Please explain Flail usage (SCA / Historical)

[Choranzanus]

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.

I was talking about general perception that chain was longer then the haft. On the examples I have seen that were digged from the ground (or reconstructed from such finds), there was a marked difference from what is today sold at various sites as "realistic medieval weapons" and so on; the haft was much longer and the chain much shorter. When I saw that I thought that such weapons make a lot more sense.

And what kind of axe? Battle axe or standart two handed axe?

eastern European flails tended to longer hafts and shorter chains overall.

I do not know about such things, but I seriously doubt that medieval flails would be so different in Bohemia than for example England. Are you sure you are not confusing one handed weapons with two handed converted grain flails (such as those used by Hussites; grain flails have only one chain link and they might have actual spikes on the head). I was talking at all times about one handed flails.

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.

1.5 feet sure is a lot. One foot is about maximum for effective weapon-just handle them and you will see.

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.

If you know something about how the weapon was really used, share it, I don't know anything about that, but I thing whirling the head is quite sufficient to deliver devastating blow (even with short chain). Whirling is also much faster than wild swings with the weapon as a whole.

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.

It is semantics...but pyramids are not terribly historical either, or were not common.

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.

I have never seen (or don't remember seeing) any examples of this kind, and I have serious doubt about multiple heads improving the weapon. And the wisdom is if it is not effective it is probably not real weapon.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Flails I only know the basics so I'm appreciating all the knowledge posted here. Nunchucks however I do know how to use.

Most obvious thing with nunchuks - neither end is more dangerous to the wielder than the other is, meaning you can catch the other end and bring it back at a greater variety of angles of attack. Bruce Lee level experts aside this is a two handed weapon. Yes it can be used one handed but one of the biggest advantages of using it is that the defender often won't know which way it's coming from - an advantage you give up if using it one-handed.

The next thing - they are fast. Primarily a light wooden weapon, with a rope linking them rather than a chain, this is something that anyone can pick up and use without needing muscle mass. The advantage over the flail is that momentum is easy to reacquire after a strike, a flick of the wrist will do it. Having strong forearms does help.

And that's also where they're striking force comes from - a simple twist of the wrist sends the other end of the weapon moving very quickly. And because of the size of the individual hafts (in my experience most are about a foot long, though I have a pair of telescopic metal ones that has hafts reaching about a foot and a half - the longest and heaviest I've seen) they are difficult, though not impossible to parry. Even with a successful parry there is a chance that the rope/chain will keep the end of the weapon moving enough to hit the opponent. The best form of parry I would expect to be catching the rope far enough away from the body that the wrap around is harmless - probably using a spear or staff. Alternatively take the blow as you would any other martial arts strike - block with arm or leg as they don't have as much mass and therefore as much force as a metal flail.

The downside of the weapon is the same with any flailing one - the force of impact is lessened by the fact that it can move. While a sword or axe remains rigid and all the force is transferred to the target a flailing weapon will to some degree 'bounce' off the target. This requires the weapon to have sufficient force to damage the target. I would strongly recommend that you don't use wooden nunchucks against plate mail - the attacks will for the most part just bounce off. But in the comparatively lightly armoured orient they have more use.

As to damaging yourself using it - yes this does affect the beginner. However once you grasp the circling principle and learn where to put your hands and how to catch it they're actually fairly easy to use. And it is the circling motion that allows you to get the speed. At the end of any given strike you have the option of simply blocking the weapon and bringing it back in the opposite direction, or catching it and bringing it in at a different angle. With some strikes such as going round the head you can bring the weapon in at exactly the same direction using the other hand very quickly after the first strike.

One other question I've had about nunchuks is whether the flailing techniques will be useful in an actual fight - i.e. after the weapon hits something does it still end up in the same place as if you just swung the weapon. The answer is yes more or less. That is the striking haft does continue through in the same path and the hand/foot/arm/leg that would have caught or controlled it is still the same one. Obviously it's unlikely to end up in exactly the same place, but the techniques are still applicable.

Hope that helps

 

[Thunderfoot]

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.

Yep, unlike the sword, or more importantly the lance or spear, where the rider literally bore the brunt of the impact in an order to unseat or injury their opponent. As an odd historical note, it was quite possible to score a direct hit with a lance or spear and unseat yourself and do little or no damage to your opponent if you hit it just right (or maybe that should be wrong.)

 

[Thunderfoot]

I was talking about general perception that chain was longer then the haft. On the examples I have seen that were digged from the ground (or reconstructed from such finds), there was a marked difference from what is today sold at various sites as "realistic medieval weapons" and so on; the haft was much longer and the chain much shorter. When I saw that I thought that such weapons make a lot more sense.

