'Morning Star' flails
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe to my channel: www.youtube.co...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
'Morning star' as a term for a one-handed ball-and chain flail may upset some people, but it is at least a nice term. It is a popular weapon today I think largely because it conforms to our idea of medieval brutality.
I rambled on for about twenty minutes about these weapons, so had to cut this one down a lot. I'll do at least one more, though.
Main flail shown owned by Dr David Tetard.
Thanks to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, for three of the flail illustrations. All three of the weapons look a bit dubious, and I'd say that the last of the three is a fake.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
'Morning Star' flails
/ user "Lindybeige"
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
"Some points about the morning star" would've made a great pun though.
i got a morning star. it stiffens in the morning, with 2 spiked balls attached to it.
3DarkDescents pubes lol
I only liked your post
to make an even 💯.
Otto Pike a valiant effort, but now invalid
Nebuerys or a mourning star.
One of my friends was doing a ancient warfare demonstration, and they were using a flail on horseback. The ball was around 1.2 pounds. It had 1/2 inch studs. The guy come up, and put a little too much force into the flail (it was supposed to be the speed of the horse). The flail hit him in the chest, in full plate, put a huge dent in the front, took him clear off of his feet and broke 4 ribs. He had a lot of trouble breathing because the dent in the armour was holding his chest down and the broken ribs were making him cough, creating a negative feedback loop where he was getting less and less oxygen and more and more towards hypoxia with every minute. I'm completely convinced that if he was on the battlefield, his own armour would have killed him in the space of 8-10 minutes through hypoxia, because of this flail hit.
Interesting,
I sat down and worked it out. A 1 pound ball on a 1 foot chain produces a tremendous amount of force.
Speed of Ball:
(2(pi)r)/t
2(pi)0.33 = 4.5m/s
Speed of ball = 4.5m/s
Speed of horse = 5.5m/s (20km/h)
Force of impact
0.5m*v^2/s
.: (0.5*0.453952)*10^2/0.05 (5cm stopping distance) = 453.952kg
That's 453kg in a 2 inch, 1lb iron ball hitting you in the chest. And that wasn't even a full blow. A full power blow would be double that.
I am aware that I'm being pedantic, but what you're describing would be a positive feedback loop (where a specific action exacerbates the same action); also, I am curious to know what happened to your friend and how he was treated in the hospital, if you don't mind indulging me :)
He was treated for 2 pulmonary contusions, 4 broken ribs and a severe concussion and was intubated and placed into an induced coma and on mechanical ventilation for 2 weeks. After he came out of the coma, he took about 4 weeks off work. It took around 3 months for the ribs to totally heal.
He did make a full recovery though, and is back doing what he loves.
Jesus, that sounds pretty bad. I'm glad everything turned out well, but it really gives you some perspective on how destructive these things can be. Thank you for sharing :)
3:12 Come on man, you've never heard of a soldier going to battle with a feather duster?
Tickling is a knight's worse nightmare alright.
OMG this comment is extreamly funny 😄
“STRIKE HIM WITH THE FLUFFY FEATHERS”
We don't know that was a battle they were heading to. Could have been a ye olde Eyes Wide Shut type party.
Could be... some sort of camouflage? With so many geese, roosters, ducks foolin around in the Middle Age...
1:30 "so you take a biiiiig swing with this son of a, with this thing" lol just realized he doesn't curse in his videos.
lol quick save
Maybe he was going to say gun
If anyone ever broke into his house, they'd find him paralyzed with indecision as to what weapon to thwack them with.
I always thought the point of this weapon was to defeat shields. That is hit the rim and let the ball swing over.
I was thinking the same. The assumption that they weren't considered effective enough to become widely used is probably still correct though. There was the potential issue of the chain getting tangled around something, leading to the user effectively becoming disarmed. In short, the cons outweighed the pros.
thats pretty smart
There's a few kinda niche reasons this weapon could or would be used. First, like the "murder stroke" with a swords hilt or a blow from a mace, the idea is to over come armour by transferring momentum and causing internal injuries. The chain and handle work like a whip to induce a quick bit of momentum near the end of an attack, however, this comes at the cost of a longer swing. And yes, the chain does allow the flail to curve around obstacles such as a shield or a parry.
All this knowledge taken into account, this weapon was most likely developed and used almost solely against Knights. Arguably, Knights had much better equipment than the average soldier who carried swords and bucklers, and donned a gambeson or chain mail armor. Their only real danger on the battle field was to become bogged down by combat with another knight and outnumbered or flanked by other combatants. So while having enough armor to deal with the common soldier, they could have traded off some attack benefits of a sword to deal more effectively with overcoming another Knights defenses. I.E, hitting around a shield, and the armor defeating benefits offered by blunt force trauma.
This jives pretty well with the period in which they were introduced (after the rise of plate armors), and describes why they weren't popular with the common soldier. Most soldiers wouldn't trade the versatility of a sword for a specialized weapon.
over a shield?
If it had a polearm length handle maybe, but if you wanna close that close he's just gonna stick you in the gut with his sword, wouldnt he? he can thrust, you have to get super close and go over.
HonorableAssassins Ahyup. And when knights' armor had evolved to the point that most were covered stem to stern w/ plate, knights pretty well ditched shields outside of tournaments. So the purpose of a flail may have been to maximize the force delivered to an armored body for purpose of stunning; or the flail might have been envisioned as a way to counter a large shield (large shield= archaic=uncommon=flails an occasional response to a rare situation by ppl unaccustomed to them?). But I doubt contemporaries thought of the flail as used for both. Just my barely educated guess.
What is the "yes Sam, those are bardiches" meme?
My name is Sam and I was wondering "hey is that a bardiche" and he scared the shit out of me.
same m8
I'm glad I wasn't the only one there.
same here. sams unite
are you guys gonna form voltron?
Sam Leduc Lord of the Rings reference- Frodo to Sam when Glorfindel appears at the Ford of Bruinen: "Yes Sam; that's an Elf."
Should've called the video "Some points around a ball and chain."
lol
Or some points around the flail
I.E., some points about the wife
If they were actually used in the middle ages, I imagine they were most commonly carried by guards and not so much by soldiers in battle.
Goodness me you are everywhere
But... why? I mean, guards probably had city / royal funds, and had weapons much more suitable for defense / guard duty. I could see this being used for some kind of screaming attack, but for guarding I'd take something a bit less dangly. Not to mention that guards usually work in tight groups, which isn't great for this.
