A curious question about flails

[Nejrael]

I have seen many pictures and some movies (yes I know it's always "in some movie") that people are wielding two flails (the ball and chain kind).

And my question is:
Is this even possible in an effective way?

[Jonathan Newhall]

I'd say it's possible much in the same way that using two rapiers or other swords is possible. There may even have been a manual on it (though not so likely, a ball and chain was significantly less popular than other weapons as far as I can tell).

However, that being said, it is probably not very PRACTICAL. Though I'm sure it could be taught to some degree of proficiency, it would just be very hard to use, a large strain on the arms with very poor defensive capabilities other than those granted by striking at the opponent's weapon and hoping something happens. Very little control compared to using both hands on it, or perhaps one hand with a shield. Rapiers, from what I've heard, are the same way, though they are a bit more practical (given their range of motion).

More than that, I really couldn't say, and even so that much is conjecture. I've not heard of any legitimate period user of two flails or ball-and-chain type weapons, but that's not to say they might not have existed and we just don't know about them.

[Dylan Asbury]

Nejrael, Did you mean a flail in each hand or a single flail with two balls? I can imagine using a flail in conjunction with another blade but not two at once. It would take a great deal of concentration to keep the chains from tangling

Also, Jonathan, rapiers are very capable defensive weapons. The length of the blades and specialized footwork make the user harder to reach and the forte of a rapier, when used properly, can block a full-intent longsword strike. Rapiers, (and longswords) are among the small category of weapons that can be used sufficiently both offensively and defensively without companion weapons or shields.

[Ryan Marcin]

I'm picturing a Bruce Lee dual-nunchuck kind of concept. Very flashy and theatrical, and a windmill of pain to pass through, but otherwise not very practical.

Although, given the capabilities of fast blunt weapons to negate even some plate armor, I could imagine a very brave (or very stupid) fellow wading into combat swinging two flails. Not in a continuous motion kind of way, but just snapping motions, like two escrima sticks with less predictability.

[Jonathan Hill]

I’ll guess what he is referring to is like in the Messenger (with Milla Jovovich - HOT) when one of the knights grabs two flails and lays into a row of archers.

I’d want to give it a try before I give an educated statement on it (mostly just to try it,) but even if you hit the persons weapon with one flail you can get the chain to wrap the weapon and control it while you bash the person with your other flail. Granted leaning to control it is the key but that can be learned.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Nejrael, Did you mean a flail in each hand or a single flail with two balls? I can imagine using a flail in conjunction with another blade but not two at once. It would take a great deal of concentration to keep the chains from tangling

Also, Jonathan, rapiers are very capable defensive weapons. The length of the blades and specialized footwork make the user harder to reach and the forte of a rapier, when used properly, can block a full-intent longsword strike. Rapiers, (and longswords) are among the small category of weapons that can be used sufficiently both offensively and defensively without companion weapons or shields.

Well, a flail used properly could be an effective defensive weapon. Keeping your weapon from becoming entangled in the chain is fairly difficult if the man with the flail/ball and chain continuously strikes at your weapon.

[Corey Roberts]

"Nejrael" Just to warn you before you receive the wrath of one of the forum moderators, our forums require a full first and last name.

--Thanks

[Jason Taylor]

I have seen many pictures and some movies (yes I know it's always "in some movie") that people are wielding two flails (the ball and chain kind).

And my question is:
Is this even possible in an effective way?

I'm one of the handful of people out there who's tried to spar with a flail. It was padded (really no reason not to with a flail; it's not like I'm binding), and I've toyed with what I could figure out about it. There's not much to go on; I've never personally seen a short-flail manual, though I believe Mair has a long flail section. At any rate, one flail is hard to use safely, but unlike nunchaku (worst flail ever, BTW) it's awesome offensively. Blocks against it are pretty useless unless you catch the head directly, which is hard to do, to say the least. The most common hits on an opponent seem to be with some kind of schielhau-type motion that wraps over their defenses to hit them in the back.

Just to be clear on the tangling issue, however, it's much more likely to hurt you, as the user of the flail, than your opponent. A longsword, for example, is not useless when tangled in a chain, while the flail is useless when the chain is wrapped around it. So all someone has to do is shove something into the middle of your motion and screw you up. This is what I think would be the greatest problem with flails used in conjunction. The two moving around you might seem an impenetrable sphere of pain, but if you just stick something long into it, your constant motion is gone almost immediately. If you don't use constant motion, then the weapons are pretty slow to get going, so not using constant motion with two would make responding difficult.

My personal feeling from all this is that most people who used a weapon like this used it with a buckler or shield and for a specific purpose, such as breaking a shield line. I'm sure the occasional knight would pick up two to see if he could do something cool, but I doubt anyone who fought for a living would have taken a chance on the battlefield or in a duel with them.

