see hitting the horse almost as likely as hitting a low standing peasant.
@@salimufari war horse
@@salimufari Yo, batiste said, war horse.
Knights were riding horses that were trained to stay calm in battle and/or were even trained to trample down people. You really think that a horse trained that way would have a problem with a mace spinning next to it?
Also, you seem to underestimate the size of a horse or overestimate the lenght of the chain of a flail, it is totally possible to make the mace swing around before executing an attack without getting too near to the horse's head.
Do we have any sources on this? I know that Paulus Hector Mair and Talhoffer show the usage of two-handed flails on foot, and I know there are depictions of two-handed flails being used in both a knightly and non-knightly context (especially in Hussite contexts, strangely enough).
I know of some examples of depictions of the flail being used in an equestrian context, but most of them are showing foreigners from the far east and I know of one in Belifortis, but of no mentions of flails being used in equestrian contexts.
Could you help me find this?
Edit: sorry about the mediocre english, as you can see from my name I'm not english.
@@Caradepato I love the medieval period since very small I visited a lot of castle in France, Spain, Germany, UK and Italy and museum. I was able to witness the demonstration of the handling of these weapons and also we were shown guides, stories and rules on the use of this weapon.
For example the priests do not have the right to shed the blood of the Christians so he can not use a sharp weapon so he can use contended weapons.
There was more than one description on how to use a flail, said by weapon master.
sorry for the spelling I am French
flail is overappreciated? never heard ANYONE appreciating it..
But it's so KEWL on mah paladin!!!
You should visit Czech Republic. Our ancestors put them to good use.
I agree, "Overhyped" (or "overstated") would be more accurate.
@@martinsriber7760 That is exactly what I wanted to say :D
btw. I was convinced it was Shad himself who made a video about advantages of flail. But I also might have seen it on Scholagladiatoria. Some points were:
1) chain was NEVER longer than shaft (only reproductions from later time)
2) average flail has longer range than average mace
3) biggest possible advantage is shock reduction from strike - you dont necessarily strike harder with flail over mace, but you can keep going for longer without hurting your wrist
I appreciate flails.
"Flails are hard to use and can potentially injure the user."
Yeah, well, so can literally any weapon without proper training. Knights (the group I assume would be using the flail) were not your workaday pikemen, men at arms, or Weekend at Hastings folk. They were (supposedly) well trained weapons of war themselves.
With how well people today just learning the thing as a hobby can spin a flail, weighted chain, and other similar offensive implements, it's not really a stretch to think that a properly trained knight would *destroy* the opposition with not just a flail, but whatever weapon they trained in.
I mean, maybe I'm overthinking it, but I don't think near enough credit is being given to just how skilled the end user of these things would have been. Think of that one dude on the RUclipss showing off their martial prowess, and then realize a knight would curbstomp them.
There's my unsolicited £0.02.
True, but a flail seems like it would have harder or more dangerous training and even in the hands of an expert, the phyics could prove unpredictable enough that there will be a much higher chance of self injury compared to most weapons.
@@nevermore7285 I reiterate my previous statement. If any Tom, Dick, or Harry can learn to use a martial implement with any degree of lethal success over the course of a few months on the RUclipss, then a knight, who trains with said weapons daily, will clean up with them.
Am I saying that knights would prefer a mace'n'chain? Not at all. I *am* saying that not nearly enough credit is given these chaps, and that the benefits+training they undergo with weapons would far outweigh the supposed negatives presented here.
In summation, we simply don't know as we were not there.
@@nevermore7285 utter nonsense man. Even Shad is guilty of misinformation on this one so don’t take it personally. The length of a chain on a proper flail is well short enough that unless you bundle into it you can’t hit yourself even with rebounding.
@@MrHarrystank and I never said a knight would *prefer* them. Please, read very carefully through both of my comments. The point, the ONLY point I was making is not enough credit has been given to the training that the knight does, and that because of their training, they would know how to overcome the negative aspects of the weapon, and would be aware of any hazards it presents the user.