I think the problem here is perception. I pretty much ignore any fanciful crap that has emerged in the last 50 years. My description was based on the original long haft(4-5 feet), two ring flail that eventually grew(shrank) into the short haft (about 2- 3 feet), the chain lengthened from two interlocking rings to a chain...in any measurement, thats longer. however, the French and English both had examples of the chain being longer than the haft. These were the cavalry versions and the speed and momentum of the horse was used as well as the wielder in order to get results.

If you know something about how the weapon was really used, share it, I don't know anything about that, but I thing whirling the head is quite sufficient to deliver devastating blow (even with short chain). Whirling is also much faster than wild swings with the weapon as a whole.

It depended upon the type of flail and the intended use. Whirling was used mostly by the small chained ground version (the one you referenced for example), the original agricultural version used a swinging motion similar to a large club (mimicked latter by the two-handed mace) and the cavalry version was actually hung to the side and slightly behind the rider and then brought sharply forward to delivery a crushing blow. *(this BTW is where the term flailing comes from)

It is semantics...but pyramids are not terribly historical either, or were not common.

I have never seen (or don't remember seeing) any examples of this kind, and I have serious doubt about multiple heads improving the weapon. And the wisdom is if it is not effective it is probably not real weapon.

Actually, if you read my post there are examples of both multi-headed and spiked heads not just knobs and pyramids, but thin needle like projects (thin being relative here) on display at the Royal Museum in London. As to their effectiveness and use, the regular spiked headed one, probably saw some use, but the multi-headed flails were way too heavy to have been any more than a show piece used to inspire fear in the enemy. May have been used only for intimidation, but then no historical records exist that either support or deny their actual use. (That I am aware of anyway.)

 

[rossik]

Flails I only know the basics so I'm appreciating all the knowledge posted here. Nunchucks however I do know how to use.

Most obvious thing with nunchuks - neither end is more dangerous to the wielder than the other is, meaning you can catch the other end and bring it back at a greater variety of angles of attack. Bruce Lee level experts aside this is a two handed weapon. Yes it can be used one handed but one of the biggest advantages of using it is that the defender often won't know which way it's coming from - an advantage you give up if using it one-handed.

The next thing - they are fast. Primarily a light wooden weapon, with a rope linking them rather than a chain, this is something that anyone can pick up and use without needing muscle mass. The advantage over the flail is that momentum is easy to reacquire after a strike, a flick of the wrist will do it. Having strong forearms does help.

And that's also where they're striking force comes from - a simple twist of the wrist sends the other end of the weapon moving very quickly. And because of the size of the individual hafts (in my experience most are about a foot long, though I have a pair of telescopic metal ones that has hafts reaching about a foot and a half - the longest and heaviest I've seen) they are difficult, though not impossible to parry. Even with a successful parry there is a chance that the rope/chain will keep the end of the weapon moving enough to hit the opponent. The best form of parry I would expect to be catching the rope far enough away from the body that the wrap around is harmless - probably using a spear or staff. Alternatively take the blow as you would any other martial arts strike - block with arm or leg as they don't have as much mass and therefore as much force as a metal flail.

The downside of the weapon is the same with any flailing one - the force of impact is lessened by the fact that it can move. While a sword or axe remains rigid and all the force is transferred to the target a flailing weapon will to some degree 'bounce' off the target. This requires the weapon to have sufficient force to damage the target. I would strongly recommend that you don't use wooden nunchucks against plate mail - the attacks will for the most part just bounce off. But in the comparatively lightly armoured orient they have more use.

As to damaging yourself using it - yes this does affect the beginner. However once you grasp the circling principle and learn where to put your hands and how to catch it they're actually fairly easy to use. And it is the circling motion that allows you to get the speed. At the end of any given strike you have the option of simply blocking the weapon and bringing it back in the opposite direction, or catching it and bringing it in at a different angle. With some strikes such as going round the head you can bring the weapon in at exactly the same direction using the other hand very quickly after the first strike.

One other question I've had about nunchuks is whether the flailing techniques will be useful in an actual fight - i.e. after the weapon hits something does it still end up in the same place as if you just swung the weapon. The answer is yes more or less. That is the striking haft does continue through in the same path and the hand/foot/arm/leg that would have caught or controlled it is still the same one. Obviously it's unlikely to end up in exactly the same place, but the techniques are still applicable.

Hope that helps

yeah, but you do realize that my picture was not of a nunchuk, dont you?

in this weapon, you have a staff linked to a short staff

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I was talking about general perception that chain was longer then the haft. On the examples I have seen that were digged from the ground (or reconstructed from such finds), there was a marked difference from what is today sold at various sites as "realistic medieval weapons" and so on; the haft was much longer and the chain much shorter. When I saw that I thought that such weapons make a lot more sense. And what kind of axe? Battle axe or standart two handed axe?

