Talk:Flail (weapon)

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Cute picture

It's always neat to see other people expand on an article that you've written. Cute picture!

Harkenbane 06:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morning star

The terms "morning star" and "mace" are incorrect when used to describe flails, and are themselves distinct from each other. The defining characteristic of flails (which you touched on) are that they are a mass of metal attached to a haft by means of a chain. Morning stars and maces have no interconnecting chain. -CW

From what I understand the termnology in morning star is actually useable to any of the weapons if it had spikes attached. And that a flail only has one chain link, much like the agricultral flails only with metal studs attached. So what is shown in the article is a mornigstar ball on chain, not a flail. -Dob

The EB 1911 article Flail says:

The “flail” was a weapon used for military purposes in the middle ages. It was made in the same way as a threshing-flail but much stronger and furnished with iron spikes. It also took the form of a chain with a spiked iron ball at one end swinging free on a wooden or iron handle. This weapon was known as the “morning star” or “holy water sprinkler.”

What are the reliable sources that contradict that? -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Meteor hammer

A flail and a meteor hammer are two distinct weapons. The hammer has no handle, and a much, much longer chain. Their origins are also completely distinct.--Vince Skrapits 02:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO MERGE, as per above Calicore 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --James Hales 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT merge these articles. I am currently trying to create a more comprehensive article about the meteor hammer. The two are very different, not only in use but also in shape! --Xanthine 08:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As my major rewrite will now show, the meteor hammer article is not suitable for merging. Though I must thank you, it is a noteworthy point (and one I have mentioned) that chain weapons are often confused with each other. --Xanthine 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This weapon looks suspiciously similar to the 'Holy Water Sprinkler', see 'Tracht Wehr Und Waffen'.

Sources, people

Please, please, don't use Wikipedia to document your beliefs or original research. Look, just below the edit box: content must be verifiable. Any additions to this page really need to be supported by external sources. -- Rogerborg 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please add 'some sources to this article. There's not a single source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.1.40 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Zelda References?

Don't you think that the referencese to single battles where the weapon was used in Legend of Zelda games are a bit too marginal? I think "Use in popular culture" should include something more general, like analytic view of what kind of contexts the weapon is often used, or something like that. LotR reference is a bit marginal too, but probably much more informative to most of the readers. RandomMonitor 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vague paragraph

I removed the following from the article: The Middle Ages was an extremely violent era in history featuring battles in both Europe and the Holy Land when the crusades, and the crusaders who fought them, were numerous. Feudal lords and knights used such weapons as the flail in different types of warfare. The quest for power led to invasions of lands and territories which had to be fought for. Siege warfare, waged to win a castle or a walled town or city, was a frequent occurrence during the Middle Ages. Warfare during the Middle Ages, or Medieval era, called for a variety of weapon expertise. Knights and men-at-arms (foot soldiers, or archers) used different types of weapons. The flail was predominantly used by knights and foot soldiers. The weapons used were dictated according to status and position. The weapons, armor and horse of the knight were extremely expensive. I don't know how this paragraph adds to the article, but it reads like a copy and paste from a school assignment about weapons and warfare generally. -Phoenixrod 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leverage

I think the haft and chain arrangement allowed the wielder to swing the head with much more force than with typical maces, for example. I'm not sure if the chain merely adds length to the moment arm, or if the physics is more elaborate, but I believe this weapon hit really, really hard compared to other weapons of similar weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AThousandYoung (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with Mace and chain

I say we merge this page with Mace and chain, as both are nor particularly long, the shorter one is a stub, adn it woudl benefit this article. Comments? --Patar knight 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variations

I removed the following passage from Variations since I fail to see how it differs from the regular flail.

A variation of the flail is called a chain mace. It is composed of a long chain usually wrapped in leather or another protective material, and has a steel ball at the end of the chain^{[citation needed]}

I altered the subsequent sentence so it would fit without the above sentence but I still find it inadequate.

also in Variations

"A variation of the flail is a handle with several chains attached to it rather than one, none of which have a spiked metal ball at their ends"

i think that merely refers to the flagellant style whip which is sometimes also named a flail, which is allready mentioned in the first paragraph· Lygophile has spoken 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity

I have recently come across an academic study that among others claimed that flails (as a morning star head attached to a handle by means of a chain) were a figment of romantic imagination not unlike the Iron Maiden. I don't recall where I read that but it has sparked some doubt in me. Therefore, I would like to encourage everybody contributing to medieval weaponry on Wikipedia to try and find the following:

medieval renditions of flails in pictorial sources
actual medieval examples of flails in museums
written sources from the medieval era describing a flail

Prove me wrong, please. I'd like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigaranus (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had signed that, sorry. BTW: the Hussite examples I've seen so far were just a straightforward peasants' threshing flail with an iron-clad front part, and nothing like the weapon depicted on Wikipedia. Trigaranus 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct, ive looked in some books and none of them mentioned morningstar flails, and one book specificly said they were not commonly used, maybe not ever used. The flails used by wheat farmers were used as improvised weapons though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.165.40.133 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2007