"Upset?" Since when is disagreeing with someone getting "upset?" Jeebus Crisco, is civil discourse not allowed anymore? Words are important and how we use them. "Upset" is absolutely not the appropriate one to use there--though I *am* decidedly upset you chose to use it. Inappropriate, uncalled for, and downright rude, if I'm being honest. As such, I just don't really care to continue any conversation with you, if you consider my disagreeing with something my being "upset," gods above, you might consider my linking actual sources harassment! No, I think I'm done here. Good day.
Mace versus flail
(Both have equal weights in the shafts and the heads, and the wielder is assumed to be experienced in all weapon combat prowesses)
Mace go swing
It go bonk
Deflected? Don’t let it keep going and hit you! Just steady your stance and *use your wrist*
You immediately follow up with a low strike and it hits perfectly! The opponent gets the wind knocked out of them!
Flail go swingalingaling
Flail go bonk
But bonk bounced again!
You bring the flail handle down as to strike low again - your flail was not in the right trajectory as the chain is free-moving.
A mace is directly extended from wherever the wielder moves their wrist.
A flail’s handle does too, but not the flail head. A flail without a chain is just a stick.
When a chain or rope is involved, your wrist only directly controls the handle, and every chain link further is a new armature, each link, if it’s a chain, is an additional, but free-floating armature that your wrist is __not__ directing. The first link moves in response to wherever it collides with the loop on the handles. You cannot control it. Every further link is dependent on the previous link, therefore the unpredicabilty is exponential for each new chain link, up to the flail’s head.
Swords, maces, axes, polearms, sticks… they all don’t have free-floating armatures as a part of their hurting-parts. Their moment is directed a rigid extension of your control of your wrist(s) (and fingers or whatever)
This is how it goes for wielding without any sort of physical enhancements) (like robotic extention, riding on a mount, or detriments like being injured, having a limb in a splint/cast, somato-sensory impairment, or otherwise)
Yea, lol I’m like 3 years late.
Pretend this was sent earlier lol jk
I just imagine a bandit or some vagabond randomly popping out of the woods with one of these for the first time. Its intimidating but right as he strikes at you it deflects right off your shield and bashes right back into their skull completely turning this day into a dark comedy.
Given that people already take plenty of liberties with flails in media, I'm surprised nobody has designed a longer chain and went "Ah, but what about basket hilts?"
Brilliant!
Movies: swords, maces, axes number to thousand.
Me: “where da Fuq are the pikes”
you mean spear, but close enough
@@MrFiddleedee Epic flail
@@MrFiddleedee a pike is type of spear used for thrusting instead of throwing. you essentially said "it's not a revolver. it's a handgun".
@@kitsunekid16 Except pikes weren't historically used to the same degree as spears and one could argue that they were quite rare and only came into their own in the renaissance period.
It would be like someone saying "why are there no m14's in the napoleonic wars?"
The pike was a advanced version of the spear that was used much later in military history in comparison to the regular spear.
Cheers and nice try.
@@MrFiddleedee Pikes have been used since before the medieval ages though. Macedonia was famous for using pikes effectively.
From what I remember from school Hussites use them quite often when they were in War wagon so I guess it had its advantiges when fighting with higher ground.
I have a flail my brother bought for me from Toledo, Spain. I've tried it out on a stump. It does look like it will hurt a lot if you hit someone but it has a major problem that you point out in this video. The chain is as long as the haft and it does indeed come in contact with your own knuckles. I certainly wouldn't want to use it without wearing a gauntlet. I prefer solid weapons.
So... what you're saying is that it flails to impress you? ;-)
w h y
So... a flail is mace pepper spray on a chain??? No wonder he does not feel that it represents the Medieval Era.
Ouch! LOL
Get out...now!! Lol
He doesn't think they make good flailsafes.
So basically, it sounds like this was the medieval equivalent to something like Indiana Jones’ whip in our times? A few people could wield it well, and people thought it looked super cool, but it wasn’t actually a practical weapon?
Only now saw this video :D Flails were really effective when used on long shafts, there was no risk to hitting your self and they were nice for pommeling knights. Just see how good Sigismunds crusaders got whacked from peasants in Hussite wars....
Gnolls with Flinds,
in regards to Flails:
"Pfft... at least we can still look cool in the art depictions."
