The author says no.
http://www.publicmedievalist.com/curious-case-weapon-didnt-exist/
This has been discussed frequently on the wikipedia page for flails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flail_%28weapon%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flail_%28weapon%29)
The current consensus is that this item did exist but it was rare. The view is in part based on the fact that some of the single handed flails in museums are genuine. While many are doubtful, dismissing them all on the basis of a look at those in the Met seems a bit limited. That the weapon is mainly illustrated in exotic contexts is a fair point but the fact remains that numerous illustrations from bona fide medieval sources do make it hard to suggest it was all made up by the Victorians.
A great deal of fantasy still surrounds the weapon, started by Victorian Romantics and boosted by Hollywood. You can still see traces in the wikipedia article of this, with a Hollywood-style description of how one would use such a flail.
Personally, I think that they leave a great deal to be desired as a practical weapon and a sensible man-at-arms would be better served by a rigid mace.
I agree, i don't think it is very practical as a weapon.
Advantage, the ball and chain does not transmit shock down the user's arm. Also it has greater reach than a mace.
Disadvantage, one could brain one's horse or oneself, or ones own mates.
Likely they were used though as they are illustrated.
Roy
Interestingly, there have been edits about the historicity of the one-handed flail on the wikipedia page since we started this discussion. I suspect we are being watched :)
It appears to be represented as a realistic weapon
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5728/21023/
Quote from: aligern on May 21, 2016, 12:30:55 PM
It appears to be represented as a realistic weapon
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5728/21023/
I think those are two-handed flails of the Hussite type.
Indeed, rejoice at this one then:-))
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3975/11000/
That seems to be part of the problem - the flails seem to often be in a context which is less than accurate in other ways (such as wielded by the rider of a giant chicken). Some are shown as a weapon used by an exotic easterner - are they in evidence in Mamluk or Chinese art?
Yes,mand if you look at the illustrations on the manuscrpt site a few of them show two people with ball and chain attacking another similarly armed and I suspect that the story being liillustrated is dictating the picture there. However, there are plenty of mounted short chain mace pictures other than that, so I don't doubt it was used.
http://i.imgur.com/MCVNswr.jpg
Of course if we disbarred illustrations because of their context we would be using the above to disallow swords as one is clearly being wielded by a rabbit.
Roy
That's ridiculous. The rabbits round here use AK47s.
That is surely because they can manufacture simple replacement parts on crude lathes in their burrows. I wondered why Mr McGregor's body was found outside the potting shed riddled with bullets.
I'm tempted to remark on my daughter's T-shirt with a badger sporting a minigun :) but getting back to the topic for a moment -
There is no doubt from images I've seen that most pictures of short-handled ball-and-chain flails (I make the distinction because they are sometimes shown with a 2-3ft haft used in both hands) are in the hands of "exotic" forces. Frequently these represent Eastern types. The earliest image I've found is early 14th century, most are 15th century. Before this, images of short weapons with multiple heads occur but they are clearly scourges or multi-tailed whips.
The Hussites are particularly noted as flail users with the long-handled weapon, and they come to prominence in the early 15th century.
Of the surviving weapons which may be genuine, most seem to be from Eastern and Central Europe.
It is only a suggestion but we may be dealing with a weapon developed in Central and Eastern Europe in the late Middle Ages which was never or scarcely used west of Germany.
I have seen pictures of rabbits using crossbows :)
I believe holy hand grenades work well against medieval rabbits
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.
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?
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.
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?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 24, 2016, 02:31:20 PM
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.
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2016, 12:17:55 PM
QuoteI 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 ;)
There is an article in the latest Medieval Warfare, "The medieval weapon that never existed: The Military Flail" (https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/medieval-warfare/blog/german-peasants-revolt/) 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.
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.
Unless flails are an artistic shorthand for armed peasants.
Quote from: Mark G on December 21, 2016, 03:04:46 PM
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.
(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/328-43_gallery.jpg)
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.