I mean, I would be scared of a guard who has a spiked ball on a flail. I mean.... You don't want to be beat to a pulp by that thing
@@lariana-changaming4168 Well, but you might not be the target demographic. I think the problem is when you have a decent weapon of your own and a couple of other guys to back you up.
they were improvised weapons used by farmers and people that can't afford, or were banned from owning swords. Typically when fighting against knights whos armor would protect from poorly made swords, these along with maces were made to ring their bell.
I have recently visited Predjama castle in Slovenia where an interesting usage was claimed for this weapon. First some background: in Slovenian language a regular morning star is called buzdovan. The literal translation morning star=jutranja zvezda is always used for such 'flail morning stars'. The weapons they had on display were small and light and had two balls on chains. Rather small ones (cca 3cm) with small spikes. The primary usage for them claimed was, that it was used as a weapon of choice for the morning after the battle, rendering the laying wounded enemy final mercy. I have no idea how correct this is but it does seem plausible as it would be extremely easy to kill a dying man with it, without damaging better weapons for that job. It also explains the name. It is the last star a dying man saw in the morning. I wonder what your thoughts about such explanation are.
Why has no one commented on this??? I am genuinely curious about this concept.
@@DJMarcO138 same here. Leaving comment to chase this
Poetic if grim.
You know what else works well for the coup de grace? Just a club without all the flailish silliness of a morning star. I don't know if I'm buying the explanation.
@@dereklong801 Yeah if you ignore the cost of making a weapon just for that purpose. You also need to consider that it doesn't work very well for that job. Seems like you could use the same excuse for any imaginary weapon that doesn't work very well on the battlefield.
I've spared with these. A longer handle and shorter chain is better.
They are deadly, primarily to the wielder. It is easy to hit yourself on the head. Wrapping the head of the flail effectively disarms yourself.
However, they are difficult to block even with a shield. The shaft strikes much harder than a simple mace would because the chain pulls the head much more quickly than a simpler swing. Few people who have not faced one can defend themselves effectively.
It is a specialty weapon, and not a very good one.
I used to LARP with a long handled short chain footman's flail made of foam, and a 'chain' of soft rope. It hit way too hard, and seemed to hit untrained people in the head and face way too much, even when they tried to block it. It hits very hard and I'd consider it a noob wrecker in a brawl. I accidentally wrapped the 'chain' partway around a guy's neck and pulled him right down on his face. The Ref took it away and outlawed it as 'not dangerous, but far too painful'. Kneecapping or ankle strikes are also very strong and easy to hit, but that's also when the long chain short handle flail comes back up towards your head and can hit you.
When I was in SCR years ago we called them chain maces and used them rarely. Yes used properly a chain mace can go right over a shield when the chain is blocked. It is also useful to pull one's opponent's weapon off line to allow a kick or shield rush, both of dubious effect. We used short handles and medium chains. Chain mace vs chain mace is hilarious, they tangle.
Afaik it was primarily used on horseback which makes a lot of sense - it reduces the risk of doing something to yourself (and hitting your horse would be even harder) and completely negates the shock to the hand a mace would cause, especially with high speed. And according to med scientists exposing your joints and tendons to this shock repeatedly over the course of 20 years almost guarantees serious chronic injury (not to mention possibility of getting disarmed/breaking your wrist). So maybe somone just thought "hey if I hit a plated guy with this mace it hurts a lot and peasants use flails every summer without an issue... What if I combined these two?"
If we looked at it from this point of view it's a great weapon ;)
@@Sk0lzky what obout a long chain you could use with 2 hands and a really big mace head would that be good or to exousting in battle?
@@Sk0lzky I really can't see how you can control the bouncing of the ball and not injuring your horse. It could be even worse if it doesn't bounce and you get it stuck someplace and a handle starts flying in random direction. That random direction could be toward your horse. My guess is that the luck is much needed in using it.
Back in high school a friend and I used to spare a bit with sticks, hockey sticks, and a shield he'd made in medieval armory. Then he got a cheap reproduction flail and that really made a difference. The person with the flail could strike around the shield, or even batter at the shield forcing a foe on he defensive. Now we weren't very good at this sort of fighting, but I don't imagine that your average peasant levy would have been either.
If you were just in a padded jack with a buckler (or even a full on shield) and spear, that flail was terrifying because it's hard to block and if it hits you you're going to feel it. It might not have been the most lethal weapon, but it would have broken bones and put a man out of the fight in a situation where he might have blocked the blow from a sword or a pole arm.
In short, I think it was kind of a terror weapon, maybe not super common but good for bringing a different look to a fight and surprising somebody.
There's an analogue in boxing in that a fighter with an unusual style will often defeat a better overall boxer if he's not sure how to deal with it.
Muhammad Ali had his toughest fights with Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, both unorthodox stylists. Norton would cross his arms to defend and had this weird stance where he'd drag his back foot like it was stuck in a bucket; Frazier would bob and move his head up and down like a bobblehead and feint with his gloves in weird unpredictable patterns that looked like a goofy little dance.
They both looked a little odd, but were much more effective against Ali than more orthodox fighters.
Elgin Marble I was playing chess at an event once... there was this master or grandmaster or something (a good player anyway) and he played 20 of us at a time.. Most he defeated quickly making his moves fast when he saw their moves... But me.. well I never really got into chess or counting cards because I felt that part made it boring.. so I just made some moves that I thought looked good (and they probably werent). But this stumped the chess master...He had to stop and consider every one of my moves, because it didnt fit the known moves and counter moves...
TLDR: The best doesnt fear the second best - He knows all his tricks and the counters to them - He fears the rookie - SInce not even the rookie knows what he is going to do.
This is the idea behind the three section staff and the hard whip in Chinese martial arts. Very difficult to block as it travels around or over the item you are blocking with.
I wouldn't be surprised if long chained flails exists and were used in a similar fashion, but were used very rarely, as weapons like the hard whip and rope weapons take a tremendous amount of skill to use, and as Lindy mentioned, are not friendly for fighting shoulder to shoulder with an ally.
WakarimasenKa That is very much in line with what George Silver said, in his Paradoxes of Defence.
"Peasant levies not good with flails" - Well, they only used them their whole life...
"You take a big swing with this sunuva - with this thing..."
I heard you Lindybeige, I heard you.
Flails were definitely used, although they'd normally have a heavy bar on a chain rather than spiked balls. They were devised from threshing tools. The Hussites were renowned for employing flails. They were a practical and simple weapon for peasant infantry.
I thought the title read "Morning star fails"
I was sure it is up until middle of the video
We all did lol
The US's Society for Creative Anachronism banned the use of flails some time in the 1990s. At the time, the flail used for re-enactment was a wooden stick, and plastic rope with a tennis ball at the end. I recall the reported reason for the ban was that this tennis-ball-on-a-rope was extremely dangerous.
