Why were flails even a thing? They require abigger swing than regular mace, they look like shit so no swag points and are all around shit weapons.
>>800785
>Why were flails even a thing?
Yes
>They require abigger swing than regular mace
Non-Fantasy shit like yors dont.
>They look like shit so no swag points
Opinions. For one thing they're a classic heavy metal staple.
>>800785
>Why were flails even a thing?
Im guessing its because its just a weaponized version of a peasant tool which means that commoners would already be semi proficent in its use.
>>800785
the flail travels in a straighter line and less energy is wasted
>>800785
Indirect attack. You stop my arm, but the ball keeps going behind your blocking arm and dents your face in.
It works a bit like a spear chucker. The extra length acts like a lever and the head ends up traveling much faster than if it were fixed to the shaft. Thus extra momentum to punch through armor.
>>801163
why not just have a longer mace
>>800785
cause you can fake out your opponent
some madman swinging a flail around every which way would confuse the shit out of you and compromise your defense
the ball on the end of the chain travels at a much higher speed than a regular mace can using the same force, so a weaker (strength) fighter can deliver the same force than a mace wielder can deliver plus the ball can loop over a shield and damage the person hiding behind it. many times a knight would rather not face an opponent with a flail b/c of that reason.
the best way to defeat a flail fighter is with a longer ranged weapon. so that he could not reach you.
>>801199
no it wouldn't and that's not why they were used you fucking underage idiot
>>801224
kek thanks for the (You)
where were flails even used? where would their role be in an army?
Can they disarm a swordsman? I mean by wraping the chain around the sword and forcefully pulling it back. I'm not a medieval warfare specialist so don't bully.
>>800785
According to fencing manuals flails were extremely destructive, to the point where some authors considered them to be the heaviest-hitting weapons existing.
Then again majority of them were written in 17th century or so.
>>801250
To be fair I doubt they were actually used in armies. It may have been duelling weapon used by some more eccentric gentlemen somewhere(see quarterstaffs in England), they may have been some kind of mob weapons as you can convert agricultural flail into one(just replace the head) or used by some auxiliary troops and bandits or whatever.
But that's just my personal opinion.
>>801280
No, you wouldn't have means to keep the sword "tied" like that and the chain length in most replicas is likely ex-aggregated, as in - they looked more like agricultural flail with longer shaft 3-4 chain links and a ball in the end, that is unless they were those eccentric fencing weapons where such weird things requiring very elaborate technique to use properly without hurting yourself would be something people were looking for in such weapons.
Either way they were extremely rare which probably means they weren't very popular.
>>801303
Oh I forgot to mention - hussites I think used them quite widely but they were closer to this than OP's pic
I found this video on youtube lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJPRyAzgPI
And there seems to be an entire channel dedicated to the flail.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_z4lEp052gksywfj994iFw
>>801280
that seems like a very questionable maneuver. you'd get some say in the sword's movements but the sharp edge would still be pointed at you and your own weapon would be tied as well.
more likely your chain hits the sword, your ball hits the arm and you disarm your target that way.
>>800785
Most of these sorts of weapons were cavalry side-arms. They essentially served the purpose to hit people on the ground from horseback while going past them. I assume that the extended reach was beneficial. Also, the impact stress was possibly easier on the wrist than with maces or hammers due to impacting element being allowed to rotate.
Infantry flails looked more like >>801325 or pic related.
>>801280
Probably not.
The vast majority of flails have relatively short chains - more precisely, they're not long enough to hit yourself with them. And that would make it rather hard to wrap them around anything.
If the chain is long enough to hit yourself, then you're either dealing with a modern reproduction rather than a historical weapon, or with a weapon that was originally on a much longer stick, like in >>801325 and was later shortened to store it more easily or possibly because the original handle had rotted away and later generations didn't know any better because they didn't use the weapons any more.
