You can doubt all you want, makes no nevermind to me whatsoever. I know they were used, and I know they were relatively effective for their cost and the limited training their wielders had. The reason there aren’t a ton of them still in existence in museums and such is because those peasants who wielded them took them back home afterwords and continued using them in the fields as tools.
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
A big reason that Europe's warrior class rejected the flail had to do more with its association with peasants than its lack of effectiveness as a weapon. Against an armored opponent it was actually better than a sword, but wielding a sword was reserved for professionals. It marked you as elite, better than a mere peasant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You can doubt all you want, makes no nevermind to me whatsoever. I know they were used, and I know they were relatively effective for their cost and the limited training their wielders had. The reason there aren’t a ton of them still in existence in museums and such is because those peasants who wielded them took them back home afterwords and continued using them in the fields as tools.
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
There are written techniques for using the Kusarigama, which, while differing somewhat in design from European flails, had most of the same working parts and also originated as a farming (some say horse-managing) implement. The fact that the well-known swordsman MIyamoto Musashi considered one fighter well trained in the use of the Kusarigama an esp. dangerous opponent speaks to the martial potential of such a weapon. Notably, Musashi won a duel with the Kusarigama wielder not with a slash from his primary-hand sword, but by a well-aimed throw of a smaller sword he carried. In Japan, some schools pre-Modern weaponry still train in the Kusarigama, as demonstrated by the YT video that I posted earlier.
You can doubt all you want, makes no nevermind to me whatsoever. I know they were used, and I know they were relatively effective for their cost and the limited training their wielders had. The reason there aren’t a ton of them still in existence in museums and such is because those peasants who wielded them took them back home afterwords and continued using them in the fields as tools.
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
Gee, I always thought the mark of a good weapon was efficacy, not whether or not some snobby nobles thought it was good enough for them. 🤷♂️
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
A big reason that Europe's warrior class rejected the flail had to do more with its association with peasants than its lack of effectiveness as a weapon. Against an armored opponent it was actually better than a sword, but wielding a sword was reserved for professionals. It marked you as elite, better than a mere peasant.
Yes, snobbery and what is considered fashionable has often had a major impact on the implementation of everything from dietary recommendations to codes of dress to how people armed themselves. The standard US diet, for instance, is highly inefficient from a protein production standpoint: cows and pigs eat a lot of grain, chemical supplements, and other antibiotics. Those very same grains, supplements, and antibiotics could just as well be sold to people directly or fed to more efficient meat producers like chickens, turkeys, and fish. But the reason that cows and pigs are bred so extensively is at least in part because it was/is culturally "in" to eat beef and pork. That historical trend developed largely based on dietary habits of the French elite, whom much of the rest of Europe looked up to during the formative era prior to the Industrial Revolution and early period of global colonization. Those views of what is "good food" continued on into the Industrial Revolution and beyond as the laborers in the factories sought to emulate the eating habits of their wealthier, culturally-influential "neighbors."
A big reason that Europe's warrior class rejected the flail had to do more with its association with peasants than its lack of effectiveness as a weapon.
The peasants (either in rebellions, or when they were called into service by a levy) didn't use flails either. They used spears.
Spears were a staple weapon for thousands of years, you didn't really see them fall out of usage until firearms became dominant. There's a reason for this: they're cheap, and they work.
It's very rare that fashion prevents using a weapon that would give the side that deployed them a meaningful advantage. For example, attempts were made to ban crossbows, and those bans were widely ignored.
A big reason that Europe's warrior class rejected the flail had to do more with its association with peasants than its lack of effectiveness as a weapon.
The peasants (either in rebellions, or when they were called into service by a levy) didn't use flails either. They used spears.
Spears were a staple weapon for thousands of years, you didn't really see them fall out of usage until firearms became dominant. There's a reason for this: they're cheap, and they work.
It's very rare that fashion prevents using a weapon that would give the side that deployed them a meaningful advantage. For example, attempts were made to ban crossbows, and those bans were widely ignored.