One would make a downward swing towards a foe; that foe would usually block with their shield. When the middle of the rope hit the rim of the shield, the lever-action of the rope changed from long to short, and the ball rapidly accelerated. It was reported that many bones on the shield arm were getting broken.
If the tennis-ball-on-a-rope is that dangerous, one can only wonder how much nastier the ball-and-chain must be.
My conjecture would be that the morningstar was rare because that looks extremely expensive to make -- it's a linked chain and a stylized ball. That's nothing like a pattern-folded or beaten sword. Combine that with the extra skill to get it to work, and how that must be a nightmare in formation fighting, and you could see why it's rare.
Awesome video, keep up the good work!
Very interesting comment.
Indeedy, Most of the information i've seen about single handed flails and their battlefield usefulness pertains entirely to countering shields, usually by cutting around the rim to strike the head, shoulder or forearm. In most cases, however, it is unlikely this weapon could be used as a finisher, and would have to be followed up with something else.
←
I was told by our marshal here in "trimaris" that the SCA had them banned for use due to the rope wrapping around the neck and all that entails. Though it was banned more for a "just in case something bad happens" not so much that anything at all has happened yet. I guess the rope could slip around the neck of someone not wearing a full neck protector, because some only wear the minimum requirement for armor in the lists.
Tennis ball on a rope is a good trainer for the meteor dart rope weapon, something I am failing to get good at. You can get a lot of speed, and it hurts like hell to get hit with it.
The more I've been working with I.33, the more I've come to suspect that these flails/morning stars were not typically whipped around in wide arcs, but rather used in pretty tight rotations. That is, the ball would be ROTATED into the enemy just as the sword is rotated in close combat. When you get the hang of it, rotation allows you to deliver the same force with far less space and in half the time. You make your circle smaller by changing the point of rotation from the hand (or in the case of wide-swung flail, the shoulder) to closer to the middle of the weapon. If I'm correct, this would also explain how they used these weapons without bonking their neighbors on the head. And this would explain why the chains on historical examples tend to be rather short.
I've had good results using rotation with maces, in any case.
I agree, and was going to say that, hope Lindybeige sees this comment.
When you say rotated, do you mean moving the hand holding the weapon in a larger arc to force the point of rotation of the weapon further up the haft? So you sort of swing your hand around in a 'locomotion' move while twisting the wrist half a rotation behind or ahead in order to have the head come around while the hand pulls back?
Earthenfist That's right, though it's done with more than just the wrist. For example on a short edge cut with a blade you might twist your wrist and rotate your elbow to act as the other side of the wheel ("rota"). This keeps the sword in tight (a critical thing in close fencing) and allows for very powerful cuts. Or on a classic oberhau you would drop the pommel slightly and rotate the blade into the foe rather than swinging it like a bat. The existing sources show a remarkable mastery of biomechanics, so it's a fair bet they used this same knowledge with the less well documented weapons. They had an understandable reluctance to use any moves that left them unprotected, and swinging a flail over your head in broad circles is really an invitation to get gutted. But if you imagine it being held upside down with the heavy ball as a pendulum, then picture a fast rotation, it makes more sense I think. The ball would have enough power to break bones or stun then enemy, and could then be used as a lever for wrestling or rotated some more until a few bones were broken. Then you just let it go and grab your rondel for the kill. The fights happened pretty danged fast, we know that much. And there may not have been any need for protracted whipping about. But I could be reading too much into all of this. As Lindy notes there's not much info on the use of flails.
***** I personally think you are absolutely right
*****
Makes a lot of sense, especially looking at how short slings were used and the sort of power capable with almost no windup. Adding a flexible bit to anything swung seems to allow for a massive amount of power to be created with a relatively small swing. I'd kind of like to see someone test these sorts of things with force measurement mechanisms.
Thrand, Elgrammr? You're up!
I use this to keep my serfs in line.
HEH
@@jim5735
It's the other way around.
Right? My serfs aren’t allowed weapons nor armor so it works amazingly.,,
In my recalling flails were incredibly useful in wall-on-wall fights. Not that I'm 700 years old, just participated in reenactment while in college. Flail wielding troops were aiming primarily at the heads of the opponents standing behind full shields dropping the apple of a flail from above on their helmets. It's a very effective tactic, actually, due to the high velocity of an apple hence extreme kinetic energy, avoiding the necessity of penetrating the shield, and aiming the area most vulnerable to concussion traumas. Of course, I have not the faintest idea how did the things work in the medieval time.
It's called a morning star because it was originally used to get lazy people out of bed.
Wakey wakey! ***Thump***
Imagine waking up, going to look at yourself in the mirror and see a massive dent on your head. lmao
For example braveheart bedroom scene.
I don't think you'll wake up after that
Well itd get me outta bed real fast
This kind of weapon was widely used. It was developed out of the "Dreschflegel" used by german farmers. They used these simple tools as one of many improvised weapons in the "Bauernkriege".
I love how you describe putting your allies in life-threatening danger as "your friends not appreciating it", like getting hit with flails and back ends of halberds is an inconvenience on a Tuesday morning.
Dry humor.
When I have been in Predjamski castle in Slovenia (btw - great place) I have seen an exposition of the weapons with "morning star" in it.
The description plate was suggesting that this thing has been used for finishing wounded enemies after fight, also there was suggestion, that "morning star's" name has come from it's usage - to finish enemies in the morning after fight.
I am not telling that it's a correct explanation, but for me it makes more sense to use this really awkward weapon after actual battle, than using it in the middle of fight standing next to your mates and bashing not only enemies but your friends and even maybe yourself. Do not forget that even after you hit the enemy it might deflect from moving target and also hit you.
So using it on recumbent, static enemies would be far more effective, yet spear would be better in this situation.
I find that extremely implausible.
That usage sounds a tad too poetic, and I think some artist would mention it in their work throgout the ages.
Also, crafting a weapon JUST for that one purpose is extremely costly and impractical, not to mention that it would be a lot easier to just use a spear to finish off enemies: just going around and stabbing ppl sounds a lot easier than having to stop at every lying person, swing the weapon, aim for the head, slightly kneel or bend in order to hit them, and then repeat for hundred more ppl.
You should get a dummy
Yes it makes it easier for him to explain things.
@@Robot-yl3vg It's harder to explain things to dumb people tho
@@admiralmudkip9836 ba dum tss
Yes, he should.
But, maybe not with this weapon.
A broken arm or face might be the likely result of practical testing.
I have a hypothesis I have never seen anyone mention so, to my knowledge, I came up with it.