I mentioned these concerns in the german Wikipedia article Flegel (Waffe), stating that there are no academic sources for flails as customary weapons from late antiquity to modern times (barring agricultural tools used as improvised weapons). The whole idea of flail-wielding knights or Landsknechte is a ridiculous figment of romanticism and contemporary fantasy-culture (ie Dungeons & Dragons). On the german article's discussion page I suggested the deletion of the whole article, except for a short account of the misconception itself, which (since they actually have been used as improvised weapons) could be placed in the article on the agricultural tool Dreschflegel. The same should be done here.

By the way: The picture is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.87.109 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without the handle

Is there a variation of the flail where the handle is just a longer chain? I have seen this type of weapon used in fiction but I dont know if it exists in real life. Diabl0658 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I have been looking for contemporary evidence for the use of flail-like (or ball-and-chain-like) weapons during the Middle Ages, or in fact, any time. So far, no results. Any kind of multipartite form (i.e. a massive head flexibly attached to some kind of handling device) -- except the modified threshing flail! -- should best be considered fictional until proven otherwise. Trigaranus 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

I've seen that recently two contributors from the US have changed the date (13th-15th centuries to 11th-15th c.). But as so far, nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of a flail of this kind being used ever, I suggest you only change this dating once you have some reliable information to back it up. If you can prove that such a mace-and-chain flail was actually used, please let us know. Trigaranus (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See for examples these threads: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=137632, http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8785 As I understand it the short-handled flails weren't especially common, and most seem to be 15th century or later, but they certainly existed, in a variety of forms. 24.71.150.241 (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revision

I have made a major revision to this page in order to reflect the fact that there is no evidence to support the 'iconic' form of the military flail, meaning a short stick with a ball and chain attached, of the military flail ever having existed outside the imagination of Victorian writers and contemporary fantasists. I have retained the use of the flail as an improvised weapon used on the battlefield by peasant armies, and a reference to the Hussites. If clear evidence is presented to refute me, I will certainly relent, but it is very important that we are presenting information verifiable with real evidence rather than merely reinforcing popular-cultural myths, no matter how cool those myths may be.

Dancer_Man (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the real problem with the article is that it has no sources, either before or after the revision. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I'll try to drum some up.

80.6.158.42 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your revision very well done, as it reflects what is actually known about flails as (improvised) weapons as well as what people believe about them (fantasy genre, roleplaying games asf). As a german user I have to admit, that a major revision like yours is still blocked on 'our' wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.109.174 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add a bit of substance to the historical description, with some contemporary illustrations. I've also added a couple of references to start us off, but more are needed. In particular, some good references to the use of flails by peasant levies. While I like the corrective nature of the major revision, I think it would benefit from distinguishing between the probably mythical short handled chain mace (this is what I grew up knowing it as)and the long-handled derivative, which did exist. This area to could do with some references for verification of the argument Monstrelet (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Trigaranus (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a mace

The following text was removed from the History section of the article

As of August 15th, 2009, the flail is no longer a mace. ^{[citation needed]}

It may be intended to announce a de-linking but, as such, it should be here, not in the article itself. Author has been notified to allow comments

Le Chevalier Delibere

The article contains a detailed description of a woodcut from this book but no citation to the edition. Although Le Chevalier Delibere is rare in that the author provided detailed notes for illustrators to follow, not all editions were the same. The illustration mentioned doesn't appear in the editions available online. Given its prominence in the article, a reference to the edition in which this particular illustration occurs would be valuable Monstrelet (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the citation request is causing confusion (perhaps in the wrong place?). The source needed is the edition of Le Chevalier Delibere which shows the flail. Either a link or a straightforward citation. It is important because it is the only medieval evidence anyone has referred to of a short-handled flail.Monstrelet (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Museum Collection

As the description of allegedly medieval flails in the possession of the Metropolitan Museum in New York takes up quite some space in this article, I though it might be important to know that the information is likely outdated. Nikolas Lloyd who does a YouTube series on medieval weaponry recently did one about the flail (youtu.be/O-y6oirEsZA) and talked about how he contacted the Metropolitan Museum for information that he got from this very article. According to him it turned out that they took the opportunity to review the items in question and it turned out (1) they have got only three and (2) their authenticity is now very much doubted by the museum itself. It would be interesting to see if they will be updating information about their collection; this article should also reflect any updates the museum decides to make. --2.240.191.175 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched it. For reference, here are the actual links to the collections.

