A curious question about flails

[s_taillebois]

"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."

Makes sense, as it could be used in a manner very similar to other horseman's weapons-a strike and by the time its over the horseman is 20 or 30 yards down the pitch.

It would seem to also relate to the breaking of a line, not much evidence of flail use there, but many of the dead found at Towton seem to have been struck down while they were disorganized or trying to get away...

The problem with flails and shields is getting close enough to a shield wall with all the spears, franciscas, and etc flying about...as mentioned earlier the nature of a flail does not allow the compression of force of other weapons.

And in the latter period when full harness was in use it would still seem that a flail would be at its best advantage after unit cohesion had been broken and it was individualized fighting of scattered men...and I'd wonder if a flail used by an aristocrat might have been applied to compromise the armour enough so the other individual would fain...lots of money in chivalric hostages (at least until the English vs French campaigns of the latter 100 years war years...Henry seemed to have been instrumental in changing chivalric attitudes)

Killing foot soldiers, well in general they were 'men of no worth' and so bashing a few of them with a horseman's flail would have been considered appropriate. (plus knowing if they got hold of a aristocrat on horseback it could just as likely be a dagger up the nethers as being taken as hostage).

[Michæl Bunch]

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 see it as being possible but probably ineffective. Using a flail at full speed can be dangerous enough as is, so using two at once would probably be more dangerous to you than the enemy. From practicing with a home-made flail I've noticed that footwork is very, very important and it would be doubly troublesome with two flails. Think about this with the eight angles of attack in mind and you can visualize how dangerous swinging two flails at once would be. I guess if you are on horseback footwork wouldn't be a problem, but why have two flails when you can have a flail and a shield instead?

For example: If you do a zornhau type of strike with a flail you need you make sure you step in a way so that your lead foot is not in the target area, lest you miss and break your own knee in the process. This tends to always apply when striking from the roof but also applies when you are doing a combination of strikes.

And consider this: flails often boomerang upon impact. This boomerang effect will happen pretty much every time you hit a really hard object, like metals or rocks. So if you are using this on an armored target then you not only have to worry about your own body if you miss, but also if\when that ball comes back at you after hitting that knight. Now imagine it with two balls instead of one, probably going in different directions at different speeds.

So really I imagine a single flail is best for an armored knight who is going around on a horse bashing in the heads of common foot soldiers who have little to no armor, or when a someone needs to bash in armor and is well trained to avoid getting hit by the ball. This leaves little need for two balls in my opinion.

[Stacy Clifford]

Flails will rebound back on you if the target structurally resists successfully, but if the target crushes beneath the weight, then it will absorb that energy instead of sending it flying back at you. Heavier flails won't bounce back as high, and ones with spikes may very well get stuck in the target briefly. As physics problems go, flails are a lot more complex than swords. I really don't think they had much dueling value, I think they were meant for threshing people the same way the farm versions were used for threshing grain. The question is what combat situation is the flail best suited for? The armored knight on horse among foot troops gets my vote too, but keep in mind that flails with two or more heads don't seem all that uncommon among flails in general. If proper use really caused them to be that hazardous, nobody would have bothered with them.

[Michæl Bunch]

Just so we are sure here, are we talking about a single flail with multiple heads or using two flails at once?

[Stacy Clifford]

I'm referring to single flails with multiple heads. Keith Culbertson from our Columbus, OH group has one that he's played with a lot, hopefully he'll spot this thread and offer some insight. I'm with most others here in thinking two flails (one in each hand) is a bit too tricky and difficult to master and lacking in defense. I'd rather have a shield in the other hand.

[Michæl Bunch]

Ah ok, I am in agreement with you then. I thought he meant a flail in each hand! I'd like to see someone experiment a bit with a multi-headed flail, as I haven't made one yet personally and so I don't know how the heads would interact with each other. I imagine they would travel in the same path unless you didn't swing it fast enough, and they probably wouldn't tangle if they chains weren't too long. I'm just guessing on this though.

[Stacy Clifford]

Well the guy who started the thread is talking about a flail in each hand, I was clarifying only my own comments.

[Keith Culbertson]

fighting with a flail is a thrill-ride with just one pendulum, taking a great deal of concentration, but very effective; I have not tried multiple strands on one handle yet and highly discourage trying a two-fisted video game disaster...although pairing with something else like a shield or dagger does work ok

[Corey Roberts]

Having fought against Keith's flail, I can attest to the confusion it causes when you are being attacked by it. I was using longsword, and Keith had a long handled flail. The interesting aspect about it, is that he could attack you with the haft of the weapon, much like a pole arm, thrusting to your face with the haft, or throwing typical spear or staff type work at you, defending against an attack from the haft, you would suddenly discover the chain and ball hitting you all up the back of your head. The ball was difficult to follow, and difficult to perceive its movements, and tended to hook around defenses which would work against more common weapons. I think these long handled flails were actually more common in the medieval period, as opposed to the short handled ones we often see in movies. This makes sense as I can't see a short handled flail having that nasty pole-arm like quality.

Using two at the same time? It seems like it would be pretty theatrical, but not that useful.