Tell that to the Spartans who used javelins instead of bows because bows were “women’s weapons.”
Tell that to the Spartans who used javelins instead of bows because bows were “women’s weapons.”
Hoplites in Greek armies used javelins instead of bows because heavy infantry with shields can't use bows. Also, it's not like their armies didn't include archers -- just those archers were mercenaries (it's actually quite hard to train and equip archers).
The Kusarigama, what can be described most succinctly as a sickle attached to a chain, was used by Shishido Baiken in his duel with the famed swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. It is a variation on the flail that has a slightly curved blade attached to the handle. This confrontation was famous enough to be depicted in a Japanese TV series titled "Miyamoto Musashi" that ran from 1984 to 1985 based on the "Musashi" novel by Eiji Yoshikawa.
Several episodes of this series are posted on YT that show Musashi taking Baiken's choice of weaponry very seriously indeed. (Ofc, one should be aware that creative license is common to historical dramas whether they are Japanese or American):
You can doubt all you want, makes no nevermind to me whatsoever. I know they were used, and I know they were relatively effective for their cost and the limited training their wielders had. The reason there aren’t a ton of them still in existence in museums and such is because those peasants who wielded them took them back home afterwords and continued using them in the fields as tools.
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a weapon may be effective in certain situations but not in others. One of the reasons for that spears, pikes, and other "commoner" weapons were more popularly depicted and often used than the flail is that spears and pikes were far easier to use in formation. The chain aspect of the flail makes it more difficult for the opposing knight/armed peasant to know where the weighted end will land. This is useful in a duel. But in a massed, organized (or semi-organized) military, it easily becomes disastrous for one's comrades. The "friendly fire" potential of a flail was thus a major detriment to its commonality in the historical record because wars are fought with many people surrounded by yet more people, not one-on-one.
You can doubt all you want, makes no nevermind to me whatsoever. I know they were used, and I know they were relatively effective for their cost and the limited training their wielders had. The reason there aren’t a ton of them still in existence in museums and such is because those peasants who wielded them took them back home afterwords and continued using them in the fields as tools.
The reason you use a peasant tool as a weapon is because it's what you have, not because it's a good weapon. The mark of a good weapon is that people actually bother to purpose-build it for the task and use it frequently (purpose-built war flails did exist but were very rare). The flail should be in there... as a simple weapon that does 1d6. Same for the trident (it's a fishing tool sometimes used by gladiators, not a good weapon), and a whip isn't really a weapon at all.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a weapon may be effective in certain situations but not in others. One of the reasons for that spears, pikes, and other "commoner" weapons were more popularly depicted and often used than the flail is that spears and pikes were far easier to use in formation. The chain aspect of the flail makes it more difficult for the opposing knight/armed peasant to know where the weighted end will land. This is useful in a duel. But in a massed, organized (or semi-organized) military, it easily becomes disastrous for one's comrades. The "friendly fire" potential of a flail was thus a major detriment to its commonality in the historical record because wars are fought with many people surrounded by yet more people, not one-on-one.
The "friendly fire" potential from flails really wasn't worse than from most other two-handed weapons that needed to be swung rather than thrust. At least not with real flails, like the ones in the picture IAmSposta posted on the first page. The mace/morningstar-with-a-chain style flail is significantly worse but that weapon also appears to be something that was dreamed up in the Renascence Era by someone who didn't actually know what a flail looked like and made assumptions. The flail's real disadvantage compared to spears and pikes was that it was far less effective at fending off mounted cavalry attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a weapon may be effective in certain situations but not in others. One of the reasons for that spears, pikes, and other "commoner" weapons were more popularly depicted and often used than the flail is that spears and pikes were far easier to use in formation. The chain aspect of the flail makes it more difficult for the opposing knight/armed peasant to know where the weighted end will land. This is useful in a duel. But in a massed, organized (or semi-organized) military, it easily becomes disastrous for one's comrades. The "friendly fire" potential of a flail was thus a major detriment to its commonality in the historical record because wars are fought with many people surrounded by yet more people, not one-on-one.
