Are flails real weapons, Veeky Forums? Shitty or not, if they're just a creation of fantasy I want to know

Are these real? Or just a showy juggling thing?

Well, they certainly are real objects, and a trained person really can spin them around at dangerous speeds and slam them into things, but the chance of them being serious weapons is low.

the one-handed flail was likely specialist weapons for cracking people wearing mail and using shields

the 2-handed flail was a well-documentd weapon during peasant revolts however

Most shaolin/kung fu "weapons" are purely for show."

Pretty sure one-handed flails were not a thing, they've found like one of them ever, and they cant imagine how it would be useful. Two-handed ones definitely were used though.

The meteor hammer is probably one of the more practical ones though, since you can make a functional one out of a knotted length of rope, and using it in short swings would make a good bludgeon. Better than not having a weapon at all, if all you've got is a length of rope.

There good at precise blows? whenever i think of a flail i think of it as the type of weapon you use when you just want to pummel something in general not something you use to hit something specific.

In the chaos of an actual fight and not a fancy dance show you're just as likely to crack your own skull with that as hurt the other guy.

Imagine a rotating flail head as it spins being for all intents and purposes a flat disc like a buzz-saw blade.

The chain will be shorter than the handle allowing you to keep the head orbiting around the end of the shaft at high speeds.

mastering keeping a spin on the flail allows you to simply intersect the "edge" of your hypothetical disc into whatever body-part you please, reaching around shields and delivering mauling wounds with the spikes and concussive blows with the mass of the head.

I wouldn't use one without a shield though.

That's why you use short swings and not the fancy martial art ones.

Or you could just use an actual weapon.

>Imagine a rotating flail head as it spins being for all intents and purposes a flat disc like a buzz-saw blade.
So imagine being the guy who has to wade into a formation by himself like a suicidal idiot because no one is going to want to be anywhere near the moron who is likely to kill his allies on accident?

Sounds more like an argument for why flails are shit weapons.

>well, an improvised meteor hammer can work as a weapon
>why don't you just use a real weapon
You... do know why someone might use an improvised weapon, right? Generally it's because you don't have a real weapon.

That's not too bad of a drawback, since a lot of weapons weren't that great without a shield. I wouldn't try to block a hit with an axe or a mace, though I suppose you could use a spear like a quarterstaff.

Why would peasants use a specialised weapon, as opposed to something that could be used for utility (spear, axe, etc)

To be fair, if you're resorting to improvised weapons there's a laundry list of things that would be far more practical, easier to acquire, wield, and be more effective.

Because a two handed flail is literally one step away from a grain thresher (And that step is to start calling it a flail and not a grain thresher), and every peasant has access to grain threshers.

Reminder that 'rare' does not mean 'nonexistent.'
I'm sure I could find a few more old drawings, if you guys would be interested.

>Obligatory scholagladiatoria link
>youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k

Two-handed flails were common as agricultural tools, a lot like the bill originally was an agricultural tool. A peasant would just pick up something vaguely weapon-like and go off to war, assuming their lord wasn't generous enough to equip them.

Axes might be another working tool turned weapon, or a pitchfork, but a spear is something that would be issued.

Flails were a farming implement.

Easier to acquire than a length of rope? I dunno about you, but rope is one of the most common things in my life.
And aside from that, this is in the context of kung-fu weapons. Of all of them, the meteor hammer is the most practical because you can improvise one in the amount of time it takes to tie a big knot.

>Axes might be another working tool turned weapon
While not unlikely keep in mind battle axes and wood cutting axes have entirely different geometries.

That's a medieval scharfescheisse...

Are you seriously saying that rope is more common for a Chinese peasant than lengths of wood and/or sharp farming implements? And that jury rigging a flail is more practical than just picking up and swinging around something blunt or sharp as it is?

Quit while you're ahead.

Split hairs, if you must.

Of course, but a pichfork is a lot different than most other polearms. I'm just saying if a peasant was pressed into his feudal obligations as part of a levy, and he didn't really have a weapon of his own, he might take a working tool like an axe or a thresher/flail.