Just trying to extrapolate my experiences to your question. Good luck with it....

Jason

[s_taillebois]

"My personal feeling from all this is that most people who used a weapon like this used it with a buckler or shield and for a specific purpose, such as breaking a shield line. I'm sure the occasional knight would pick up two to see if he could do something cool, but I doubt anyone who fought for a living would have taken a chance on the battlefield or in a duel with them."

And flails often seem to have been often adapted from agricultural implements. So it may have been a form of yeomanry or peasant weapon which the aristocracy would have wanted little to do with...

Something similar to a lead maul, lethal but by the nature of those who used them not something to turn up in a fight manual.

And I'd wonder if a short flail would have been all that effective in breaking a shield wall. They had a form of projection with the spears which could have forced a flail wielder back. Aside from archery and shock cavalry what seems to have broken many shield walls was the boars snout formation.

M. Taylor; Incidentally in your work with the flail, any information about how different blade types were affected when bound by the flail?. As noted it would stop the motion of the flail, but it would seem the tapering blade of the latter period longsword would be harder to bind with the chain, and much easier to either thrust through or pull clear from the flail.

[Jason Taylor]

"My personal feeling from all this is that most people who used a weapon like this used it with a buckler or shield and for a specific purpose, such as breaking a shield line. I'm sure the occasional knight would pick up two to see if he could do something cool, but I doubt anyone who fought for a living would have taken a chance on the battlefield or in a duel with them."

And flails often seem to have been often adapted from agricultural implements. So it may have been a form of yeomanry or peasant weapon which the aristocracy would have wanted little to do with...

Something similar to a lead maul, lethal but by the nature of those who used them not something to turn up in a fight manual.

And I'd wonder if a short flail would have been all that effective in breaking a shield wall. They had a form of projection with the spears which could have forced a flail wielder back. Aside from archery and shock cavalry what seems to have broken many shield walls was the boars snout formation.

M. Taylor; Incidentally in your work with the flail, any information about how different blade types were affected when bound by the flail?. As noted it would stop the motion of the flail, but it would seem the tapering blade of the latter period longsword would be harder to bind with the chain, and much easier to either thrust through or pull clear from the flail.

You know, I've not really used it against wasters or blunts, since it's a padded version (took a while to make, and I didn't want to tear it up). However, from my experience going against the paddeds we had on hand (which are much stickier that plastic, wood, or metal) is that, even with the additional stickiness and such, if I bound up my chain on his weapon, I generally died if I couldn't crash the line for a grapple immediately. Mostly I'd get cut after a quick withdrawal, and I couldn't get the flail back into play fast enough to avoid getting nailed. Now, I'll admit that the chain didn't wrap as far around a padded as it would around a lower-girth waster or blunt, but even so, I could get a pretty good wrap, and I think the additional slickness of chain-on-steel, I'm pretty sure it would be at least as easy, if not easier. So really, it seems like it's all offense, from my point of view. If you want to use one, better have at least a buckler.

You make an interesting point about the short flail re shield walls. It would be hard to get past the weapons (pikes, whatever) to get to the shields. My experience messing with the flail vs. shields has been that I never get head/body hits if the chain catches the shield rim, but it's very possible to smash someone's arm behind the shield as the chain wraps over. Not sure if that's relevant, since it would be difficult to get past the shieldbearers' other defenses, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Jason

[s_taillebois]

So it would seem that for a flail to be effective, either the rotation would confuse the adversary so that a ward would be missed, or it would have to break the weapon of the adversary.

And the idea about stopping the rotation makes sense, same problem arises for those who watch too many movies in staff work. Don't seem to understand the leverage is not very strong to the center of a rotation.

About flails and shield walls, at least in the Saxon Angle sense many of those men had spears. The spear for them was a marker of status for the freeman so it was the base weapon during the period when the shield wall was dominant.

But a flailman would have to get past the projection of the spears, or the thrown javelin. And during the big era of the shield wall the francisca was commonly used, so another problem.

Due to the problem of a flail needing room to operate, versus the density of a shield wall it would seem a flail contingent could have a difficult time making enough of a impact to break a shield wall. One might wound or damage a man behind it, but these shield walls were placed in depth, and were close enough losing 1,2 people wouldn't necessarily compromise a shield wall. Likely a flail would be effective in this context if such could flank a shield wall, but the line were trained to refuse the flank.

Harold Godwinson's shield wall did take losses, but it wasn't until they themselves broke the line that the integrity of their shield wall collapsed. So a shield wall failure was either boar snouting the wall, or a matter of overall attrition via repeated concentrated attacks, archery and other missile weapons or making them do something tactically disadvantageous.

