Military Flails Didn't Exist? - Lets Take a Closer Look!

"This weapon couldn't possibly have been real, it's impractical and it could cause self-harm!" When has that ever stopped anyone?

In regards to the multichained ones, they might also be a stylization done by the artists struggling with how to depict how animated the weapon was.

I always thought flails would be pretty useless in a real fight until I fought someone in armor with one. Defending against it is completely different than any other weapon, and I had no idea how to stop it. I blocked as if I would a sword, and the flail chain wrapped over my weapon and the head of the flail smashed me in the head. I imagine that using an uncommonly defended against weapon had advantages on the battlefield as that split second hesitation or confusion on how to block gave a significant chance of victory, especially on horseback where the negatives of the weapon are minimized.

I am from Russia and I want to say that flails were really used here, even children know this. Fairy tales, folk legends, epics, they are used everywhere here. This is a simple primitive weapon that can be made from improvised means, quite lethal, easy to carry, does not require sharpening or any other special maintenance. Even an apprentice of a blacksmith will always make a striker, you will find a stick on an oak tree, a rope or a chain is also not a problem to find. This weapon corresponds to the locals, I can say with confidence that medieval Russians would definitely use this, because it is cheap, simple, convenient.

Riding chickens wielding flails... Ah, the Grand Army of Kentucky. An honorable bunch.

Great video, now you just know I'm going to have to make a single handed flail and use it from horseback, and try the double handed one too just to see how it works!

The german name for one-handed flail is "Reitflegel", wich translates to "Riding flail" because it is a "flail you use while riding". I actually inherited one of those from my grandpa. As a german it's hard to imagine that someone could think these things never existed, these things were not that uncommon here in europe.

It helps that the two handed “peasant” flail was an agricultural tool, which meant it was probably cheap, since it’s something a peasant levied up for a war might just happen to have anyway.

2 notes. First, feels like “wasnt real” really meant “all the good sources are in the east.” Secondly, the flail is just a fully upgraded rock in a sock.

So, just fyi, Skall, I'm fluent in Russian. If you would be interested, I could try my hand at translating that video for a more in-depth look.

Flails invoke parallels to the use of shotguns on the modern battlefield. It is not a perfect parallel or analogy, but generally speaking, modern military forces do not use shotguns except under very special circumstances. However, it would be incorrect for someone to say [500 years from now] that shotguns were impractical and did not exist in modern military forces (and yes, I realize they would have plenty of evidence for their existence outside of the military, but pretend for a moment that we do not have hunting and sporting use of shotguns and we only considering the military usage). A historian 500 years from now could articulate all the practical reasons why a U.S. Marine would never have used a shotgun in Fallujah in 2004, but the reality is that special circumstances are- by definition- _special_, and that might translate to special or unorthodox equipment.

I hadn't thought of the hand-shock. That seems like a compelling reason for these things to exist.

The hand shock argument is a pretty good one. How useful is a weapon if it wears you out and causes you pain on every hit that connects. Maybe if you don't expect the fight to last long, it wouldn't be a problem... But if you're expecting an extended battle, you might want to opt to use a flail instead.

LOVED the video mate. I've been wanting to do a video myself on pole flails and your thoughts echo my own, it's a much more practical weapon, I mean it's a big long STICK with an additional attachment that furthers its utility. I've also said that I feel the flail clearly existed in the medieval period and totally agree that I don't think they were nearly as prominent as they're popularly depicted. The hand shock point is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the flail and I'm looking forward to doing some tests myself. For myself, I still don't like flails overall, but yes they do have some advantages, as I've mentioned in my own videos ^_^ Also obligatory nunchucks suck, stick master race. Get stick!

The flail as a cavalry weapon just seems undeniable now. The fact that it could basically negate the hand-shock would make it attractive enough for many knights to use it. Beyond that, if a full plate knight is on foot, they could move into an enemy's attacks using the offense of the flail while their armor offers the defense. Two full plate knights fighting on foot would often spend their time trying to trip each other (to then jump on your prone enemy and drive in your stiletto). A fail could be pretty good for tripping in that regard as well.

The image at 19:37 sells it for me, the fact the artist depicted things like a polehammer, halberd, flanged mace and even a longer-haft version of the flail along with the single-handed flail is evidence enough of the fact this was a real medieval weapon. All weapons shown there were real weapons.

The biggest reason why they were used was because of hand shock, specifically on horseback. If you swing a mace or warhammer at gallop and hit something that weapon is gonna vibrate through your arm to the shoulder and hurt like hell. The flail joint stops that. You lose some effectiveness, but saying it was "impractical" really shows the person saying it didn't consider all the possibilities.

the "flail tank" still exists today to get rid of mines. I saw one on a job fair in the Bundeswehr booth when i was still in school about 15 years ago.

This just illustrates that when knowledge and experience are used to reason a subject rather than opinion, you'll generally find that something that has been used for hundreds of years usually has some validity. Often for reasons that people that have not set foot on a battlefield cannot even fathom. I salute your knowledge and expertise.

There are two more things that Russian guy mentioned that I found interesting: 1. Conservation of angular momentum is a thing. You can speed up the weight massively before the hit by switching from shoulder rotation to wrist/chain joint rotation. 2. As opposed to the more conventional weapons, you can conserve and redirect attack's momentum by spinning up the weight, allowing for a much faster follow-up return strike.