Did the ball and chain flail exist?

[Mark G]

I believe holy hand grenades work well against medieval rabbits

[Nick Harbud]

It's the foxes around here.  They have killed all the rabbits and are now working their way through the cat population.  No one really minds the demise of the latter, but it is unlikely the foxes will kill them all - pregnant cats have taken to giving birth on roof tops. 


Now if that is not enough of a digression, one suspects that the Hussite and similar two-handed flails were simply the easiest weaponisation of a common farmyard implement and much to be preferred to, say, a pitchfork.  Conversely, one cannot imagine how any well-bred knight would want to be seen dead wielding such a peasant's weapon.  Hence the dearth of historical examples.

[Duncan Head]

The original author seems to concentrate solely on Western Europe. But there appears to be enough evidence for the kisten in Russia and elsewhere that it can hardly be rejected; and the kisten differs from  the western flail only in using a leather strap instead of a chain. For example:

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/22894/WA308_34875_PIII348_EARLY-MEDIEVAL_I.pdf
http://survinat.com/2013/04/the-exhibition-cold-weapon-in-the-culture-of-the/

If the kisten's practicable, why not the ball-and-chain?

[Erpingham]

Thanks for the heads up on the kisten Duncan.  It fits well with later Central European development and with a Western European awareness of an "exotic" weapon, though originating earlier than I'd expected.

To me, it nails the "did these weapons exist?" argument and will in due course enter the wiki narrative, complete with academic source.

[Duncan Head]

The attached pic was on an old myarmoury.com thread discussing flails.

The lad on the right appears to have a cricket bat, so is this some early form of swingball game?

[Patrick Waterson]

To me, it nails the "did these weapons exist?" argument and will in due course enter the wiki narrative, complete with academic source.

Excellent: it looks as if we do have a definite answer to this question and furthermore one which will stand the test of time.

Kudos to those involved.

[David Kush]

Remember thier are different kinds of combat. The ball and chain may have been reserved for single one on one tournament, or trial by combat dueling so you wouldn't be worried about hitting your mates or your horse. Moscovite cavalry are illustrated up through the 17th century with a light one, but the chain is replaced by a strap, presumably of a very tough thick hide likely a cheap replacement for an expensive saber.

[aligern]

I suspect that the story of the single handed ball and chain flail is different from that of the two handed infantry weapon. It is likely that mounted combat has more space around the wielder of the weapon and that the ball and chain does give some advantage in that the spiky mass, where the weight is , is at the end of the arc where the swing achieves maximum velocity. This is also true for a war hammer. Another advantage is that the chain or strap connection does not transmit shock back down the weilder's arm if he does manage to hit something. Of course it does have disadvantages too.
The two handed, foot based flail or ball(s) and chain is likely being operated in mixed teams of footmen armed with spears, swords and two handed weapons. There the fighting style must accomodate two handed weapons because there are so many other incarnations of that form in use. Might I suggest as a model the two handers that were used against cataphracts, to cope with their armour being able to defeat point or edge weapons, but still being vulnerable to a percussive weapon. When the infantry group has to deal with a stalled knight or similar then the rest of the team backs off whist the man weildibg the two hander takes a swing or two, its overhead so it is not that demanding if space, but it gives them sonething that can batter down an otherwise invulnerable figure.

[Erpingham]

I suspect that the story of the single handed ball and chain flail is different from that of the two handed infantry weapon.

Agreed.  The two-handed infantry weapon probably derives from the peasant implement with added spiky bits.  The single handed it appears may ultimately originate on the steppes.  The infantry flail was probably used, as Roy notes, in infantry formations in a similar way to other polearms like axes or mauls, striking in the vertical plane.  The cavalry flail probably had much more freedom of movement like other cavalry hand weapons.

[Jim Webster]

I suspect that the story of the single handed ball and chain flail is different from that of the two handed infantry weapon.

The cavalry flail probably had much more freedom of movement like other cavalry hand weapons.

probably because his comrades gave him a lot of room 

[Duncan Head]

There is an article in the latest Medieval Warfare, "The medieval weapon that never existed: The Military Flail" which gives a slightly more sophisticated and more convincing version of the argument than the original version of the Wikipedia article cited at the start of this thread. Paul Sturtevant suggests:

- The single-handed ball-and-chain flail as a mediaeval knightly weapon didn't exist,
- Its historicity has been challenged by some since the 1960s,
- Its popularity in art can be traced to a couple of 15th-century illustrations,
- The depictions may have been influenced by the actually-existing kisten, 
- There is an overtone of "weapon of wicked foreigners" (Tartars and so forth) to some of the depictions,
- Existing flail examples in museums are late, mostly 19th-century fakes (for example http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/33866, now dated as "probably mid to late 19th century in style of 16th century"),
- The heavy spiked head unbalances the weapon, in contrast to the kisten which have much smaller, lighter heads,
- The two-handed flail of course existed but is a completely separate phenomenon.

[Erpingham]

Agree that this is actually a better attempt.  I think the waters are further muddied by what exactly is being defined.  The argument is really about single-handed flails, not "ball and chain".  A spiked ball attached by a chain to a long staff would just be a variant of the flail used by the Hussites among others.

[Mark G]

Unless flails are an artistic shorthand for armed peasants.

[Erpingham]

Unless flails are an artistic shorthand for armed peasants.

Probably not, as 14th century ones are seen in the hands of men-at-arms e.g.



They do seem to be seen most frequently among saracens and similar though, which may suggest they are associated with the exotic more than the everyday.