I live in Scotland and I've been to several re-enactor events put on by Historic Scotland which is rather obviously a Scottish charity devoted to taking care of all the old Historic properties such as castles. Now the point it I saw a couple of guys using flails in a close combat situation as essentially shield breakers. What they did was the aimed it so that the end of the haft would strike the top of the shield so that the ball on the end of the chain curves over and hits the arm of the person holding it, thus breaking it and rendering the shield useless, They also said it could be used to tangle up the weapon of their opponent and disarm them.
That said, I also do agree that it would be a complete bastard to properly use in combat with most of the limitations you said I agree with, I just wanted to point out that I had seen serious re-enactors in light armor use flails and how.
Yeah I've done this actually. Having just a few people with flails and shields in a skirmish is pretty great. The limitation is that someone who is good with a shield, or has a very small shield or very large shield is not very vunarable to this tactic. It is still worth trying in large groups though.
I’ve seen it used but with really short handles, giving it a longer chain. This gives it more impact and allows for better control as your just controlling it with your wrist, the re-enacters I saw used them as secondary weapons with a primary or shield
It does seems like a very gimmicky weapon, maybe an intimidation weapon even, could it be possibly more effective on horse back and plate armor?
I was wondering about this as well, but from the physics standpoint. Other than this video, I don't know a damn thing about how flails were historically used. I had not considered the subject before.
Flails with spikes on the head often seem to have rather small spikes in terms of something that would be desired for an immediately lethal penetration to anything but the head or neck. No matter what kind of weapon you have, the head and neck are *always* going to be prime targets when you can get an opening, so it just doesn't seem worth the trouble making spikes at all for it to be so narrow in scope of use as that. What if these spikes were primarily intended as a cleat, to dig into and hold onto materials, such as armor and shields? Smash and yank, taking whatever you stuck either off balance, to the ground, or completely away. If you grappled their helmet or it overswings and grabs the back of their armor, you might can use leverage to take the whole guy off balance and put him on the ground, face first. Rip it out and repeat until your opponent looks like road pizza, or drop the flail and finish them with your sidearm. Even a flail with no spikes would be able to strike the opponent's back on an overswing.
Just speculation.
This is exactly the reason for using a flail. The shaft hit the shield an the ball either hits the enemy in the head or shoulder, or ends up hitting the arm holding the shield. It was never meant to be a primary weapon.
Thank you I loved their stuff and was sad when it stopped
I think that the answer is right in our lexicon. A veteran warrior fights tactically and efficiently. A novice flails around wildly.
A note on the choking a flail- you may need to play with that one a bit more, it's particular, but can 2 hand it and get more control than one would assume (at least on the longer chain ones) with your offhand on the usual hilt, and your other right up next to where the chain connects. (this is necessary, so if it's coming for you, you can choke back down or let go with your main hand and keep it away from you.) But you Can get some rope-dart action going on, after a fashion, in close. And if armored, some body control similar to nunchucks, or just beat people with the metal stick part.... I've spent way too much time playing with a flail.
With the lighter multi ball or weight ones- Those make sense as a Grappling, rather than a straight up weapon capacity- particularly for making a hole in a pike or shield wall, or to entangle somebody's weapon or arm or head long enough for your buddy to dispatch him. That's just the only way those things make sense. And traumatizing unarmored peasants.
Ah-ha! So *that's* why Shad never mentions flails in his "Fantasy Creatures Re-Armed" videos!
I'm a big fan of the flail, because when I was a teenager, we had a thing called "Melee" in my town. It was like SCA, but much cheaper. Weapons and armor were made from PVC pipe and foam, wrapped in duct tape. The "chains" on my flails were strings wrapped in a series of tape-wrapped foam rings so that they wouldn't hurt anyone if they got wrapped around a body part. It's important to note that later experiments and sparring with proper SCA gear and even real weapons confirmed all the things I discovered in Melee. These were the things I found about flails, and why I loved using them:
1) Striking around guards. As Shad mentions, a flail is *great* against a shield or other defensive weapon like a sword or staff, because it can hit even if it's blocked, if they don't block it correctly. What he doesn't mention is that flails hit *harder* when they're blocked this way. When the chain hits the edge of a shield, or the shaft or blade of a weapon, the part that is blocked stops, and that momentum is retained by the length of chain remaining and the head, making them move *faster.*
2) Close fighting. Flails with chains of proper length (shorter than the shaft, as Shad says) are actually awesome in close, for the same reason as above. If you hit someone in the leg or shoulder with the shaft, the head whips around and smacks them *really hard.* This means that opponents quickly learn that they want to keep their distance, because it's a lot harder to block the *head* of the flail if it's coming at you from *behind,* and we know that blocking the chain or shaft just doesn't work.
