4 ms·

Rather than reading about it, I've experienced this firsthand in martial arts, and you're dead right - the purpose is to "lariat" around any obstructions in fro

by Jetrel 10y ago

Rather than reading about it, I've experienced this firsthand in martial arts, and you're dead right - the purpose is to "lariat" around any obstructions in front of the victim. They can hold up a shield, or a sword, and it won't help them when used in the normal way - it'll either loop around the side and smash their face, or more likely, wrench the sword/shield out of their hands - either one gets the job done - and it can be done to multiple people at once. The biggest point to the flail was to be a 'focused impact' weapon, and to have much more heft than a person could manage with a mace. The primary weapon used against people in plate armor was impact weapons like this - especially with sharp studs on them, because - believe it or not, armor actually worked. Swords couldn't cut through armor, and it was really hard to get around armor - nobody went after a knight by hoping to slide a blade through joints in the armor (as has been depicted in various films), because it's nearly impossible to do - nobody's going to stand still and just let you do it, and even if they did, it's surprisingly hard to control a sword like that (to illustrate this, try flipping a light switch with the far end of a broom handle - that's a still, unmoving target, and you might find it takes a rather surprising amount of manual control). If you wanted to take out a dismounted knight, you went after one by punching a hole in his armor (or by hitting the armor with so much heft that it dents; either one works). Swords aren't an option, and until the late period crossbows/arbalests, very few arrows had the stopping power to punch through it (english longbows being a noted exception). The best bet was a spike - basically a large chisel on a stick. It needs to have a lot of momentum to have a hope of punching through - unfortunately this usually means it has to be extremely heavy. This usually results in a really unwieldy thing with the heft of a sledgehammer, that's so slow you can't fight well with it and are liable to be unable to dodge/block someone striking you with something much faster. A moving weight on a chain solves the momentum problem by moving in a circle - it gives much more momentum than you could get in a single swing, since you can accelerate over a few rotations and continue to swing the weapon. It also is an inherently scary-looking thing, and has a powerful "crowd control" effect in a melee - the big point of a commander fielding something like this is to break up enemy cohesion/formations. A guy swinging a flail around repels people like oil and water. A few of these who bum rush a shield line (along with a general charge of their fellow fighters) are - more often than not, going to make a hole in the shield line not from actually hitting anybody, but from regular humans just getting the hell out of the way. Break up the enemy line, and they lose all of the strengths of being in formation. This is what "shock troops" are. The flail is very similar to a number of asian designs (some of which are fairly mundane western-looking things, and others which are pretty exotic like the meteor-hammer/monkey's paw). It's absolutely daft to dismiss a design like this, where not only do all of the parts of its shape serve a very direct, functional purpose, but also which has managed to "independently evolve" on multiple continents because it's just the only reasonable solution to dealing with armored shield-bearers. It's crazy.

Jetrel 10y ago
The one thing that is very legitimate (c.f. that lindybeige video mentioned earlier) is that these were not common armament; these were specialist weapons for specialist troops. These were for a few very heavy "shock troops", only - the large masses of regular soldiers used swords, which were much better for fighting people in general. It was only for dealing with the heavily armored "core" of an enemy force that a few guys would use these.
douche 10y ago
Except there is no real evidence of it existing... LARPers, D&D and Victorians aside. It's a profoundly stupid kind of weapon to use in any kind of medieval mass battle, where quarters would be close and room to swing such a thing would be at a premium. There's a reason the Roman gladius and the seax were short little blades, designed for stabbing people in the groin underneath their shields. With bizarre Asian weaponry, I can't help but be skeptical about whether it is real, or wildly over-inflated flights of whimsy designed to impress some foolish Englishman.
- Jetrel 10y ago
  I think you missed the whole point. You have all the room in the world to swing such a thing - it MAKES the room. Your allies aren't bunched up behind you, because they know what you're carrying. Making the room is the whole point - you're trying to break up the enemy formation. These were rare "shock troop" weapons used by a scant few guys in the center of your line to scare (or pummel) enemy troops out of formation. These scant few guys were shock troops - blackguards, dopplesoldners - specially selected guys of unusually large stature, outfitted with unusually good armor, paid unusually well, and taking a high risk. Showmanship was a big part of it - the guys we're talking about were the Sandor Cleganes of their time; gigantic guys specifically selected to look scary, but also to legitimately be dangerous. Just like football players can fall back a few steps, so too would their allies - to give them enough room to swing something like this around and basically punch a hole in the enemy line - knock a few guys down, make a few trip over each other whilst trying to get out of the way - whatever. Once this was done, the flail would get dropped like a baseball bat (the shock trooper would switch to some sidearm like the gladius (or katzbalger, really) you mentioned, because now the fighting switches to close-quarters), and the shock trooper's allies (standing just a few paces behind him, just at a safe distance) would charge forward to make a wedge and try to divide the opposing line. Because they were at the ready and on their feet (as opposed to the enemies who just got knocked down/maimed), they had an advantage of maybe 30-60 seconds over them. Enough to get in there and cut the line. This was one of many, many techniques used to break up close-quarters fighting and neutralize the advantages of the enemy formation. Formations were everything - if two forces were fighting on equal terms, whichever one could break the other's formation could win the battle - and not just against even odds, but also against overwhelming odds. One of the most famous examples of this was Ceasar's Battle of Alesia - by punching through the gallic lines, he divided their forces, and was able to isolate and panic one major group of them with a cavalry charge - because that group was cut off from the rest of them, and they seemed (locally) to be completely outnumbered, they panicked and ran, leaving all of their compatriots behind, letting the romans beat them piece by piece. Likewise, in another major historical incident - this was also basically how Arminius defeated the three roman legions in his famous rout - he caught them in the woods, on ground where they couldn't assume the testudo formation. He planned it. The point is that outfitting a few soldiers with exotic "crowd control" equipment was a small price to pay to potentially win a battle, especially when the soldiers in question were fully functional as regular fighters by just switching to the sword at their belt. Anyways, I've said my peace, so I won't be reading any further replies. Folks can get entire degrees studying this stuff, and this is pretty well established that these were a thing.

