Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3799040" data-attributes="member: 39593">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.  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.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.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'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.</blockquote>

Verification