It was for men on horseback who anticipated fighting folks in heavy armor. They needed a weapon to replace the lance when the lance would break but if they used a traditional mace it would break too so they put a mace head on the end of some flexible shit so the energy can still be dumped without breaking in half. The extra speed and energy of the horse compensates for the lack of rigidity, I think.
Generally speaking:
Flail = A haft with a flexible link to a head.
Morning Star = A haft with spikes at one end, no flexible link.
Mace = A haft with flanges or such at the end, no spikes.
Flails were used, for example one of the more well know uses of them was the from the Hussite war,
books.google.com/books?id=9ntLB8W-cVQC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=hussite+flail&source=bl&ots=hbqizFurGY&sig=HdERuKayFhx3mXUjqlAfbwy4-Ew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q0J9VK-DAoijNtCYhLAN&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=hussite%20flail&f=false
Flails also came in both one and two handed types and could be used as a mounted weapon.
Some of the advantages of a flail:
1. The force, simply put you could put more force into an area with a flail then you could most any other weapon, spear, mace, etc.
2. With the link it allowed the head to wrap around shields and other things.
So yes they existed and were used. How often and how much? Well that's hard to say.
Well, obviously the witch-king of angmar thought it was good enough to use as his primary weapon
He called it 'damned heavy' because it was damned heavy
I know this is old, but the video didn't address (and I didn't see in the comments) the most important aspect of the flail, which is that the chain's loose links decouple the force of the blow delivered to the target from the force transferred back to the user's hand. For ordinary combat, this isn't much of an issue, but for striking a target from a charging horse, this is huge. Indeed, most of the period illustrations of this weapon that I've seen show it used from horseback.
“to stagger him, not to PENETRATE him.” -Lindy
thank you for saving my time
I just want to say that it seems very nice the metropolitan listened to your advice and looked into it. Seems like it was a nice conversation about the whole thing. Good on them.
I can see the spikes plausibly puncturing armor, the chain, and stick length with make for a faster moving ball, and the spike puts all of the impact of the blow on a small point, having much greater puncturing power than a spear or sword. And full body armor wasn't monumentally thick around the midriff, it held it's shape because it was domed, but it wasn't so thick that it could not be punctured by ball and chain, it did however protect from sword cuts, and spear thrusts.
To kill, penetration needs to be deeper than the small spikes on these flails would achieve.
I'd still prefer a flanged-mace or war hammer over a flail of any kind... delivering direct damage, under more control while reducing energy consumption. Plus, you can always stick a stabbing spike on a mace or war hammer for jabbing, where as that would be nigh-on impossible, if not totally impractical on a flail.
In order to pierce the armour the spike would need to hit perfectly straight, otherwise the point would skid off. But this is rather unlikely since it is impossible to control the direction the spikes are facing.
You replied to my comment!!! Lindybeige, you make awesome content!! Thank you!!!
Capt Nemo I wonder what the advantage of a flail over a mace might have been. I can only imagine that the ball would be hard to control and that the strikes would be rather predictable since it has to be swung in a certain rhythm to give it momentum. And on top of that one can easily hit oneself with it. Could it be that is was the western equivalent of the nunchaku - cool but useless. But apparently knights went into battle with it, so it must have had some advantage.
I have head that a flail was a specialised anti-shield weapon, because the ball and chain can hit the man behind the shield. But apparently they came into use when shields weren't used much anymore.
It seems to me that flails where mostly used on horseback. Could that have something to do with it?
1:30. You swing this biiiig son of a. This biiiig thing. Close one.
Only a TRUE Lindybeige fan gets to the video before the video exists on the website.
I've never seen someone get so specific about such a simple and blunt weapon, I love it.
The main reasons for stick+chain+weigh-in-the-end weapon is that they are used exactly like the common hand-thresh which farmers used to whack their cut and bundled harvest to make the seed corns to fall off the straws. Look at a japaneese Nunchuko for how those probably looked. (Thank God that we had progressed to combined-harvesters byt the time I had to start helping with dads farm!) You didn't have time to teach a farmer to use a sword, but he already was handy with their harvesting-tools. Yet Another reason for theese weapons is to not break your wrist when the impact suddenly stops the tip... If you smash with all your might and accellerate a kilo of metal to a high velocity, just to have it suddenly stop when it solidly impacts about a hundred kilos of armored enemy, with a solid handle and your on-going muscle-work, you'd crack or sprain your wirist pretty soon. For anyone not understanding how this could be a problem, google Newtons first and second law, solid-body-mechanics, and the physics of a golf-swing. :)
Mace = Rod + Blunt head (may be flanged)
Morning Star = Rod + Spiked head (may be flanged)
Flail = Rod + Chain + Head (Spiked/Blunt/Flanged)
+Leukodystrophy I prefer:
Mace = Rod with a Spiked/Blunt/Flanged Head
Flail = Rod + Chain + Head (Spiked/Blunt/Flanged)
Morningstar = A Mace or Flail with a spiked head.
+Maxuras I've always thought of the flail with a spiked head as a "goedendag".
+Akatsukami That definitely not. A Goedendag was the flemish name for either a spiked club or really thick staff (with a single spike at the top) or a spiked maul (with one spike at the top and additional spike(s) at the side(s))
+Maxuras good morning from the North
+Akatsukami Your name suggests otherwise, but do you happen to be Dutch ?
Morningstar = morgenster but often wrongly called goedemorgen, which sounds similar to goedendag.
And if you are not dutch never mind a word i said, explaining the confusion anyhow:
Goededag = a good day
Goedemorgen = a good morning (this one isn't a weapon to be clear)
Morgenster = morningstar
It seems to me that even with a short chain it would be really easy to hurt yourself with it, as you don't have full control of where the spiked ball is. I'd take a mace over one of these any day.
My thoughts exactly. Flails scare me, and not because of what'd happen if someone _else_ took a swing at me. Also, imagine trying to block somebody else's sword or mace or... anything, really... with a heavy metal ball flopping around.
Mush V. Peets when using weapons like the mace or flail, the weirder should have a shield as these weapons only require one hand.
George Obama Thank you. I was about to say the same thing.
Mush V. Peets If the flail has scared you so bad that you are on the verge of running from your opponent before the match even starts (nevermind that you agree flails have a high likelyhood of injuring the wielder), I would say it has done its job quite effectively.
I'd say they're definitely more effective than normal maces at what they do since they can carry a lot more kinetic force - but they're nowhere near as versatile.
For starters one-handed flails are terrible weapons of war. They cannot be used in formation and need plenty of space to be swung. They also need quite a lot of training to be used effectively, I could easily see peasants or normal soldiers hitting themselves with it. And lastly, they take way too many resources to be made which means they're incredibly expensive to produce in mass for an army. Really the only place I could see a flail being used is on horseback, or in duels/small skirmishes.