by Jetrel 10y ago

Jetrel 10y ago

The one thing that is very legitimate (c.f. that lindybeige video mentioned earlier) is that these were not common armament; these were specialist weapons for specialist troops. These were for a few very heavy "shock troops", only - the large masses of regular soldiers used swords, which were much better for fighting people in general. It was only for dealing with the heavily armored "core" of an enemy force that a few guys would use these.

douche 10y ago

Except there is no real evidence of it existing... LARPers, D&D and Victorians aside. It's a profoundly stupid kind of weapon to use in any kind of medieval mass battle, where quarters would be close and room to swing such a thing would be at a premium. There's a reason the Roman gladius and the seax were short little blades, designed for stabbing people in the groin underneath their shields. With bizarre Asian weaponry, I can't help but be skeptical about whether it is real, or wildly over-inflated flights of whimsy designed to impress some foolish Englishman.

Jetrel 10y ago
I think you missed the whole point. You have all the room in the world to swing such a thing - it MAKES the room. Your allies aren't bunched up behind you, because they know what you're carrying. Making the room is the whole point - you're trying to break up the enemy formation. These were rare "shock troop" weapons used by a scant few guys in the center of your line to scare (or pummel) enemy troops out of formation. These scant few guys were shock troops - blackguards, dopplesoldners - specially selected guys of unusually large stature, outfitted with unusually good armor, paid unusually well, and taking a high risk. Showmanship was a big part of it - the guys we're talking about were the Sandor Cleganes of their time; gigantic guys specifically selected to look scary, but also to legitimately be dangerous. Just like football players can fall back a few steps, so too would their allies - to give them enough room to swing something like this around and basically punch a hole in the enemy line - knock a few guys down, make a few trip over each other whilst trying to get out of the way - whatever. Once this was done, the flail would get dropped like a baseball bat (the shock trooper would switch to some sidearm like the gladius (or katzbalger, really) you mentioned, because now the fighting switches to close-quarters), and the shock trooper's allies (standing just a few paces behind him, just at a safe distance) would charge forward to make a wedge and try to divide the opposing line. Because they were at the ready and on their feet (as opposed to the enemies who just got knocked down/maimed), they had an advantage of maybe 30-60 seconds over them. Enough to get in there and cut the line. This was one of many, many techniques used to break up close-quarters fighting and neutralize the advantages of the enemy formation. Formations were everything - if two forces were fighting on equal terms, whichever one could break the other's formation could win the battle - and not just against even odds, but also against overwhelming odds. One of the most famous examples of this was Ceasar's Battle of Alesia - by punching through the gallic lines, he divided their forces, and was able to isolate and panic one major group of them with a cavalry charge - because that group was cut off from the rest of them, and they seemed (locally) to be completely outnumbered, they panicked and ran, leaving all of their compatriots behind, letting the romans beat them piece by piece. Likewise, in another major historical incident - this was also basically how Arminius defeated the three roman legions in his famous rout - he caught them in the woods, on ground where they couldn't assume the testudo formation. He planned it. The point is that outfitting a few soldiers with exotic "crowd control" equipment was a small price to pay to potentially win a battle, especially when the soldiers in question were fully functional as regular fighters by just switching to the sword at their belt. Anyways, I've said my peace, so I won't be reading any further replies. Folks can get entire degrees studying this stuff, and this is pretty well established that these were a thing.