Did I say "More practical than everything else you could pick up"? No, I didn't. It's more practical than other kung fu weapons. Stop creating strawmen.

>Of all of them, the meteor hammer is the most practical because you can improvise one in the amount of time it takes to tie a big knot.
Not even remotely. There's a number of staff weapons and other things that are literally farm tools.

An iron rod attached to a handle by a single link of chain would fulfill the function of the flail, without the risk of accidentally braining yourself or the dude next to you

Literally farm tools that are not common whatsoever. Rope is common. A specific kind of rake that was used in southwestern China 1000 years ago is not.

The typical 'fantasy flail' was indeed a real weapon, and we have historical evidence for its use.

It does not however appear to have been very popular, and seems to have been quite limited geographically.

You don't really get to benefit from the actual building of momentum in any meaningful way, then.

Ideally, if you have to be using a flail, you're gonna want at least 3 or so links in it just so you can get some good momentum going as you swing.

Seriously? We're talking about in the context of at the time and place when those things are common.

>We're talking about in the context of at the time and place when those things are common.
I'm not.

"Specialized" usually means it was either the weapon of a master, or a peasant. Usually a peasant. A lot of weapons are improvised from tools, and are generally the only thing the peasantry had available to them when it was time to form up and crack some heads.

Master weapons are rare and mostly used for show, since it'd be impractical to train up enough people to compete with just a bunch of thugs with clubs and sharpened poles.

I think he's saying that they're weapons that require precision and skill to use effectively.

The striking edge of a flail isn't aligned with your hand or your swing - if you're using the flail correctly, the head will be following behind the arc of your swing. It's this wrap-around action of the chain and head that lend the extra momentum to the blow that a typical, fixed head would not have. In order to use that effectively, you have to be able to "plan" where your opponent is going to be while he's in motion, even moreso than you would need to be with a fixed weapon because of the inherent delay of the hit.

Also, an advantage nobody seems to be bringing up about flails is that a chain of decent length is able to wrap up or around shield edges and strike the man behind it, especially when brought down overhead in a shield wall to crash into the skull.

Well then put the goalposts down and get with the program, because that's all anyone in this whole thread but apparently you and that idiot prattling about zombies earlier have been talking about this whole time.

>combat only happens in tight formations
... K.

I can sorta see a meteor hammer being effectively used as an entangling device as in the image, but I just can't imagine why somebody would use that instead of a net.

There are versions more like that.

>Imagine a rotating flail head as it spins being for all intents and purposes a flat disc like a buzz-saw blade.
Except it stops dead the instant it hits something, and requires constant effort from the wielder to keep the spinning going. Poke it with your weapon, momentum gone, kill wielder before he winds it up again.

Don't talk about goalposts when you're the one interjecting new concepts.
All I ever said was that the hammer was more practical than other kung fu weapons because you can improvise one easily and it is a good bludgeon. You added every other kind of weapon and a specific time period to the conversation.

think about the amount of material required to make a large bola.

now think of the amount of material required to make a net capable of engulfing a human.

The problem here is you're assuming rope was as easy to make back then as it is now. Have you ever made rope by hand? It's not the fastest job.
Meanwhile, grabbing two sticks and a SHORT rope to put them together with is far faster. And cheaper. In a time and place when threshing wheat by hand was done ALL THE TIME, such tools were common.

I'm not sure I've ever seen actual rope in real life, not counting wound metal wires.

>Don't talk about goalposts when you're the one interjecting new concepts.
Uh, no. Sorry but this entire thread has been about period use of weapons. The only one interjecting new concepts, with every single one of your posts at that, has been you.

>>Are you seriously saying that rope is more common for a Chinese peasant than lengths of wood and/or sharp farming implements? And that jury rigging a flail is more practical than just picking up and swinging around something blunt or sharp as it is?

You'reacting like those martial artists didn't involve training in weapons and techniques derived from improvised shovels/clubs/staffs/sickles/granary flails/pitch fork/hoes and other similar tools either.