However, that's not to say that flails weren't used - just not the ones we think of. Two handed flails with very long handles were actually quite popular, enough for masters to write manuals on their proper use - and they were also used massively by the peasant portion of armies , as two-handed flails with wooden heads were agricultural tools used for threshing grain.
I got here so quickly that it won't even load!
I seem to have same problem. Tomorrow then.
I came here so quickly that it was a big load!
No, wait...
lol. Idk if I just have a sick mind but "coming so quickly it wont even load" sounds really funny.
umidontno040394 a dirty mind is a joy forever.
I know im late on a party and such... but.
One thing that people love to forget about flails. - they are extremely useful vs shields. It does not require long chain (and, as i know, they usually uses rope, for reasons i`ll desribe below) cause the whole point is to strike a shield`s edge with chain/rope ppart, and get ball strike thing behind it with even increased force (obviously froce not appear from anywhere, but we talk relative to more convinient strike and in this case you would strike with greater force). Especially effective in really clutch fights where all combatants were really close to each other to get a powerful swing or thrust.
Another thing that is good to mention - balls for flails were really easy to make. Even "morningstar". So even village blacksmith can do em. It does not require much skill to mash some random scrap into something ball-shaped (you dont need it to be ideal, lol) And some skill maybe to put some nails in it to make pointy edges. And later, after battle, that metal can be used back to create more needed things.
What it does mean in summary - you dont have flails in general as "weapon". IN most cases it is agriculture tool, converted to war usage in time of need, as process is relatively fast (one blacksmith can make several from random scrap jus tin one evening), dont require much skill if it used for top-down swing when you defend during siege or in clashes in tigh places and uses rope, cause it is converted stuff.
So, generally, it is much likely that we dont have much of that weapon survived cause there was no such "weapon". It is also good to mention that in some of "trainbooks" (if we can call them such) of medieval period there were instruction of flail usage. But that is not common. In my eyes it all leads to conclusion, that as battle scythe, it was not an effective weapon of war, but converted tool to be used as weapon in time of need. But due to simple physics - pretty effective during sieges even in incompetent hands.
I'm an astronomer and this video was a flailed search for "morning star"
Love it.
just be glad you didn't get Fist of the Northern Star
I suspect people underestimate how historical people were just as vain as modern people. One has to admit that these kinds of weapons do look impressive, and I hypothesise that impressiveness is the main point. Look at gun collector types in the US today who have tonnes of fancy looking but hugely impractical weapons lying around which they can show off to their friends and play with at gatherings etc., but which are almost useless in an actual combat situation.
Ps. I had a very strange moment of disconnect when you referred directly to "sam" (my name).
Even the most fancy of those weapons is useful in a combat situation, and more so than any sword or other armament showcased here. Don't underestimate something just because it has a little bit of shine.
The Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol seems to me a perfect example of this. It's the size of a hair dryer. In what conceivable real world situation are you not better off with either a rifle, or a lighter more maneuverable pistol?
I'm no firearms expert but I can't imagine one.
I do hate those golden drug dealer 1911s
*****
You're *supposed* to hold them sideways. :/
Nic Hartman I see your point, and obviously all guns (almost) are useful weapons, but of someone attacks me with a punt gun I'd rather have a small calibre handgun to defend myself. Obviously that's an extreme example, but you know what I mean.
I imagine the only real way something like would have been practical is on the back of a horse. Not only would you have been spread out quite a bit, with little chance of hitting someone by accident, but the forward momentum of the horse would allowed for something like this to strike with far more force and be "taut" with the chain outstretched so it would have done a fairly useful amount of damage. Further more, if it say, get stuck in the armor, I imagine that they wouldn't have been all that hard to have carried a few more, if not say 10 more on your horse, removing the weight issue of carrying one on foot and losing the weapon. As the horse would have continued onwards you also would have had time to draw another weapon before engaging the target again.
Why would these be used over traditional, non-chained morning stars? The only real reason I could imagine would be that the longer handle essentially, which would have outstretched in flight, could provide a longer reach and more force in flight, as compared to a traditional morningstar. And that perhaps a traditional morning star might hit a target so hard that the handle might snap or bend, so having a chain that could absorb some of that force and buckle under stress would have been better.
But not much better.
+John Smith Plus the chain part could get around a shield fairly easily, smashing the shield arm.
Yes I was thinking that. Also I don’t accept the assumption that it was used against knights in plate. The most useful would be against your standard foot soldier - where the blunt force trauma plus a spike could wreak a lot of damage.
You don't need extra force from the back of a horse. The flails still suffer the same drawback of being slow, easily wrested away, and dangerous to your horse if you swing and miss. If anything, the fact you can't use your footwork and leverage with the point of contact to redirect momentum after a miss makes the flail vastly worse from horseback. Every missed downward swing will pull you with it, as the point of contact is below your leverage to control, so you have to heave it to a full-stop before you can swing again.
It honestly just sounds completely awful on horseback. I'd rather have a lance and then a faster and reliable side sword for melee.
I see such weapons being used to the same purpose as warhammers, which is to say to create blunt force trauma through armor which might otherwise be difficult to penetrate. They have the possibility of being very effective with their design due to the increased speed and length of arc - like a mini trebuchet. I think Lindy is correct in stating that the many trade-offs to using such a weapon might make it a poor choice for most situations, certainly for most medieval and renaissance infantry applications.
When I was a kid we made up a game called battle cry. The game was based off of medieval warfare/weapons I choose a morning star/or one balled flail. At first the weapon was clumsy to wield and I often got defeated till I understood how the weapon was really suppose to be used. It is designed to clubber your opponent in the back of the head. An over swing by passes the shield and then proceeds to hit the back of the head of the opponent. Afterwards I won so many one on one battles that a vote was called to ban the weapon. Now there are some limitations. One is the more opponents the less effective the weapon becomes and the space needed to wield it but other than those two things the weapon was very very effective.
IFAIK flails with short handles were primarily cavalry weapons. They were efficient against infantry in helmets and were able sometimes reach a person behind a shield. Also very useful when hunting down fleeing infantry.
Well, wikipedia didn't get it wrong, the museum got it wrong.
Wiki said the museum had 4...when in fact they had 3.
Watch the video again.
So, Wikipedia was wrong, because it had a bad source.
What does everybody mean by 'wikipedia'. Are you talking about it's founders or editorial committe? The content on it is created, edited and updated by it's user base. It's a collaboration project.