Agreement here, what you find at ren-fairs bear little resemblance to the actual weapon in use during the historical period. I try to avoid references such as battle axe or two-handed because most people have only seen ren-fair quality fantasy replicas or have little idea of the point of reference so I'll be more specific.

I do not know about such things, but I seriously doubt that medieval flails would be so different in Bohemia than for example England. Are you sure you are not confusing one handed weapons with two handed converted grain flails (such as those used by Hussites; grain flails have only one chain link and they might have actual spikes on the head). I was talking at all times about one handed flails.

Haft length varies with time period as well as role. I'll be using the common one-handed military flail of which I've seen perhaps 70-100 historic examples. Overall I've seen more from western Europe and especially England than eastern Europe but I've noticed that eastern European examples did seem to have shorter chains and longer handles on average not by an excessive amount but enough to be noticeable as a trend. It could be the result of a skewed sample being reflected onto the rest if so I'm always happy to adjust in response.

Hafts, One Handed-(Assuming a person of about average size like myself) The shortest historical hafts I've seen are just long enough that if you hold the butt of the haft in a cupped palm the end will rest in the crook of your elbow. Most tend to be longer, enough to rest partway up the bicep. The longest will reach the shoulder of the arm holding it. The shorter handled examples tended to come from later dates and had longer chains with increasingly squat heads.

Hafts, Two Handed-Two Handed military flails usually have a haft about the length of an common axe handle. Again assuming a roughly average size here. While holding the butt of the haft in a cupped palm the end should reach somewhere from the middle of the back to the shoulder blade of the opposite shoulder. I have seen less than five examples of a "footman's flail" or "pole-flail" used to dismount armoured knights. The hafts of these
with the butt resting on the ground on the body's centerline were anywhere from as tall as my sternum to my nose.

If you know something about how the weapon was really used, share it, I don't know anything about that, but I thing whirling the head is quite sufficient to deliver devastating blow (even with short chain). Whirling is also much faster than wild swings with the weapon as a whole.

Whirling the head is far more effective than wild swings, but there are more and less effective ways to do so largely based on the grip used. Mostly you see a grip somewhere within the bottom half of the haft by modern re-enactors. This works and it extends reach but it also puts the point of rotation on the end of a leverage arm away from the wrist meaning a shorter chain is necessary to compensate and retain control. The closer your hand gets to the point of rotation the longer a chain and higher a rotation speed you can handle but the more likely you are to strike yourself as you've brought the head closer to your body. I have used a flail, one based on an English example from the very end of the period. The haft and chain were of equal length at 1ft 4 inches (40.5cm approx) each. I was taught to wield it short-hafted, that is to choke up on the haft with my grip just behind the chain. If you've ever seen a polynesian war-poi or a meteor ball used the technique has similarities though the chain is shorter. This is the reason I dislocated my shoulder and broke my knee with the head of the weapon while learning.

It is semantics...but pyramids are not terribly historical either, or were not common.

Rather they were common only on specific styles of head. There was a style common to England during certain time periods where the head was not a ball but an irregular vaguely pyramid shaped polygon with pyramidal studs on the surface.

I have never seen (or don't remember seeing) any examples of this kind, and I have serious doubt about multiple heads improving the weapon. And the wisdom is if it is not effective it is probably not real weapon.

I've only seen two multi-headed flails that were authentically historic. They were both from the very end of the middle ages and were two-handed weapons due to their weight. Honestly I believe these and probably most of that style were presentation weapons more than practical and this allowed a disproportionate number to survive to the present compared to more common varieties.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

yeah, but you do realize that my picture was not of a nunchuk, dont you?

in this weapon, you have a staff linked to a short staff

Yep no doubt there - I was just answering the general question about nunchuks... I've never used the 'uneven' staff version. I have tried a three section staff and didn't get the hang of it, but I get that it's much more like either a staff or a pair of sticks, it's very unlike nunchuks.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

(I'm not a physics major, so I dunno if this is true, but to my naked eye and shield arm behind the shield, it seems true).

I am also not a physics guy, so there is a huge chance I am wildly mistaken about this.

When your swinging something in a circle, it gets a radial velocity of X metres per second. Just because you shorten the cord does not mean that the mass on the other end slows down. So instead of a mass traveling at say, X / metres per second on a circumference of Y, it is now traveling at X / meters per second on a circumference of Y / Z.

Now, if it would have completed traveling around the circle in say, 1 second, it will now do so in half a second.

That is my pseudo mathematical reason anyway. Go find yourself a mathematician to get some real numbers / equation to work with. I presume that the total amount of force stays the same, but because you reduce the radius, something else has to increase to balance the equation.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Desdichado]

Just to be clear here---by flail, are you refering to the weapon that outside of D&D circles is usually called a mace and chain?

 

[rossik]

flail, right?

like the big nazgul guy one