I just noticed on the Talk Page of Wikipedia's entry on the Flail, there seems to be someone who is insisting that the Knightly Flail was nothing more than a fancy notion invented during Victorian times and that there is no historical evidence to support its actual existence during the Medieval era.

Now I'm certainly in agreement that today's modern society has a completely incorrect understanding of this weapon. I strongly believe that it was a unique anti-infantry war tool that was meant to be used on horseback only. This is whay it is not a very common item. But to not have existed at all?

I don't care about 'fixing' the Wikipedia entry so much as getting to the bottom of this person's claim. I could have sworn that there are surviving examples of the Knightly Flail from the medieval era still around. Aren't some of the Flail reproduction models being sold today based on a real weapon that exists somewhere?

Well, it's seen in art works here and there, which would pretty much neuter his assumption.

M.

IIRC, there are contemporary depictions of Maximilian I using a flail in single tournament combat. I don't have Anglo's book in front of me or I'd check that. Anybody?

Thanks for all the great replies! I probably should have referred to the particular weapon in question as a "Single Handed Flail" instead of a "Knightly Flail" to avoid confusion.

Interesting. So far none of the various links posted in this thread have provided any visual proof of a surviving Single Handed Flail from the Medieval Era. I'm starting to get worried here. Can't anyone provide some concrete evidence that this weapon truly existed? :wtf:

If you stick by strict definitions of "medieval," there may not be any/many. Looking through museum catalogues and books on arms and armour, pretty much all examples of flails are 15th century and later, making them technically a Renaissance weapon.

Compounding the issue of finding single-handed examples is that a number of hafts are broken, so we can't tell the original length. In other cases, the photographers for the book/catalogue thought the entirety of the haft was boring, so the full length is not shown.

The notion that the flail is Victorian is just false. It may not be "Medieval", but it did exist as a military weapon.

---

 Attachment: 39.5 KB

Flail: undated, length unknown.

 Attachment: 41.12 KB

Flail, total length unknown. 15th/16th century.

 Attachment: 70.82 KB

Period art showing flail. 15th century. Full length unknown.

 Attachment: 142.33 KB

15th century period art showing knight with a flail and morgenstern on his shoulder. Maybe slightly long for "single-handed", but shorter than many big 2-handed ones.

 Attachment: 31.52 KB

Definitely single-handed, but 16th century.

 Attachment: 90.01 KB

Definitely single-handed, but 18th/19th century and 16th/17th century.

Here are some more.

---

 Attachment: 63.5 KB

Here are a few more interesting images. The first is 12th or 13th c. The second is a painting by Piero della Francesca, dated around 1466 or thereabouts, "Battle Between Heraclius and Chosroes" (this of course is depicting a mythological event, but in the lower left quadrant of the painting, there is an unarmored man with a buckler wielding what appears to clearly be a three-headed flail with very small chains connecting the flail heads; I attached a closeup as well). Being unarmored, he would probably fail to qualify as "knightly", but it is a very nice image of a flail used single-handed.

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/files/flail_209.jpg

http://oilpainting-frame.com/china/oil-painti...ncesca.htm

http://www.allpaintings.org/v/Renaissance/Pie...5.JPG.html

Tests with weapons such as the nuchako and three section staff show that these weapons transfer LESS energy than a rigid weapon of the same length.
While they generate more kinetic enegy, their non-rigid nature means that they have a very innefficient energy transfer, as the striking part bounces back on impact.

As such, the only advantage of a flail is striking around the enemies defence. However, against an armoured opponent, a single blow would not be likely to incapacitate, and the slow recovery time of the flail would make it less suited for pummeling someone into submition that a solid shafted mace.
Against a lightly armoured opponent, more or less any weapon swung with some force would have effect, of course.

At one point, I found myself wondering if flails weren't actually some kind of throwing weapon. It's a pity we haven't found much about them -- I've always wondered how well they're used.

M.

Interesting. There is a mace flying through the air on the Bayoux tapestry, but I haven't heard anything like that about flails. And I sure haven't seen one flying in my life. ;)

The byzantines used throwing hammers. Throwing axes and knifes are notoriusly dificult to make hit head first. With a hammer, what part hits doesnt matter that much.

@J.W. Salyards;
I'm not saying a flai, or nuchako for that matter, can not be dangerous. I'm just pointing out that the same head on a rigid shaft would transfer even more energy.

We just need somebody who has an extra ballistics gel dummy. :-)