@@Barbarous_Wretch a lot of people still only know the days when there was much less oversight on edits
T_T I was always afraid of spikes on balls. I mean, swords aren't looks scary, but this things, it feels liek if someone is holding this - he doesn't care about himself, and if it's true - you're really fucked.
i used to love these... flail weapons when i was a little child and read every book i could about the medieval period... but when i got older i started to realize how impractical it is, not only for the reasons you mentioned but also for the fact that you have to wind up your attack quite a lot and holding up a shield and defending yourself with it while swinging a metal ball around seems quite difficult to do, especially considering that an opponent with a sword could just stab you in the face while you were busy having your weapon behind you (plus i can imagine that its quite difficult to keep your balance, in a full suit of armor with a big metal ball swinging from a lever)
It was the same for me, I loved the idea of a flail, it looked so cool. But then I started to realize what a terrible idea for a weapon it was. I mean who would like to swing a weapon that threatened the weilder or his friends? I can imagine it would be a decent weapon to swing a few times on horse back, but not something you'd want to have on foot. You should also imagine that soldiers pretty much spent most of their time practicing with weapons and armor on them, so balance is not an issue if you have so much strength and training.
you are right about the balance part, they would probably be able to learn how to lean into the weapon properly... but another point, if this thing gets deflected at an awkward angle, you cant really catch it before it comes back to you... i only know it from chopping wood, sometimes your axe slips away from the wood and is headed right towards your legs, thats not really an issue tho since it has a solid handle so i can just stop it with my hands before it can do any harm to me, idk how easy that would be if the 2nd half of the axe was a chain :P
maybe this is a way of telling when little boys become men... either when they realize that wrestling isnt real or when they realize that a morning star flail isnt exactly the best thing to have on foot :P
Writing with a few years late but if it may help this kind of weapons existed from the 10th century to the 16th century and in medieval French it was called Flael ( Fléau in actual French) which I beleive in English could be Flail. It was usually used by knight / horsemen for the one hand sort, and two hands for the long Flael which could reached 2 meters for infantery man whom as for purpose to bewilder horseman. The short Flael was "hooked" at the saddle pommel. The sphere with usually tiny spikes ( could have dozens... was called a "Lingot" ( translated: bullion in english ) and was attached by 3 chain links. Never more.
From the 14th century, a new kind of Flael appeared, the Goupillon, also called Plommé, or Scorpion. it was armed with 3 to 6 chains with Lingots. The Chain links were longer 5 to 8 links, a bit more similar than the one in this video.
From the 15th century, some Flael were armed with "battant" ( in english could be translated as "swinger" a 20 cm long piece of metal
And this weapon was specific to bewilder the opponent.
It's not often you come across someone on youtube who is so confident in their topic that they disprove wiki. you have my interest and im pumped to have found your nerdy corner of youtube to explore. very interesting :)
Heavy star flails like these were more supposed to be used like truncheons. They were used to literally beat a man down , possibly damaging armor or shield or cause him to drop his weapons. You don't twirl them around, you just use an over-handed, powerful strike and bring it down hard onto a target or occasionally across a helmet. It might take a few blows, but eventually you're going to wear an opponent down, even one who has a shield, or you're going to get in a good shot across the head, possibly taking off a helmet or perhaps striking a hand, causing him to drop a weapon, or maybe even tangle his weapon in the chain, allowing you to jerk it out of his hand. They were probably required a good deal of strength and some practice to use well but they were very brutal, being able to shatter bone and break wood.
Read the title as “Morning star fails”, I was expecting a real bloodbath here lol
"Oh, shit. Dave's brought his giant flail again."
"Shotgun not standing next to him."
This guy is by far the most genuine person on TH-cam
My two groats
Apologies if I sound moany of negative. I'm trying not to be :(
1) Are you holding it correctly? It isn't a mace. The energy it created by swinging it. Hold it lower. You can come down in arcs upon them. If you hold it like that you'll tire your arm, and you'll be limited to 'clubbing' your opponent as if it were a mace.
2) Personally, I'd use it to dent and daze the head armour - if it sticks in, and it lost... bonus. Much like a Roman pilum, this would be great for rendering shields useless, and generally being a pain in the arse.
Imagine the opponent with this embedded in his armour...while I now draw my sword (many knights had more that one weapon). If I'm lucky I might even bugger up his eye slits or visor.
3) It's a bit like the nunchaku. If they were really that effective then you would see them littered in all the art... yet they existed. Just useless if you didn't know how to use them. Must users just hit their own balls and end up on fail army.
Maybe the flail was really effective... if you knew how to use it. Hence it doesn't appear in art.
I can imagine a few people trying it...and give up.
A few were good at it... but were a rarity.
Just curious, as I love the weapon, but always been unsure of its historicy.
Would love one in our medieval fair next year.
I'll try to find the book, but a Bulgarian military scribe puts the flails in with infantry support. Describes them as thrown weapons against cavalry attempting to flank. They would throw them at the hooves of the horses. The handle was used just to spin it up so the chain would tangle on one leg and the horse would be wounded by the ball and hopefully tripped up by the handle. It would be carried by no more than 100 men since its not a primary weapon. Imagine ancient Greek slingshot but you throw the whole thing then run if you fail.
The Ball and Chain as dangerous to the wielder as it is to the enemy, but in the right hands it becomes unstoppable.
-Conqueror
#ForHonor
👌
Playing for honor as I read this lol
*RAH*
I can imagine if the flail was not used in battle, maybe they had some other use for it.
For example for torture it would be quite effective "You have beautiful knees. It would be a shame if something (shows morning star) happened to them".
I thought the point of these were to be able to hit around the opponents shield so you could smash his head despite him hiding behind his shield
This makes a lot of sense
That is in keeping with what I have read on the subject, yes.
It's used for that and to disarm ur enemy mainly enemies with a arming sword *one handed sword* or u can use it to wrap around the leg and make them fall
I assumed it was ment to dent the enemies plate armor to make it harder for them to move and fight back. A well placed dent could slow down or stop a plated enemy.
my rule of thumb is this
heavy weight connected at the end of a short or long stick via chain or thick rope = Flail (use centrifugal force to generate blow)
Spike pointed ball at the end stick = Morning Star (use pointed ends to help transference of force like said in the video)
heavy weight (ornate or otherwise) = Mace (smooth surface or ornate elements to help crush in painful ways against one's bare body)
These were used for horseback knights/riders, charging in with a drawn sword can hurt you or your horse, if it bounces f.i., with these you would have much less chance of that.The kickback is also less likely; if you hack somehting with a one-piece weapon while charging in, you might damage your wrist/hand if you did not let go in time, especially if it got (partly) stuck.
The reason not all have points is armor progression(?) agaisnt solid armor the point can penetrate, but chainmail prevented that so they switch to blunt balls/studs
i remember reading/watching something a while back that explained the use of the flail for getting around shields
That last note at the end made me laugh out loud.
