How were flails carried?

[Norfleet]

The shield-sword style is already rare enough without adding extra penalties onto those who choose to use it. Why sacrifice playability for realism?

And how many flail users do you see? I hardly think promoting the use of a flail to more realistic levels is a bad thing. The shield style isn't uncommon at all. Anyone packing a one-handed weapon that has the shield proficiency tends to take up a shield as well.

Plus, I've also played with rules for active sheld blocking mechanics, rather than simply a passive, and perhaps somewhat meaningless, bonus to AC, which vastly promoted the use of a shield, since now players were actually getting active use out of their shields, rather than having it abstracted into an AC bonus that could easily become irrelevant with a high enough enemy AB.

 

[Ferret]

Can someone clarify? The weapon sometimes known as the morning star Is that long?, I've always seen it as something sausage like. With spikes, lots of spikes.

Oh you can hold the ball-and-chain in either a dish with a triangle cut out, or a cloth cylinder with say ivory smaller semi-cylinder with a slit down oneside for the chain. The ball goes in one cylinder, the holding-stick goes in the other.

 

[Mercule]

It isn't just D&D swapping the nomenclature, as far as I can tell. From what I've seen, sources older than D&D are not unanimous on which is which. The "real-world nomenclature" is based upon texts from before the age of mass media (or even mass-printing), and not all are originally in English. This leads to differences in translations, and swapping of names occasionally.

Quite right. This is a point that my Medieval history professor drove home quite clearly. Morningstar is a very hazy term. Sometimes they have chains, sometimes they don't. There is _no_ historically correct answer.

For simplicity, the way I classify them in game is:
-Club = bludgeon with a primarily wooden impact area
-Mace = bludgeon with a primarily metal impact area
-Morningstar = a club or mace with spikes, nails, etc. protruding from the impact area
-Flail = a mace or morningstar with a chain between the handle and impact area

I could easily see claiming a morningstar was either a mace or flail with spikes, but I rule otherwise for simplicity.

Really, you could just rule that there is no morningstar. It is simply possible to add spikes to either a mace or flail to add the "piercing" type to them, as a morningstar is just a subtype of both.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'm in the same boat--the term "morningstar" is a confusing one, especially when it's inconsistently used. For game purposes, it's the bludgeoning & piercing spiked club, though it reality, it can easily be something different.

A show on the History Channel, Conquest, has covered various medieval weapons in some episodes (in focuses on winning in various situations, from sports to combat), & it gives you a decent, basic idea of things.

One of the thing with one-handed flails is that they were supposed to be in constant motion--it's the momentum of the whirling ball (or balls, since some flails did have multiple heads) that does the damage. Not giving it a chance to build up momentum lessens the impact of the weapon. However, there was always a decent chance of the wielder being struck by the flail (thus a double-ended flail is much more hazardous & impractical, IMHO--momentum would have to be maintained for both flail heads, and the range of movement would be rather limited in order to prevent hitting yourself with either/both of the whilrling flail heads--but that's another topic altogether).

As for how a flail could be carried--well, I'd say it depends on the size of the flail. Heavy/two-handed flails probably would be carried around like a polearm, large axe, or other weapon with a long shaft/haft. A smaller, light/one-handed flail would best work stowed in an open side pouch/bag, large enough to hold the ball and chain, as well as support a good part of the handle, but small enough to allow part of the handle to stick out of the bag--basically enough to allow a good hand hold when grabbed quickly. It's feasible to secure the weapon by sealing the bag & binding the handle to the bag or belt (but this pretty much eliminates any quick-draw possibilities).

When the weapon is just stowed away, I'd guess it'd be in a large enough container, with the chain wrapped around the handle if possible, and with the head wrapped in cloth or some other padding material if the ball is spiked.

Reasonably, if a weapon is meant to be accessed quickly, then it should have a container that is quick & easy to draw the weapon from. A belt-ring works great for handaxes, maces, hammers, & other "fixed" hafted weapons, but not a flail (you'd have to thread the handle & chain through the ring constantly). A scabbard is great for a sword or knife. However, "odd" weapons like a flail probably would be stashed in an open bag on a belt to quickly ready the weapon.

The only other option for a one-handed flail is to fold the ball and chain against the handle, & tuck it in a belt. The end of the handle and the ball would be above, and the rest of the chain, handle, and hinge would be below.

 

[Aaron L]

A flail is a flail is a flail. I has a handle with a hinge and a head. Never is a flail a mornigstar.

Most people (and even dictionaries) that write about medieval weapons have no idea what they are talking about. How many pictures of spetums have you seen labeled "halberd"? When Gary Gygax did up the D&D weapons, he did so as a pretty good medieval weapons expert, with a LOT of research. I have seen his charts on polearms from Unearthwed Arcana used on actual archealogy sites.

So, as a rule, I stick with Gary's interpretation. His or Ewart Oakshotte's.

 

[Christian]

However, there was always a decent chance of the wielder being struck by the flail (thus a double-ended flail is much more hazardous & impractical, IMHO--momentum would have to be maintained for both flail heads, and the range of movement would be rather limited in order to prevent hitting yourself with either/both of the whilrling flail heads--but that's another topic altogether).

Hee-hee. In the very early days of 3.0, someone was asking around these parts what sort of deity might have the dire flail as his/her favored weapon. I suggested that it would be Gurmle, the god of self-inflicted head wounds.

 

[The Kender]

I have a question. If you carry the flail over your shoulder or some of the other methods, won't you end up getting stabbed if you were to trip & fall?

Here's an idea for long term solution (Not sure if it was mentioned)

Making a little box that would be kind of a mold of the flail. It would have a little thing to lock it in place. It seems like it'd work. Might make things difficult if you are jumped by surprise, though.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Side note: as noted by Richard Armour in It All Started With Stones and Clubs

Heh, he wrote a book on weapons and his name is Armour. How ironic.

 

[s/LaSH]

I have a question. If you carry the flail over your shoulder or some of the other methods, won't you end up getting stabbed if you were to trip & fall?

Depends what you're wearing at the time. If you trip and fall while wearing plate mail, you're going to be OK and can just bounce back (there might be a slight dent, but don't count on it). If you're wearing a chainmail bikini, even a flail carrying box is going to leave a mark.

Which is something important to think about, isn't it?

Heh, he wrote a book on weapons and his name is Armour. How ironic.

A variety of nominative determinism. If you've been a reader of New Scientist magazine over the past decade or so, you'll know how common this is. I can only remember one, a dentist in my city named Payne, but there are a bajillion more.

 

[tarchon]

A flail is a flail is a flail. I has a handle with a hinge and a head. Never is a flail a mornigstar.

Most people (and even dictionaries) that write about medieval weapons have no idea what they are talking about. How many pictures of spetums have you seen labeled "halberd"? When Gary Gygax did up the D&D weapons, he did so as a pretty good medieval weapons expert, with a LOT of research. I have seen his charts on polearms from Unearthwed Arcana used on actual archealogy sites.

So, as a rule, I stick with Gary's interpretation. His or Ewart Oakshotte's.

I agree with Umbran and Mercule - it's usually a wonder if two medieval manuscripts spell "and" the same way, let alone displaying consistency in the terminology they apply to abstract categories of weapons.