Training in the use of weapons devised from improvised rope/chains/cloth is a natural extension of "Learn to fight with whatever's handy".

Up to and including bare hands/feet/grappling when absolutely nothing else is immediately within reach.

Pic unrelated.

The first post that started this chain was "Are these real?" Not "Were these real?" Are is present tense, which implies modern martial arts, which is the context I was using. Rope is more common than a tool from ancient china. "Is". Not "was".

>I own a few because they are really good for precise blows

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(weapon)
> Its chief liability was a lack of precision

REAR IRON SIGHTS ON THE FUCKING MAGAZINE

I saw a video by a gunstore owner that put a reflex sight on the front though, that seemed to fix it. Sadly not a popular thing in the '80s when these guns were sold.

Meteor hammers fall into the category of concealed weapons in chinese martial theory and would have been used mostly after martial arts really came into its own as a holdout weapon. This weapon and a lot of the other ones that seem particularly impractical are meant for different situations than you imagine.

The spear and the saber are for the battlefield, hook swords and wolf tooth clubs and funny looking shit are for martial arts masters to duel each other with, and a lot of the 'soft' weapons are holdouts.

Considering how many buckets of them aren't found on battlefields it's safe to say that if they saw use it wasn't in organized warfare. Again supported by the idea of swinging one of those anywhere near a formation and not cracking your friend in the back of the head.

I also can't imagine them not bouncing off of shields and armor. Like boom there went half the force you put into the blow, just right over in fuck knows what direction.

I always imagined that they were for attacking a shielded opponent, You strike, he puts with shield up, the flail whips around and hits him in the head anyway

Matt Easton has an episode on this:
youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k

The gist is: "Yes, existed, would be a usable weapon."
This user has the right of it.
There have always been strange weapons that have only some applications, but are very cool looking and popular for fantasy.
Consider the Desert Eagle, a gun that's widely regarded as too large to be practical for its purpose. If somebody centuries for now looked through military manuals, they'd probably find almost no refertences to Desert Eagles, but if they watched films they'd see tons. They might be driven to conclude that the Desert Eagle was a weapon purely of fantasy, but the reality is that they exist and are simply not widely used for a variety of reasons.

shields aren't generally held that close to the body.

Gon beat the shit out of that wheat yo

...

as someone who uses something similar for fire twirling, I can tell you the moment these things hit something they lose all usable momentum and just bounce off uncontrollably. If they're as heavy as they look, I wouldn't be surprised if someone using them managed to do some decent damage to themselves.

>lose all usable momentum
It's not lost, it's transfered into what they hit with destructive force. That's the intended use of that momentum.

Presumably to not die when fighting knights. Of course no one in the real world "Specializes" in the way that you are thinking. If anything this would have been a weapon that someone had just in case they happening to come into contact with a knight.

I think it's supposed to be used more like a wrecking ball - it slams into the target.

>flails
>for the undead
Just get a baseball bat and a 12-gauge for criminals like the rest of us, you huge dork.

Yeah the flail existed but its pretty much a one on one weapon for taking out guys with good armor getting around shields having solid reach and being surprisingly good defensively since the spinning covers you pretty well. You can end up entangling a weapon or even disarming them with a little luck. The real problem is you need to be in constant motion with it and playing N64 Mario party with the thing is fuggin exhausting

Sailor here, Monkey's Fists (Weighted ball at the end of a rope) are handy weapons.

how are you going to entangle a weapon with something that grants you 0 leverage compared to the opponent's sharp pointy lever all up in your grill?

Or really any of that?

>entangling a weapon

While in theory it sounds like a good idea, unless you can unentangle your flail fairly quick, you're suddenly without a weapon too - and unless you have a dagger or another weapon handy, that won't be easy to take advantage of, and probably would just throw you off balance if you aren't expecting your weapon to get tangled up.