I would wonder if the flail being often a weapon of the yeoman or the lower orders might have been used as a secondary weapon after the cavalry or people such as Karls broke the primary line of the enemy. Flail men coming in as a second wave into isolated individuals or pockets of men was probably quite effective. Would have been anathema to the aristocracy however insofar as it would have denied them hostages and a enraged yeoman with a flail, lead maul, falchion or etc were often less prone to honor the faining of the a fallen aristocrat.

Perhaps that might be little mention of flails seems to be in some of the fechtbuchs of the late era...it may have been considered a dishonorable weapon by the aristocracy and by the new bourgeoisie for which these books were written.

[Jason Taylor]

So it would seem that for a flail to be effective, either the rotation would confuse the adversary so that a ward would be missed, or it would have to break the weapon of the adversary.

And the idea about stopping the rotation makes sense, same problem arises for those who watch too many movies in staff work. Don't seem to understand the leverage is not very strong to the center of a rotation.

About flails and shield walls, at least in the Saxon Angle sense many of those men had spears. The spear for them was a marker of status for the freeman so it was the base weapon during the period when the shield wall was dominant.

But a flailman would have to get past the projection of the spears, or the thrown javelin. And during the big era of the shield wall the francisca was commonly used, so another problem.

Due to the problem of a flail needing room to operate, versus the density of a shield wall it would seem a flail contingent could have a difficult time making enough of a impact to break a shield wall. One might wound or damage a man behind it, but these shield walls were placed in depth, and were close enough losing 1,2 people wouldn't necessarily compromise a shield wall. Likely a flail would be effective in this context if such could flank a shield wall, but the line were trained to refuse the flank.

Harold Godwinson's shield wall did take losses, but it wasn't until they themselves broke the line that the integrity of their shield wall collapsed. So a shield wall failure was either boar snouting the wall, or a matter of overall attrition via repeated concentrated attacks, archery and other missile weapons or making them do something tactically disadvantageous.

I would wonder if the flail being often a weapon of the yeoman or the lower orders might have been used as a secondary weapon after the cavalry or people such as Karls broke the primary line of the enemy. Flail men coming in as a second wave into isolated individuals or pockets of men was probably quite effective. Would have been anathema to the aristocracy however insofar as it would have denied them hostages and a enraged yeoman with a flail, lead maul, falchion or etc were often less prone to honor the faining of the a fallen aristocrat.

Perhaps that might be little mention of flails seems to be in some of the fechtbuchs of the late era...it may have been considered a dishonorable weapon by the aristocracy and by the new bourgeoisie for which these books were written.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense on all counts. Given the information you've added here about the use of shield walls, I think I'll edit my view on the flail to the view that it probably was more of a secondary or clean-up weapon, best used in a one-on-one, maybe by some kind of "shock troops" who rushed in after the dissolution of things like shield walls to mop up. Especially makes sense if you expect people with shields to still be wandering around, but not be able to work as a unit and make those full-sized shields really work for them anymore.

Jason

[Jonathan Newhall]

You know, I've not really used it against wasters or blunts, since it's a padded version (took a while to make, and I didn't want to tear it up). However, from my experience going against the paddeds we had on hand (which are much stickier that plastic, wood, or metal) is that, even with the additional stickiness and such, if I bound up my chain on his weapon, I generally died if I couldn't crash the line for a grapple immediately. Mostly I'd get cut after a quick withdrawal, and I couldn't get the flail back into play fast enough to avoid getting nailed. Now, I'll admit that the chain didn't wrap as far around a padded as it would around a lower-girth waster or blunt, but even so, I could get a pretty good wrap, and I think the additional slickness of chain-on-steel, I'm pretty sure it would be at least as easy, if not easier. So really, it seems like it's all offense, from my point of view. If you want to use one, better have at least a buckler.

Something that I know I would probably attempt were my longsword bound with a ball-and-chain or other flail type weapon would be to drag the blade away and engage with the pommel end, even if it was very heavily bound by the chain. Otherwise a disengage seems possible. So yeah, a shield seems like a must for that kind of weapon, assuming it's of the one-handed variety and not the more peasant-like staff length version.

[Stacy Clifford]

I've seen quite a few single-hand flails labeled as a "horseman's flail." Seems to me that swinging it downward at the heads of foot soldiers from horseback, especially while riding past, would be easier and more sensible than using it on foot where you need more defensive capability from your weapon.

[Steven Ott]

When I think of chain weapons I tend to think of the kusarigama or the meteor hammer, both of which have much longer chains. The kusarigama can disarm a swordsman and even worked against musashi who had to rely on his short sword after his Katana was imobilized. I think a flail would be an awesome weapon if someone was willing to take the time to master it, but because of nature of chain weapons you would have to be really good at it. I think a flail was designed for going around sheilds or smashing through them hitting the arm. All-in-all it is part of our western heritage and if someone could master the weapon-they would be an elite and have an understanding of our heritage that few others possess