Lindy, when you said you went to the Met, did you mean the one in Manhattan (specifically in Central Park) or The Cloisters annex in the Bronx? I say this because the The Cloisters is the Met's specific wing that is dedicated to Medieval arts and artifacts. The main branch of the Met only has some pieces.
Additionally, I know of a museum that you would have loved. It was called the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, Mass. It was once the single largest, privately owned, collection of Medieval arms and armor. It recently closed and the collection was moved to the Worcester Art Museum.
I'm saddened because it was one of my favorite museums and it had a good library with friendly staff.
IIRC, the Cloisters had tapestries and statuary, but the arms and armor exhibit is in the main museum. Also, the Cloisters is still in Manhattan, just across the river from the Bronx, but not the Bronx.
I went to both, but the weapons are at the main one in Central Park.
HIggins is closed as of Dec 2013, it went bankrupt and its collection is now held by the Worcester Art Museum.
www.higgins.org/
There was some dodgy accounting and potentially some malfeasance or embezzlement talked about in the press regarding its bankruptcy. Others site difficulties with the build and its maintenance leading to the decision to close, as it went thru millions of dollars of renovations and is on the National Historical Register. .
dajolaw ah, sorry. Last time I went to the Cloisters was almost 15 years ago so my memory was a bit fuzzy as to where it was exactly. (I knew the Bronx stood out for some reason).
Joseph Teller Yeah the details as to why it closed are still not clear, even a year out from it closing.
The ball and chain is for wrapping a shield. If you swing over the shield of your target, the ball can hit him on the head or even in the back of the head whereas a rigid weapon cannot do this. It is also more difficult to parry a ball and chain with a one handed weapon. Additionally it provides a slightly longer reach for a horseman without needing two hands. Most effective against light or unarmored opponents, picture a horseman who flanks a group of archers riding into their midst and swing that about to crack skills quickly. The shape of the weapon lends itself to being a faster swing from one side since you don't have to cross over your body or break your rhythm to swing again. Long blades cannot be swung as effectively with speed from horseback. The usefulness against numberous unarmored opponents is more evident in the multi-headed variety. While its usefulness as a weapon is more limited than a sword it is cheaper to make and maintain. Furthermore, after the 'war' is over, swords get put into fine scabbards and hung on the wall, while iron balls can easily be reworked into plow shares without regret. This is probably why you find so few of them remaining after the period.
A little known fact about that wagon he was talking about in the picture. Yes, war wagons did exist, they were sometimes armoured with steel plating (to protect against small cannons) and the would usually have crossbowmen/gunners within it shooting through slits in the sides. These war wagons could be used to deadly effect against pike formations. And war wagons were primarily used in the 16th and 17th centuries when gunpowder weapons were just making a scratch on European warfare.
"Possibly they were for crushing very small Miley Cyrusi" has got to be the greatest ending to a video in all of youtube!
Smug Mode, activated!
“Oscillating in their fury”
It is known. It's for a shielded opponent. Rather a shield wall. Hit the shield, the flail portion goes over the top and hits the person. Hard to block. It came from farmers using thrashing flails used to thrash wheat. It was effective against armored opponents so much so that it was adapted for use as a military flail. Some were on top of pole arms.
There were short flails in Asia, but they weren't spiked, and didn't have ball ends. In Asia, the short flail was the nunchuck, and its equivalent in China, the two-segmented flail. They are great at bludgeoning things if the chain is short. If the chain is long, and you have a long handle, the Asian equivalent is the Japanese chigiriki. However, the chigiriki doesn't have a spiked ball.
Do a video search for "araki ryu chigiriki", and you'll see how effective a long handled, long-chained flail is when used against a sword. It is quite a formidable weapon. Araki ryu is one of two remaining ancient Japanese martial arts that still teach this weapon.
How is your longsword training coming along, Lindy?
Post some sparring/training footage...preferably with a Rocky theme song...also add in some stair running for good measure.
Oh yes that'd be hillarious!
I always thought those were based on the farm implement a Thresher. which is a long stick with a piece of rope with a shorter section of wood on the end. and you went thru the field and swatted the plants and whatnot. and since most weapons are adapted tools, the flail was born.
i think mine is broken. It said on the package ''evening star''. I might have been scammed...
If you got an evening star instead of a morning star, I'd say you're the one who pulled the scam. Well played Mr CIA
Writing with a few years late but if it may help this kind of weapons really existed from the 10th century to the 16th century and in medieval French it was called Flael ( Fléau in actual French) which I beleive in English could be Flail. It was usually used by knight / horsemen for the one hand sort, and two hands for the long Flael which could reached 2 meters for infantery man whom as for purpose to bewilder horseman. The short Flael was "hooked" at the sadle pommel. The sphere with usually tiny spikes ( could have dozens... was called a "Lingot" ( translated: bullion in english ) and was attached by 3 chain links. Never more. As since in the medieval painting and the museum pic you show.
From the 14th century, a new kind of Flael appeared, the Goupillon, also called Plommé, or Scorpion. it was armed with 3 to 6 chains with Lingots. The Chain links were longer 5 to 8 links, like the one in the video.
From the 15th century, some Flael were armed with "battant" ( in english could be translated as "swinger" a 20 cm long piece of metal
You have to admire the combination of common sense, logical scrutiny and sheer detailed knowledge that Lindy is bringing to these explanations.
Don't care if it's not actually effective. I *_want_* it to be true.
... just kidding. Give me a sword or spear. What can I say? I'm boring.
Wikipedia got something wrong? Shocked! I am shocked! [cough]
+sofullofpiss Look it up on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia isn’t a thing. It’s a barely morphous non-collective.
@@MrPackerProductions I think WebMD might do the trick for him
the museum had it wrong, wikipedia only reported what the museum said
A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.
Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003-two years following Wikipedia's establishment-found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly-so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia ;-)
Could be hard to fend off a blow from a flail, as it swings around the shield or whatever's blocking it. On the other hand, it must be fantastically easy for a flail-wielder to bury the morning star in his own skull. I think I would rather have a selection of pointed sticks. And some naphtha bombs.
Not that much. With such a short chain, you more-or-less keep distance and present striking face to the ball of this weapon. It can swing over only if it strikes the edge of your shield with chain or handle. And without long chain, reach of that "swing over" is probably not that high.
My guess is, that the chain can increase the impact velocity and spikes rather than punching through armor or sticking into it rather make local bent and eventually make some damage under the plate. With such a hit to the head, you probably can be disabled even without penetration of the helmet. But it's just my guess.
