SoA Forums

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

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