I’m seeing a lot of variance in the ratios. Some flails have longer handles, some have short. Some have chains as long or longer than the handle, some have almost non-existent chains. What are the advantages and disadvantages of various handle and chain lengths, and is there an “optimal” ratio?
[https://acoup.blog/2019/06/07/collections-the-siege-of-gondor-part-v-just-flailing-about-flails/](The optimum is no chain at all).
A flail is a really bad weapon. The chain makes it difficult to control, puts you at great risk of hitting yourself, while not giving you any reach advantage. Real flails were medieval agricultural tools that were sometimes used as improvised weapons, but if you had access to an axe or spear, you would use that. If you have a big spiky ball of iron, it’s much more effective to put it at the end of a rigid wooden staff and whack people with it that way; in other words, a mace is strictly better.
That said, real chain-based weapons do have their uses. The lkusarigama is made by attaching a sickle to a wooden handle with a long chain. It is used to entangle and disarm your opponent, at which point you can close in and slash them with the sickle end. Since it involves swinging a sickle on the end of a long chain, it would never be used in pitched battle lest you hit your comrades, and in any case spears are more useful when armies clash. However, kusarigamas were quite handy in one-on-one combat; since they were easy to conceal and could be disguised as agricultural tools, they were primarily used by ninjas and city guards
So to give an answer to your question, if you’re going to use a chain-based weapon, the optimum length is long enough to completely wrap around somebody. And in that situation, you want a fairly light, small business end, not a big metal ball.
lol, I just got done correcting the link in my phone’s browser, copying it, came back here and scrolled down to reply and see your post. Fml
This essentially answers my question of how in the world were flails like in the OP’s question a thing? Answer: they probably never were
Even child me was confused at how you could use such a weapon without injuring yourself.
Real flails were medieval agricultural tools
How were they used agriculturally?
But I’m told there is great power in swinging a chain.
So to give an answer to your question, if you’re going to use a chain-based weapon, the optimum length is long enough to completely wrap around somebody. And in that situation, you want a fairly light, small business end, not a big metal ball.
So maybe something like a rope dart, meteor hammer, or bolas? I’ve seen some YouTube videos on meteor hammers, and it looks like one way to use them is by throwing the weighted end as a projectile and using the chain (or very often a rope) to retrieve/retract it.
I agree though, flails as shown above seem like an unwieldy garbage weapon. If I had to use one, I’d want a very short chain on it, so probably 2nd from the left on the bottom row.
Unfortunately in some medieval combat sports, the “speed flail,” a foam ball tethered to a handle, is an easy non-historic way to bypass a shield – swing at the top of the shield, and the ball wraps around to hit the opponent’s shield or sword arm.
So could a real flail work against a shield that way too?
A real flail is a lot heavier, which is harder to use, which is the main problem that me and my friends had with the foam version being allowed in the sport.
You would have to ask a qualified historian to know if these weapons were ever used in this way. I would be curious to know too.
My guess is that spear/polearm beats shield at a much lower cost and with less risk, but I don’t really know I’m not an expert.
This is the kind of question I subscribed for
Not an expert, but logically the shorter chain makes it easier to handle and relatively more precise.
A longer chain however, allows for a greater swing, resulting in a much heavier impact.
That however can also be achieved using a heavier ball on the flail. But that makes it heavier to lift and carry.
Using multiple balls however seem counterproductive, as it will make the flail harder to use compared to the impact you can achieve.
I suppose the idea is to make it harder to defend against, but if the defender has a shield, I think multiple balls are utterly inefficient.So as far as I can tell there is no single optimal balance. It depends on the persons strength and agility, and I suppose it also depends on what type of enemy it should be used against. For a heavily armored opponent, a longer chain will be better to smash hard against the heavy armor, and the armor will make the opponent relatively slower to avoid attacks.
In short I think the bottom left or the one above seems best all round, if you want something more precise, other weapons will probably be preferable.
The best would probably be the bottom right, but with one of the balls and chains from the top left.An advantage with the chain is to avoid a hard hit straining your hand and wrist. And that part can also be achieved with a short chain. But the chain also has the function that it can pass a defense that would block a cane. If you block the chain, the chain will bend and allow the ball to continue a short distance further. With a shorter chain the flail is easier to defend against.
I’m not thoroughly convinced by your mere claim of not being an expert.
I’d definitely say bottom left if you’re going up against someone like a Roman hoplite, or similarly shielded but not so armored opponent. It doesn’t take too much force to fuck up an unarmored arm, which a flail vs shield would be perfect for.
