What advantage does a flail have over a Mace?
I always see flails and think to myself, why? Its just a limp, un-erect mace.
[pic unrelated]
>>30365313
Im guessing with a good swing much more momentum but that's it.
Plus bad ass.
>>30365313
The flail has the advantage that it's much more difficult to defend against. It's main drawback is that you cannot parry and, like all articulated weapons, is rather difficult if not dangerous to use.
>>30365313
Pro-tip. Flails, with the exception of the rare peasant flail, were historically not used.
Ever.
There were a few made, but not as pieces for war. More as a "look what I did, mom!", which a lot of blacksmiths did. People only believe they existed because of the shitty Victorian-era Renaissance, which was more about making shit up than actual history.
tl;dr, you're right, they suck, and everyone knew it back then too.
>>30365322
You can't control or time the swing, and you project your movements to your opponents. There isn't a real mechanical benefit to it either, in terms of weight, because remember that crushing power is determined by weight and force. Maces worked much better at crushing, and were be better against armored opponents.
>>30365326
somewhat true.
if you're going for a one on one duel, I'd take a peasant flail if they told me my opponent had taken a sword. However, if my opponent was either armored, extremely quick on his feet, or an excellent swordsman, I'd honestly prefer a spear.
You need to block to live, but you also need to make the enemy afraid. To do that, you have to threaten them.
Think in terms of speed of producing an attack. With a spear, I can go from 0-lethal speed in a single quick thrust. With a flail, I cannot constantly threaten, which is a massive disadvantage.
>>30365313
Spraying someone with mace does nothing if they know where you're spraying them. They can just barely see and are now pissed off and clenching muscles.
A flail could actually damage an assailant but isn't good for CC, so I don't know why they're being compared.
>>30365341
Some of them WERE used during Hussite wars though.
Although when you go down to the details they were usually two-handed and had like 3-4 chain links before the ball was there, as in the chain was very short in relation to handle which makes it more similar to actual agricultural flail. The point of it was to get little more momentum while its use wasn't that complicated when you take into account that majority of its users were familiar with flails as they were peasants.
The short-handle-long chain thing some from Victorian era definitely didn't exist or was what you've said "LOOK MOM LOOK WHAT I'VE DID" kind of things.
>>30365341
I'm no expert in medieval hand-to-hand combat. I assume that flails were not used in 1 on 1 scenarios but rather in formation. If you arrive against a shield wall (or just some dudes with shields), you can hit them past the shield with your flail.
>>30365621
A flail like that would give slight advantages over a shield too.
By wrapping around it, you could possibly still hit your attacker, or pull the shield away, creating an opening for another to attack.
Would still probably just want a good mace instead though
>>30365313
>russian bicycle jousting
Why am I not surprised.
>>30365313
Flails have no advantages over a mace.
You could argue the chain could garrote your target, but if you're close enough to garrote someone on the chain they're close enough to shishkebab you with a more sensible weapon.
>>30365594
underrated
>>30366470
>You could argue the chain could garrote your target
See: >>30365621
>when you go down to the details they were usually two-handed and had like 3-4 chain links before the ball was there, as in the chain was very short in relation to handle
>>30365352
>There isn't a real mechanical benefit to it either, in terms of weight, because remember that crushing power is determined by weight and force.
Which is why whipping it through the air and building speed prior to the swing would be beneficial assuming anyone used them. Same principal as nunchaku or 3 section go. Same drawbacks too.
>>30367524
agreed
>>30366470
>trebuchets have no advantage over catapults
>atlatls have no advantage over spears
>>30367524
>assuming anyone used them
From what I've been reading it's looking very likely that people did. Pic related is from an armory in Austria and seems to follow the common theme of peasant weaponry being effective and inspiring a martial equivalent, similar to the billhook.
I'm also finding examples of "chain maces," which refers specifically to the short handle + long chain family. They all still have long handles and short chains though, at least relative to how they're often portrayed. Will post some ASAP.
>>30367776
>>30367805