The "friendly fire" potential from flails really wasn't worse than from most other two-handed weapons that needed to be swung rather than thrust. At least not with real flails, like the ones in the picture IAmSposta posted on the first page. The mace/morningstar-with-a-chain style flail is significantly worse but that weapon also appears to be something that was dreamed up in the Renascence Era by someone who didn't actually know what a flail looked like and made assumptions. The flail's real disadvantage compared to spears and pikes was that it was far less effective at fending off mounted cavalry attacks.
The mangual which I referenced in two of my earlier posts is a historical weapon used primarily on the Iberian peninsula. It had multiple metal orbs attached to chains that were swung using a long handle. It was wielded with two-hands and could strike with greater force than a mace due to the momentum of the swinging chains. It was not something merely "dreamed up" by some Hollywood Renaissance artist. This was certainly a weapon difficult to use, however, in anything close to a tight formation, which made it far less common.
On the note of spears and pikes being effective against mounted cavalry, that is true. Keep in mind, though, that a cavalry generally consisted of a lot more than one horse and one rider. IOW, your statement about the superiority of the pike/spear against cavalry is largely because a commander could order that a bunch of militiamen cluster close together to collectively fend off a mounted charge by a group of opposing mounted knights without worrying about friendly fire b/c the pointy end would all be in one, unified direction. My point was that pikes and spears are excellent as in-formation weapons whereas flails are more effective one-on-one but horrible as in-formation weapons. Thus, even if the cost of military flails were in line with that of pikes/spears (that is an unknown), it made sense that pikes/spears were far more popularly used in mass combat.
For reference, Illustration from a 15th century manuscript by Hans Talhoffer. On the left, you see a multi-headed flail. On the right, you see one-headed peasant flail. There are...various other weapons and devices depicted as well. Talhoffer was a Germanic master-at-arms (thus not a professional artist).
Except the flail we got in 5e rules does no more damage than a Longsword and possesses none of the special properties that might really distinguish it as a rad weapon.
So I would venture that a peasant flail (simple melee weapon) ought to be a 2-handed, bludgeoning weapon doing 1d8 bludgeoning and the "military flail" would be a mangual, a 2-handed, Heavy, bludgeoning Reach weapon doing 2d6 damage. The difference between the two would be accounted for by the mangual, being a Martial, would deal more damage and have a longer built-in chain. Does that sound about right?
So that would make the "martial flail" (mangual) the most powerful and effective melee weapon in 5E. Seems overpowered.
While I like the idea of the ball and chain, as someone that is relearning to use a nunchaku the idea of trying to learn to wield a spiked ball on a chain scares the excrement out of me. The idea of having those spikes hitting me when I mess up is not a pleasant thought considering how many times I hit myself with the chuks. You pretty much have to be wearing armor just to practice making it a knight’s weapon by default.
Except the flail we got in 5e rules does no more damage than a Longsword and possesses none of the special properties that might really distinguish it as a rad weapon.
That's because 5e wants fighters to be the basic bonk class, and making choosing a weapon more than an aesthetic choice interferes with that goal.
So I would venture that a peasant flail (simple melee weapon) ought to be a 2-handed, bludgeoning weapon doing 1d8 bludgeoning and the "military flail" would be a mangual, a 2-handed, Heavy, bludgeoning Reach weapon doing 2d6 damage. The difference between the two would be accounted for by the mangual, being a Martial, would deal more damage and have a longer built-in chain. Does that sound about right?
So that would make the "martial flail" (mangual) the most powerful and effective melee weapon in 5E. Seems overpowered.
I don't care if you give it a 1d6, 1d8, or 2d6 damage at your table. If you're the DM, you will run it by your rules. I started this conversation to get more chatter on the forum about what's supposed to be a cool weapon that most people simply ignore b/c they take it for granted how it works and forget what a flail even is b/c it has exact same stats as the Warhammer (minus Versatile).