3) Recovery. One of a flail's main advantages is that you don't/can't use kinetic linking. Instead, a flail that hits its target transfers nearly all of its momentum into the target, bouncing back with a kind of limpness. No vibration or feedback gets transferred to the user as with any other melee weapon, so you're not fighting your own weapon after it hits. It doesn't work like in the movies where you hit someone and the flail just keeps going while they spin around or whatever, it just *stops,* and since flails are so light, you can immediately whip it around and attack again from another angle. If you miss, it's little different than missing with an axe or mace, you just have to guide the weapon back around rather than trying to stop it. This makes flails much less tiring than even swords, in my experience.
Properly-designed flails *are* more difficult to use than other weapons, but not by much, and so long as you have a shield or parrying dagger in your other hand, the advantages they offer are enormous. In my Melee league, I started using flails because shields were simply too difficult to overcome quickly any other way. Even when we banned shields, I found that I was almost unbeatable with a flail, for the reasons listed above.
Incidentally, I found that the design I liked best was that of a long (8-9 inch) head on a short (4-5 inch) "chain" with an 18-20 inch shaft. The ball on the end of a longer chain was less effective and harder to work with, though still effective if you kept the chain under a foot long. I also found that a "three-part staff" design was pretty good, with a long haft, then two 8-inch "heads" on 1-inch "chains." I had to switch to this type after some of my opponents complained about my flails basically being too good. This design was easier to block, and didn't hit as hard when partially blocked, but was otherwise just as effective. Eventually, I stopped using flails or long weapons and fought exclusively with short swords just to keep things challenging.
And oh, yeah, multiple flail heads are stupid. They're even harder to control and give no advantage over a single flail of the same, or even lesser, total weight.
I agree with everything except last one. Flails with multiple heads actually were used to disarm opponent since they grab their weapon very well.
@@MsKeylas multi head fails are a support weapon
Medieval Weapon: * exists *
Ww1 trench raiders: I’lL tAkE yOuR eNtIrE sToCk
Those were really more maces than anything
I saw a German mace/flail where the spikes on the ball would lock into a crescent shaped pair of horns on the end of the handle, or the ball could be rotated to unlock it and use as a chain flail. I think trench raiders used shorter than optimum length weapons due to the confines of fighting in a cramped, muddy hole in the ground. I have read that 16" was an average length for trench clubs.
I think the flail would pay dividends on a longer skirmish. yes the same force can be generated with a mace, but at what cost of power? swinging 1/4 strength to deliver the same power out put as a mace "putting your body behind it" would be quite tiring over time. if I only had 100 men, and the enemy had more, then I might want them to have flails to stay in the battle longer than men who had maces. just a thought, energy and wind conservation play a significant role in my opinion.
subbed ages ago and tool me this long to say - _this channel the real deal._
You can transport a flail on your shoulder. Shaft on the front, chain over the shoulder and weight on the back.
Makes sense to me.
I've done that and it's actually pretty comfortable, even unarmoured.
If only there was a area somewhere near the middle of the weapon that could be inserted onto a hook at your belt even. Had this argument with a friend of mine at a Renfaire. Even though the heads (yes, multiple skull head flail, don't judge :) were tied together at the base of the shaft, he laughed at me. told me I was gonna get tired of it, take it back to the car, or even lose it since i was going to have to carry it around all day.
I hung it on my belt with the hook I had made and went about my merry day laughing when his scabbard hit something when he turned around. All day.
But it has a good chance of falling if you are on uneven terrain
What about something like a golf bag? Drop the weight in and the handle follows.
My favourite use of the flail isn't even medieval.