The source being used in this article is both very old (30+ years) and rather poor, being a large book of weapons written for young adult, non-historian readers. It's also worth noting all these flails were donations from collectors in the early 20th century, not archaeological finds, casting further doubt as to their authenticity. The Victorians were infamous forgers of medieval items and have done immense harm to the study of history. It's high time we start calling this out rather than just blindly accepting things.NicoloSt (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this topic should be enhanched with actual refrences from scholars who specialize in medieval weaponry and/or victorian reproductions. The current version of this paragraph relies solely on the (unreferenced) viewpoints of this youtubevideo, which is rather weak and speculative (note by I.Sonnemans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.160.175 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did exist

Five minutes of googling was enough to turn up four or five illustrations of knights with the cavalry flail, properly dated, on museum websites. I wish wikipedians wouldn't keep mistaking "I can't research" with "there is no evidence". Also "I read once" does not constitute "considerable debate" <eye roll> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first off, you will not get far with such a mocking tone and including "eye rolls" in your talk posts. What are you, 14? The rule is prove it or go home. We deal in sourcing here and no, I was not able to find any properly dated illustrations from the medieval period by simply googling "cavalry flail." I just got lots of photos of modern "reproductions" and fakes. That said, my concern at least personally is the truth rather than "being right," so here's some works I did find by consulting some people who are actual experts on medieval weapons.

Detail from Battle between Heraclius and Chosroes, painted by Piero della Francesca circa 1452

This painting very clearly shows a fellow wielding a short, one-handed flail with three ball-shaped heads. Problems are that this was painted in the mid 15th century so technically it's from the Renaissance rather than the middle ages, and it's actually intended to represent a battle taking place in the year 627 in what is now modern day Iraq. Depicted are a bizarre mishmash of armor, clothing and weapons from the 15th century armor, byzantine, and ancient Greek.

I found this one as well, http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/small_perez_mendoza_frontispiece_217.jpg

This is an illustration by Cristóbal Pérez de Herrera in 1618, which technically is Early modern period, not medieval. I'm not exactly sure what the context is other than a collection of weapons, but it's worth noting the length of handle suggested it's a two-handed weapon.

Then there's this one: http://www.mediumaevum.com/75years/Two%20men%20with%20club%20and%20flail.JPG

Supposedly, it's from the 13th century 'Moniage de Guillaume', Biblioteca Trivulziana 1025, fo.142. Can't verify that though. Also, it's clearly a two-hander.

Here's another: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/livre-des-merveilles-francais-2810/2836/

French, about 1410. Very nice example with the ball covered in spikes at the end of a chain, and from horseback by a knight! But also, clearly used two-handed.

So, it appears they were around, but they were a little different that we perceive of them today. Also noted that all of these pictures are obviously out of copyright, and are free game to be uploaded to wikipedia's systems with proper attribution.NicoloSt (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to copy/paste the last two links from the forum that you otherwise copied verbatim. 81.104.141.51 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bellfortis" 1405 approx - Knight waving a flail while pulling some sort of siege engine

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/bellifortis-of-konrad-kyeser-besancon-bm-ms1360/4158/

"Wonders of the world" - Knight with a short handled flail at his belt

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4303/9819/

Fixed that for you ;-)

Anyway, that whole forum discussion was started by people surprised that wikipedia would deny the existance of something for which there is a reasonable amount of evidence - Prove it applys just as much to claims that things do not exist, hence why the Cite tags. If some scholar has written a book, or even a consensus of scholars all agree that the one-handed-flail was a victorian myth - quotes, page numbers, title, and author thank you! 81.104.141.51 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, guys! You are my heroes! :-) Trigaranus (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a source is a source, no matter where I found it. I still deserve credit for actually finding the correct attribution for some of them. The forum did not, and I had to hunt them down myself (such as the Herrera woodcut). I left out Bellfortis because it's not a strong source, because it was drawn very strangely by someone who doesn't appear to know what they're doing. This is common in very old period paintings of military actions because the painters were usually not fighting men and made many mistakes, such as the way they depict archers.

Alright so here's the plan. I'm going to try and upload these into the system once I write out all the attribution information, as well as rewrite the section itself. Please, if you know of a good text source, post it. I do still stand firmly by the assertion that the many of flails found in museums are fakes and that many of the books written about these weapons have very poor sourcing, if any at all.NicoloSt (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, I think the Talhoffer works might contain some depictions and even strategy, but I need to look those up again.NicoloSt (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Talhoffer showing the single handed flail (or any other fechtbuch for that matter). I agree with NicoloSt though that we need to be careful of many museum specimens because of their lack of provenance. So a clear image of a single handed flail from a period source is what we need (we have no issues with two-handed flails from sources). The Bellifortis, suitably cropped to get rid of distractions, works quite well. Contrary to above opinion, I'd say it shows a weapon similar in design to a 15th century mace (iron handle, guard over handgrip) and is more plausible than some. It would be helpful if someone can turn up a text source to go with it but previous attempts have proved fruitless.Monstrelet (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]