Where these used often in Medieval combat? They seems kinda silly. Would people actually train to use this??
>>1169733
yeah you dummy. effective against plate armor.
>>1169744
Yeah I guess. Just looks pretty difficult to control and like it has a pretty high risk of it hitting the user. Doesn't seem ideal
>>1169733
Not really, no. The ball-and-chain flail was always a weird specialty weapon.
It was basically the medieval equivalent of pic related.
>>1169733
What's the advantage of the chain? Looks like far more effective without the chain.
>>1169910
Read that it would help get the ball over a shield and smack em int he face
>>1169910
Think of demolition balls
it's highly questionable were they ever used at all. and not in a actual medieval and certainly not often. there are only few probably authentic examples ever found and oldest are from around 1600's. i would say that they were just renaissance's equivalent for dual wielding and leather armour and other memes like that.
That's because it was not used on foot
This is a rider's weapon, you just hold your arm out with the spiked ball dangling from the chain about at head height and let inertia do the job
I'm sure some people used it on foot but it would require a lot of skill and certainly not flailing it around like a nunchaku
>>1170446
like so, if it's not clear
apologies for drawing like a child
>>1169733
>Where these used often in Medieval combat?
No. I wouldn't rule out that they were used, but they most likely weren't used often. There are a few depictions of them being used but as far as I know not a single one has been found on battlefields. Also, these were probably primarily cavalry weapons, competing with one-handed axes, maces, war hammers/picks, etc.. Most infantry flails in depictions look more like this (pic).
>>1169770
>hitting the user
thats exactly the problem. that or hitting the guy next to you. a mace on a stick has pretty much the same advantages (albeit maybe slightly less force cause it doesnt have the whipping motion) but the control grained from having it on a stick is just way more valuable
>>1169910
Momentum. Swing a heavy metal object rapidly enough and its going to do a lot of damage when it connects.
>>1170457
>no one has found one on a medieval battlefield
what if they were the ultimate undefeated weapon :^| ????
>>1171309
Then someone would have probably bothered to write about it.
>>1170436
lindy go away
>>1172081
that's the general historical consensus. How weird that a trained archaeologist would agree.
>>1172112
Lindy pls go
>all of you people talking about hitting yourself like a retard
Look at the length of the chain. The handle is at least twice as long. You aren't going to accidentally get a boo-boo on your fingers. Just don't wave it around like a retard and you're fine.
>>1172201
That is long enough to hit your forearm.
>>1169733
I find it hard to believe they were really. The head is meant to be good against armour but surely it would work way better as a mace. The chain would just surely make the blow very inaccurate, it wouldnt go where you want
>>1169744
So effective historians debate if the one handed flails existed to begin with and the only sources for them we have are two paintings one of which also shows non existing wagon with blades instead of wheels...
Chigariki existed but not the retarded morningstar on chain from cartoons and video games.
>>1173133
Thats just the opposite, completely useless and impracticable. Don't give me that it's really hard or whatever, it wouldn't do shit against even light armour. And before you disagree agree, i researched it and that is a training weapon and even the real ones the purpose is to entangle the opponents weapons, not beat them to death.
OPs pic isn't from video games or cartoons
>>1173155
Then what is the OP pic from? Tell me about some historical figures who used a one handed flail.
>>1173174
No, no one is saying that. I dismissed your post, i didn't promote OPs, other than it not being from a cartoon.
They were used to bash heavy armor and the chain had additional purpose of wrapping around horned helmets and pulling them off then the attacker stripped rest of the armor and shoved the handle up the ass of his enemy as they fucked in the middle of the battlefield the chain was way, way longer than people think.
Famous English mercenary William Anuspeare sodomized around 69 enemies with a flail.
>>1170436
You're a fucking meme, Lindy.
Now go away
>>1169733
it was a common peasant weapon
>>1173287
That was the two handed flail that looked nothing like the OP pic
>>1170456
I like it
>>1169733
>flail
Actually, it's a rather cool weapon. Unlike stiff weapons it can get around the shield/parry and is much harder to fight against if you don't know how.
>>1173133
That looks like it would hurt like a bitch, idgaf if I'm wearing a helmet or not, I don't want to be popped with a steel bearing on the end of a chain with a pole's worth of leverage behind it, fuck that.
>>1174518
source: video games and historical movies like LOTR :DDD
>>1169744
Would be much more effective if they just got rid of the chain and stuck the ball on the end of the haft, a mace of sorts.
They were very rare and never widely used. Some people don't think they existed at all
>>1169733
Flails did exist, although they where rare, two handed types where for combat on foot and one handed ones where for cavalry to whack down fleeing infantry.
Pro tip, they where much lighter than the abnormity in OPS pic.
>pic related, German 16th century cavalry flail, total length 60cm.
>>1177586
An another Germain 16th century cavalry flail, 55cm shaft, plus sexy bicycle chain
>>1177658
Hermann Historica says something else. And they are professional auctioneers for historic weapons, whilst you are anon with no sources.
>>1177669
They look way too new to be legit 16th century weapons and I never heard about german cavalry using flails.
>>1177679
As said
>professional auctioneers specialized in antique weapons with certified experts
>anon with no sources
If you swung overhead with this, and failed to hit your target, would the ball hit the underside of your wrist? >>1169733
>>1177684
>certified experts
oh like the ones who said Iron Maiden was a real torture device?
>>1177691
It's ok memebro, you can stop replying now.
If you still feel like complaining, please refer to this guys: http://www.hermann-historica.de/db2_en/sachverstaendige/antique-arms.html
>>1177689
No, the chain is not long enough. You'd also presumably slow down your swing rather than halting it all at once.
>>1173068
[citation needed]
>>1169733
Not really. There are more practical armor busting weapons out there.
>maces
>hammers
>axes
>polearms
>lances
>guns
>bows and crossbows
>to a smaller extent, swords
>daggers
>grappling
>running away
>>1177669
>Hermann Historica says something else
Oh, you wonderful, naive child.....
now blissful it must be to have such a rosy view of the auction houses......
I bet you think Jurgen Fricker's stuff isnt all forgeries, too...
>>1178994
>armor busting weapon
>implying flails had anything to do with armor
>>1169733
people used spears and bows mostly. metal is precious, only a few knights would use that.
>>1169733
>>1169744
the point of flails is that you could wrap it around an enemy soldiers shield and break their arm, at which point you could stab them or whatever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(weapon)
>>1171322
No because the losers were all killed by said weapon, and the victors wanted to keep it super secret.