If they’re shielded and armored, though, I don’t think a flail is going to be so great.
Though as with all fighting, if one person is far more skilled than the other, they’re winning most of the time, regardless of (competent) armaments.
You want the chain to be just long enough for the spike ball to swing back and smash your hand
Depends on the task, I’d say. Are you trying to execute a combatant in the arena? Or are you trying to self flagellate?
Flails are weapons for demonstration, not real fighting. Use a mace or poleaxe instead.
This.
The mace is your back up to the back up to the primary.
Primary weapon is going to be a pole axe or a pole arm or some other kind of pole weapon. The sword is your back up to this for when fighting closes quarters. And, in the case that a sword breaks or otherwise becomes unusable, then you reach back and grab that big stick of iron.
The axe is mightier than the sword. Easier to handle too.
But with much smaller cutting surface. And I’m counting a dane axe as a pole weapon.
Yeah, less danger of cutting yourself short of the handle. Also, easier to block a sword with it.
But in a martial context, the simply didn’t experience wide spread adoption.
Ranged weapons > pole weapons > sword and shield > whatever else you’ve got
The Vikings were retty successful with it. Swords on the other hand, were mainly used by high ranking individuals, since they require a lot of training. Pike was king.
Vikings used swords, along with axes.
I believe a mace will perform better than a sword against an armored opponent, or at least against some types of armor, so it might just be “back up to the primary” in some cases.
/not a medieval weapon expert, so take as you will
No that’s generally not the case. A sword is still going to be more effective against armor than a mace. Even a fully armored soldier has plenty of gaps to go for.
Maces were never as widely adopted as swords, even during to height of armor adoption.
yeah, turns out it’s really hard to defend against someone swinging a big heavy piece of metal at the side of your head. Best case it really really really fucking hurts and makes it basically impossible to even keep standing, worst case you die instantly in a shower of gore.
The problem is just that you actually have to hit them with the mace, while avoiding the opponent (or their friends) hitting you first.
To get all that power that makes the mace so effective, you have to take a great big swing with it, which is extremely obvious and means you’re wholly committing yourself to the action.
Meanwhile with a sword or spear you can keep it in front of you to defend yourself with, and just make quick jabs at the opponent.
Having played with my friend’s nunchucks in high school, I suggest long enough for the pointy bits NOT to reach your own forehead.
Imo bottom right gives ypu the most control to bashing damage ratio
I second that bottom right as the best pictured by OP, but the chain is still too long. Below is the correct length of chain. Maximum control and damage. Best against armored opponents that one needs to bludgeon.
Really depends. A good shield used correctly can see a mace weilder dead before they’re really bludgeoning much beyond maybe getting some tingles going in the shield arm.
In my (non expert) opinion, the chain should be shorter than the distance of the handle to the end of the stick. Otherwise you risk pulping your knuckles with a stray flail head.
In my even less expert opinion the chain should be longer.
I feel these are all dated and as an advanced society we have far better option. An arm length, 2cm braided steel cable will provided equap parts control and flexibility while also allowing the entire length to provide impact force.
For a handle, a hand and a half of polycarbonate tube slide over the base of the cable and epoxied in place will provide a sturdy base, you can then wrap it in sports tape or paracord and even add a wrist strap as you epoxy it.
Lastly for the head, I believe there is onlly one obvious option. This will provide both a weighty enough impact to be lethal to the man and a weighty enough insult to be lethal to the pride.
Please make this/post pix
Asking for a future self
Nah just have the chain length short enough that it can’t swing back and whack your hand. That’s pretty much it.
handle should be something along the line of you own height, and the chain should be 0cm so it’s easy to poke the bad man with your spearhead.
Far as I know, flails as depicted weren’t really used in war. They may have showed up in tournament fighting, but not war. The flails that did get used in real battlefields were pole weapons. Long shaft like five feet or so, very short chain that’s essentially just a hinge, then a sort of long head something like 18" that may have had spikes or bumps.
Talhoffer wrote a manual for them, calling it a peasant flail. It has a lot of wonky binds that I would conjecture probably didn’t get a huge amount of use outside duels. In war, it was probably mostly overhead bonk attacks. Fighting against these things in a duel is a real bitch though. A skilled user can shower you in weird bullshit that’s hard to predict or handle and can’t really be done with anything else. There’s a ready stance where you hold it head-down and lean on it.
Here’s a video by historic arms manufacturer Todd Todeschini and historic martial arts teacher Matt Easton on chain flails:
