Please explain Flail usage (SCA / Historical)

[HeavenShallBurn]

can anyone explain how and why flails were used as a weapon
what benefits they had over rigid weapons

Basics-Let's start with the basics, flails were agricultural implements. Where fancier weapons got expensive quick they were cheap and plentiful. Why? Because there were dozens on any single manor for use in harvest and every piddling blacksmith could make more with a couple lengths of wood and low quality iron. Which means there wouldn't be a peasant alive in that agricultural society who wasn't quite familiar with their use. Also as an agricultural implement they were something peasants could possess legitimately a very important thing.

my friend says its because they negate the benefits of a shield, and i can see how they'd wrap around a shield, but i don't see why the shield user would block the chain instead of the ball? are they harder to parry with another weapon? does parrying a flail entangle your weapon?

Shields/Parrying-They do not negate the benefits of shields, but they will reduce them if used properly. Unless the head of the flail is caught squarely it's likely to skate on the surface of the shield and be jerked around the edge when the chain snubs up short. Also a nice heavy flail has a tendency to bash a wooden shield to flinders or dent a steelshod shield (such as came into use by the renaissance) into uselessness. They are harder to parry and doing so tends to tangle up both weapons if possible a flail user should avoid parrying situations. This is less important on the varieties that remained closer in shape to the agricultural flail and more on the true warflails which were specialist armor-piercing weapons.

Types-There are basically two types of flails, the agricultural and the military. Agricultural flails were frequently used in war not just the fields. Their construction couldn't be more simple, they were two lengths of wood sometimes set with iron studs sometimes not linked by a chain. The chain was short and the spindles(yes I'm mangling terminology you get the point) were long. The second is what many imagine when the hear the word flail, this is the military flail. A specialized weapon that grew in popularity as the armour of knights grew heavier and more largely composed of rigid plate. These had a single handle often made from iron and a long chain that ended in on or more metal weights often festooned with flanges, studs or spikes. They had no agricultural purpose they existed solely to mangle armor and those who wore it and did a good job.

Use-Flails are not easy to use, it sounds redundant when talking about a weapon but flails are dangerous to the wielder. That spiked weight can crush your helmet as easily as his if you screw up and they're inherently far more unpredictable than a sword or axe or polearm. When using a flail it's all about momentum, the damage you inflict comes from raw kinetic energy. The business end needs to keep moving as fast as you can manage all the time, and this doesn't just take a lot of room it's tiring on a full-weight weapon. More so the less experience you have because at first you'll be fighting the weapon to control it and using more muscle than you really need. The key is one people tend to forget, like an axe a flail is a weapon for which offense is primary the more so the heavier the flail gets. There are two overall techniques of use one far more common than the other. The most common is the one you've probably seen wide arcing swings to build momentum it takes significant amounts of space and requires a lot of body movement. The other technique was always far less common and far more dangerous.

This technique is solely associated with the military flail and has certain aspects in common with the use of the meteor ball. While requiring less overall movement of the body it depends on very strong forearms. Short-hafting the weapon you start a swing along the vertical to one side of your body then tighten it down into a continuous circular swing drawn from the wrist. Basically the flail is being treated like a very heavy poi and you continue pushing the acceleration from the wrist as much as possible using the gyroscopic effect of the spinning weight to keep it nearly parallel to your side. Then the blow is drawn underhanded at a diagonal across the centerline of the body by extending its arc of rotation. At the end of the movement it can be recovered to a new position on the other side of the body or continued into a figure eight and back to the previous momentum position. The extreme speed at the weighted end of a military flail possible with this technique can make it more brutal than the commonly practiced method but it's also a dangerous technique that requires strong forearms to control the flail once momentum is built. Myself I broke one knee, several fingers and dislocated a shoulder while learning.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think the real aspects of the flail have been covered well. I'd like to add another point, though I apologize if it has been already mentioned.

The flail needs room to use and momentum. After the impact, it needs to build up momentum again to be potent, which takes time and can be tiring to the user. That option may not be possible during combat.

Also, I think the measures used by a wielder to protect themselves from accidental strikes from the flail would work just as well in use by defenders against the weapon. I can't say for sure myself (or definitely in a historical context), but the flail seems to be limited in scope against plate armors & the like (which saw the rise of bashing &/or piercing weapons with smaller heads to maximize the force on a single/smaller point to breach the plate or take advantage against the gaps in the armor). Maces and flails seem to be great options against mail, since the mail itself doesn't help against the impact.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can't say for sure myself (or definitely in a historical context), but the flail seems to be limited in scope against plate armors & the like (which saw the rise of bashing &/or piercing weapons with smaller heads to maximize the force on a single/smaller point to breach the plate or take advantage against the gaps in the armor). Maces and flails seem to be great options against mail, since the mail itself doesn't help against the impact.

Actually, maces at least (I can't speak for flails) were very popular, and very effective, against plate armor. While they might not be as likely to punch through the plate as a warhammer, they were very good at just crushing the metal, along with the flesh and bone beneath it.

 

[Glyfair]

The flail had suddenly become a VERY effective cavalry weapon, one that needed little practice to use (though extensive practice to master) was capable of unseating a rider, killing an infantryman outright (rumor is this is how the idea of polo came to be) disarming an opponent, etc.

According to the wikipedia article part of the reason that the flail was such a good mounted weapon was that the impact of the weapon didn't transfer to the wielder. There was less chance of being unbalanced and perhaps unhorsed because of a solid hit on an opponent.

 

[Felnar]

thanks for all the responses
apparently i was viewing the 4th ed forum when i posted this, which explains why i couldnt find it again later
it was to be in the General RPG forum, mods should move it if they'd prefer it there

i knew they, like many weapons, developed from tools used by the peasant class. but i didnt know the agriculture version was brought to the battlefield

i did mean to ask about the differences in use and development for chained and hinged flails, so thanks for touching on that anyway
could you expand on where/how/who used them on the battlefield, maybe someone know dates or battles?

and who has anecdotes of nunchaku use?

 

[Choranzanus]

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions floating around about flails. First, these weapons usually do not have short handles (about sword length actually) and the chain is rather short, so the danger of hitting yourself isn't all that great. Besides longer chain is hard to control and unpredictable. Also there are no "spikes" on this weapon, historical weapons are either plain balls or have only short knobs (round or pyramidal).

The weapon was apparently popular around here, in Czech we have several names for different types of this weapon (plain ball, knobbed ball, two handed version etc.). It seems to be designed purely for mass melee as it is really good at hitting left, right and center and very fast at that, but beyond that I doubt there is much to be said about historical usage.

Regarding multi headed flails, I personally believe they were either extremely rare or are not historical weapons at all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moved to general forum...

 

[JDJblatherings]

I've used a flail hundreds of times it was called a nunchuck, that traditonal martial arts favorite is a light flail. Just look at a martial arts student or fan with a nunchuck and you can see all the danger points in their use (probably more so then the european style), thanfully there are prective chucks that are foam padded or I'd have beaten the back of my own head in or smashed my elbows into oblivion.

They can apply a lot more force then one imagines, they are fast, they are hard to parry well (unless you have a spear or staff), they do require a heck of a lot of practice to use well in a fight.

You aren't too likely to bash youreself with an effective attack blow but they do bounce about and youmay indeed hit yourself as they are deflected or you swing crazily in a manner you haven't drilled while trying to hit a target (that is what all the crazy manuvers and katas are for to train you to move the weapon in virtually any situation in an actual fight).

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

First, these weapons usually do not have short handles (about sword length actually)

short is a relative term, but generally the haft ranged anywhere from forearm length to axe handle length. If this is a result of my reference to short-haft that was not a description of the weapon but a technique of use.

and the chain is rather short, so the danger of hitting yourself isn't all that great. Besides longer chain is hard to control and unpredictable.

aside from the relativity of "short" eastern European flails tended to longer hafts and shorter chains overall. In context from historical examples I've seen a good median would be about a foot with some ranging up to about 1.5 feet. And the relative danger of hitting one self depended directly on HOW the weapon was used. Using the most common technique it was minimized as the velocity of the head was not tremendous with this technique and its momentum was kept directed away from the body.

Also there are no "spikes" on this weapon, historical weapons are either plain balls or have only short knobs (round or pyramidal).

On military flails most were simple balls, some (not many) had flanges akin to maces, and others were knobbed. The "spiked" disagreement is mostly a matter of terminology. Blades never appeared on the head but I was taught pyramids were classified as a spike due to the fact they came to a point as opposed to knobs which were either round or squared off.

Regarding multi headed flails, I personally believe they were either extremely rare or are not historical weapons at all.

Both extremely rare and arriving at the tag end of the utility of the flail as a battlefield weapon. Personally I think they were more display weapons than anything else and survived in over-represented numbers because of this and their position at the tail end of the period.

 

[rossik]

about "hitting the shield".
the weaponshoul have a long handle to hit the shield while the other end hit the person.

something like this kung fu staff:

IMHO