>Look at this bola

>NOW LOOK AT THIS NET

Fellow staff- and poi-bro here, this user is right. Although bear in mind that poi are chain from hand to ball, whereas a flail is stick then chain then ball. Mitigates the chance of hitting yourself somewhat, but yeah even so it's going to be a really unreliable weapon.

Which is why you only "torc up" the disc when coming into reach of your foe.

A direct hit will stop the rotation of the head, but a glancing blow will likely bounce away and continue rotating off-kilter.

It's certainly not as effort efficient as a spear, but the rotation of a flail head can be kept up with fairly minimal movement of the arm and wrist.

The advantage of this tradeoff is that a flail blow is remarkably powerful when it lands directly.

It's also straight up intimidating to deal with, and has a long range when "flicked" at your enemy.

Still, I'm in agreement with the general sentiment that it is not the most efficient warrior's weapon.

Thinking about it though, a flail would be potentially devastating used from horseback.

As long as you don't accidentally brain your horse. . . . .

Oh hey! I made one of those exact things one time after a random heroine addict wandered into my home at 1am and shot up in our bathroom before I realized it wasn't my roomate coming home.

Scared the shit out of me, started properly checking the locks afterward and created one of these badboys.

I want to roll up a character who uses flail + bollock dagger now.

>That's a medieval scharfescheisse
>scharfescheisse
>scharfe
>scheisse

look, just call a doctor

Are you retarded?

Sincerely, yes.

You've hurt my feelings.

I'm crying now.

Good.

>I have them because I read that they would be really good against zombies so I have them to use in case of a real-life zombie apocalypse.

>I have them because I read that they would be really good against zombies
seriously?

Let's be honest; it's code for "Islamic Insurgency"

Muslims are only weak against silver though due to being foreign devils.

>Thinking about it though, a flail would be potentially devastating used from horseback.
>As long as you don't accidentally brain your horse. . . . .

Though then you'd be best off with sticking a cavalry sabre onto a halberd connected with a chain. Just go maximum swing on that mother fucker.

how would that even work

Sure, I just don't think they were very common.

>yfw Americans are weak to silver because they're the Great Satan

It balances out because they have a natural resistance to being disarmed.

They are supposed to smash in a right line, not to hit in a twirling motion.

A man who had a feudal obligation to render service as part of a levy would be required to have a weapon in order to fulfill that obligation. If he was pressed into service as part of his liege-lord's obligation, then the said lord would be required to outfit him. The only times people went to war using farming equipment was during peasant rebellions. The reason we have so many weapons modelled after agricultural equipment is familiarity. If you are a woodsman who is used to handling an axe, then you are likely be more comfortable with a war axe than with a sword, even though both weapons are purpose built tools of war.

A liege-lord would only outfit his levy as much as he could afford or as much as he thought they were worth - a spear might be very common to the point of almost being guaranteed, but there still might not be enough for anyone and some will have to make do with farm tools, and arrmor and shields were not at all common. In a worst case scenario, you round up as many peasants as you can, whether or not you can outfit them, to give you more numbers in a desperate situation.

As with all things this tends to depend on the place and time period. For example the English Assize of Arms of 1181 established a requirement that every freeman was to have sufficient weapons to go to war. Every knight and wealthy freeholder had to have a mail shirt, helmet, shield, and a lance. Less wealthy freeholders had to have a hauberk, iron cap, and lance. Finally burgesses and all other freemen were required to have a gambeson, iron cap, and lance. (Note that in this time period there's no distinction between lances and spears.) The English kings never really liked to use peasant levies, and the assize formalized that it would be free men who went to war, not the unfree peasantry.

Generally speaking peasant levies were a last resort. Most of the feudal obligations from peasantry were actually fulfilled as labour, whether by supporting armies or by on other projects of the local crown. Usually the people you intended to levy for war would be actually armed accordingly, or be found guilty of shirking their duties. So the most likely place to find peasants wielding farm tools is a peasant rebellion, in which case they really did not have anything else on hand.

And then there was the guy who was required by the terms of his lease to "go to war with bow and arrow", so he took his bow, fired his arrow at the enemy, then went home.