The mine-clearing devices for the D-Day landings were tanks with flails.
(this would also be the ultimate zombie killing machine)
To be fair, those mine sweepers would probably fuck up anything that was unfortunate enough to find itself in of one of those.
Also you can kill zombies with basically anything, just like how Jackie Chan can use anything to fight, no matter how ridiculous it is
@@AHappyCub Here's the problem with that. Jackie Chan, awesome as he is, is primarily an entertainer who does carefully choreographed sequences with the goal of making them look impressive. A lot of the stuff I've seen him do would not be effective against a zombie (provided we're working with the 'needs significant brain damage to kill' type of zombie). Most of what I've seen Jackie do in movies requires the ability to use pain and threat of bodily harm to deter your attacker, which never works on any type of zombie.
There is also the fact that a human skull is curiously durable (and fragile at the same time, I've seen weird shit on both sides of that fence). If you're fighting for your life against zombies you want a weapon that will cause lethal damage to the head consistently. Sure, there are lots of improvised things that can do damage, but will they do it consistently in combat conditions where you need to move a lit and your target isn't staying still? You're probably going to want to stick to the tried and true weapons, and avoid messing around mops and buckets, unless you're screwed and those are the only things you have on hand.
@@propyro85 I'm only using his as an example tho
@@AHappyCub Ok, and I also went on to explain that improvised weapons really aren't a good idea, unless you don't have any other options.
First time I tried the Flail as a weapon... I would have agreed with you.
Heck I at first I thought it was worthless and could not understand who in their right minds would ever use that weapon.
But my friend and I kept on trying to understand that weapon.... it took us 3 days of training..... and then something clicked.
And after that..... we understood how it was an awesome weapon.
Especially good to bypass the shield of an opponent to strike him.
After 3 days we liked the Flail so much.... we made a 30 foot long Flail.... and it was a monstrous weapon. It was a beast.
Loved it.
The loong Flail was a great weapon VS groups of opponents..... even VS 20 some opponents.
Love the Flail. :)
I have always liked the look of flails vs maces. A flail seems to be more for mid-range battle, to me. They just look cool. It took a while for me to accept that a morningstar can be a mace and a flail. The ball has to have spikes (or whatever the pinty parts sticking out) an equal measurement all around the ball. So a mace or flail with that kind of ball at the end would be a morningstar.
Can you make an underappreciated historical weapons video on the sling?
I made one myself.
They are devastating.
Also, it just requires a flick of the wrist, if you know what you are doing
Yeah! I went to a farm some time ago and a kid half my age just took out a sling and killed a pigeon like if it was nothing
Do the sling!
Goblin Slayer uses a sling on occasion, and is shown to be an expert
Yeah, slings are fucking terrifying if you know how to use them.
Force=mass×acceleration
Power=mass×velocity^2
The interesting thing about the flail is that it used the rotational force equations F=m(ar) r being the radius of the chain and in the power equation P=m(vr)^2. The addition angular momentum of a flail can impart significantly more force with less effort from the user if designed correctly.
Exactly, velocity being squared in the function makes it more important than mass.
Go a step further and apply this to the heavy flails used by mounted troops. Now you also have the horse adding even further pain to the train... Though you can't really compare it to maces then since you can't use a mace from horseback.
Force=mass×acceleration yes, but
Energy =0.5*mass×velocity^2
Power= Energy/time = 0.5*mass×velocity^2/time
time is stopping time of the weapon. It depends how hard target is.
When hitting something force is not useful concept (it depends how quickly weapon stops.)
Impulse = force*time = change of velocity*mass/time
is more useful.
Light weapon could deliver lot of energy, but small impulse (arrow, bullet).
Heavy weapon could deliver large impulse, with less energy (mace).
Perhaps light flail was used to hurt, but not kill.
This fits in where my comment earlier does too when looking at the force being magnified when the pivot point breaks against a shield edge. Just like a whip chain or rope dart is whipped over the elbow it ads a great amount of speed to the business end. Thank you Go Go Yubari. ^_^
Another thing that would help on horseback is that the chain would help reduce the recoil of the blow.
Seems like a high risk high reward weapon. In the right hands, this weapon would be deadly