Trouble is, that you probably absolutely need shield to fight with this weapon - it seems to be absolute crap when you have to parry. That swinging weight would make it difficult to move it into necessary blocking position swiftly and accurately.
It be like that scene in indiana jones standing there flailing that stuff like a darn hollywood ninja and the opponent just shoots you whith a crossbow.
Those weapons were probably useful for TRYING to :
- Inflict non-lethal injuries on arms or legs (ethic ?).
- Inflict pain throught light armors (and disable or reduce ennemy's capability of fighting).
- Remove something from ennemy's set : helmet, or knock something he had in hands, breaking guard (maybe shields, on a certain angle by grapping it from the back and forcing the arm to rotate), or attached somewhere (at belt ?).
- Break some equipment (wooden parts of something : rods, panes, etc), or rampage.
- Avoid to use a sword in some situation, wich is long and less pratical in confined areas.
- Avoid hatchet, not useful for the aforementioned needs.
And because of theses optional utilities, they weren't as much widespread as fighting weapons, dedicated to slice or penetrate. But they were probably disposable as secondary weapons and at least present in many team equipment. I personaly would appreciate to have such a blunt accessory even for a single strike.
You should do a test on the battlefield : let see if a guy can open a fight with a morning star by hitting the arm of the ennemy, and switch to its primary weapon to finish the job. :) Also, try team work, with some guys having morning stars and other mates having swords.
Hmm it doesn't seem like a good weapon to use in confined spaces because you wouldn't be able to swing it with a lot of power.
Hi Lindybeige, If you are looking for quite good sources regarding spiked flails and medieval battlewagons, check the armament of "Hussita revolution" in Bohemia around 1415. They are quite famous for defeating 3 crusades (including german knights), when using odd battlewagon tactics and peasant flails on long shafts (ment for taking out grain out of wheat) with newly added spikes on the striking piece. And if you can imagine the situation, it is quite horryfying from the point of view of the knights. Because cavalry is not of much use against battlewagon formations (ie formed and possibly interlocked battlewagons) and the pesants are in the same level height, as the knight heads, only the peasants do have equivalent of polearm in their hands, against the knight, who have spear, or sword. And not to forget, the Hussites did use (as one of first in Europe actually) gun powder povered weapons, including first artilery pieces, crossbows in few numbers, and even special children wariors armed with slings "praatchata", wich could be translated as "slinglings".
The morning star is without the chain.
The morning star was a club with a [typically] spiked ball at the end.
"Take a biiig swing with this son of- with this thing" nice save
Just having a single spike on a stick would be a Goedendag, rather than a Morning Star
Flails are effective on horseback too, and weren't designed for going against full plate. Its main target is the face, albeit the neck or groin can work. We really don't know how common. Overly large weapons are common in medieval time and imagination. Spears, halbreds, and swords are indeed the main weapons. It is really a calvary weapon, and an experimental weapon like the claymore or later zeiweihanders.
I made my own two-handed flail once, and it could reliably drive a thick spike four inches into the side of a rusty metal 55 gallon barrel. My initial design had a long chain, and was quite fun, until I smashed my fingers. After that accident, I dramatically shortened the chain to keep the spiked ball from swinging back on my hands.
A spiked baseball bat would be more effective, but it wouldn't have the same "fun" factor as a flail.
Surely it would be "Miley Cyri," not "Cyrusi."
Wikipedia is a bit of a train wreck to be honest, most especially for controversial subjects.
That's why it's only useful for numbers and as a source locator as far as i'm concerned.
looks like a pretty shit weapon next to those pole axes at 3:41
+JON LAUDERBAUGH Personally I would rather use a ball-and-chain flail than a pole axe.
They're bardiches, bro. And why would you ever want a flail instead of a bardiche or Poleax?
cause hes suicidal and wants to die as fast as possible
good luck blocking a big axe strike to the head.
theres a reason why they were invented and stuck around, they’re good in many circumstances
In Dutch we call this weapon a " Goedendag", meaning something like.."Have a Nice Day" !
Referring probably to Dutch ,Flemish Soldiers hitting their opponent in the throat (most critical point for this weapon), opponent's head would fall down , like he was saying , Good Day Sir.....!
However , it might also refer to Good Dagger.
Greetings !
Never new but it makes sense. The studs or spikes are not really for penetrating but are there to transfer energy. So the ball doesn't just glance off the armor.
They were for whacking over a shield-wall etc.
/m/, ,\m\
Maybe it's not a combat weapon but a torture device.
Anugerah Rompis but we have reports of these being in battles I think
3:52 is the guy with the crossbow aiming at the knee of the soldier on his left? Bastard !
+VIIflegias xD Just noticed that, maybe he took it a little to seriously because taking an arrow to the knee was slang for getting married and he wanted to help that guy out :3
Wait, arrow to the knee is wedding slang? That makes sense.
Yerp. If you were hit in the knee by an arrow your knee would give out causing you to fall onto said knee and end in the position commonly used for proposing :P
Well, as far as I remember from my school time (our history teacher had a lot of knowledge about medival warefare), a "Morgenstern" or morning star is the spiked ball or a star-shaped figure on top of a stick. The version with the chain was called "Kettenmorgenstern" in german so literally chained-morning star.
They were mainly used by commons and became popular during the German Peasants War, because they could be craftet out of components found on a farm in these times.
You got me thinking, as you invariably do - and the quote "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence" sprang to mind. Just throwing it out-there but maybe this weapon wasn't really used in battle but more for intimidation. Carry one of these bad boys and people will definitely know you either mean business / or a violent nutter.
Can you make a review for the mace form LOTR ? It might be fiction and unpractical but it looks awesome
The weapon at 3:25 does resemble the weapon at 7:37
Flairs alwais were cheap weapons to produce for peasonts (soldiers you don't care if survive) and were much more used by thieves and raiders ("Husiti" for example) and would by used to kill knight with great life losses.
How do you know this?
Because "Husits" were armed mostly with morning stars and farming tools during theirs wars and it is well documented. (They were one of few armies that had to use them on a massive scale, because they didn't have much to support their war in terms of weapons and money)
Aidan Allen we learn about "Husits" in 4-5 grade of elementary school here in Czech republic.
chain like rope was pricy
Flails are a farming tool (minus the spiked bit at the end), so many farmers probably owned one already, so then it was only a matter of changing the heads.
I remember seeing this channel back around the time this would have been new and thinking to myself 'hmm that seems like a channel I'll appreciate when I'm older"
Well here we are.
I have been interested in history, of any source, for as long as I can remember. I enjoy your channel immensely. Your presentation style is first class , both humorous and informative. I look forward to all your videos.... best of luck, from Ireland.