That's because 5e wants fighters to be the basic bonk class, and making choosing a weapon more than an aesthetic choice interferes with that goal.
Well, I guess that's part of the reason that Champion Fighter is the most popular class as shown in DDB's 2020 data scrape of users. I mean ease-of-access for new players does come at a cost.
Except the flail we got in 5e rules does no more damage than a Longsword and possesses none of the special properties that might really distinguish it as a rad weapon.
Except the special property of being a sick-ass spiked ball danglin' from my hand, rattling and bangin around. Damn, that thing is rad. Those dudes in Sposta's image look like dorks and I'd never be caught dead wielding their historically accurate abomination of a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A big reason that Europe's warrior class rejected the flail had to do more with its association with peasants than its lack of effectiveness as a weapon. Against an armored opponent it was actually better than a sword, but wielding a sword was reserved for professionals. It marked you as elite, better than a mere peasant.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There are written techniques for using the Kusarigama, which, while differing somewhat in design from European flails, had most of the same working parts and also originated as a farming (some say horse-managing) implement. The fact that the well-known swordsman MIyamoto Musashi considered one fighter well trained in the use of the Kusarigama an esp. dangerous opponent speaks to the martial potential of such a weapon. Notably, Musashi won a duel with the Kusarigama wielder not with a slash from his primary-hand sword, but by a well-aimed throw of a smaller sword he carried. In Japan, some schools pre-Modern weaponry still train in the Kusarigama, as demonstrated by the YT video that I posted earlier.
Gee, I always thought the mark of a good weapon was efficacy, not whether or not some snobby nobles thought it was good enough for them. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, snobbery and what is considered fashionable has often had a major impact on the implementation of everything from dietary recommendations to codes of dress to how people armed themselves. The standard US diet, for instance, is highly inefficient from a protein production standpoint: cows and pigs eat a lot of grain, chemical supplements, and other antibiotics. Those very same grains, supplements, and antibiotics could just as well be sold to people directly or fed to more efficient meat producers like chickens, turkeys, and fish. But the reason that cows and pigs are bred so extensively is at least in part because it was/is culturally "in" to eat beef and pork. That historical trend developed largely based on dietary habits of the French elite, whom much of the rest of Europe looked up to during the formative era prior to the Industrial Revolution and early period of global colonization. Those views of what is "good food" continued on into the Industrial Revolution and beyond as the laborers in the factories sought to emulate the eating habits of their wealthier, culturally-influential "neighbors."
The peasants (either in rebellions, or when they were called into service by a levy) didn't use flails either. They used spears.
Spears were a staple weapon for thousands of years, you didn't really see them fall out of usage until firearms became dominant. There's a reason for this: they're cheap, and they work.
It's very rare that fashion prevents using a weapon that would give the side that deployed them a meaningful advantage. For example, attempts were made to ban crossbows, and those bans were widely ignored.
Tell that to the Spartans who used javelins instead of bows because bows were “women’s weapons.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hoplites in Greek armies used javelins instead of bows because heavy infantry with shields can't use bows. Also, it's not like their armies didn't include archers -- just those archers were mercenaries (it's actually quite hard to train and equip archers).
The Kusarigama, what can be described most succinctly as a sickle attached to a chain, was used by Shishido Baiken in his duel with the famed swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. It is a variation on the flail that has a slightly curved blade attached to the handle. This confrontation was famous enough to be depicted in a Japanese TV series titled "Miyamoto Musashi" that ran from 1984 to 1985 based on the "Musashi" novel by Eiji Yoshikawa.
Several episodes of this series are posted on YT that show Musashi taking Baiken's choice of weaponry very seriously indeed. (Ofc, one should be aware that creative license is common to historical dramas whether they are Japanese or American):
The Dangerous Kusarigama
Before the Showdown
Birth of Dual Wield.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a weapon may be effective in certain situations but not in others. One of the reasons for that spears, pikes, and other "commoner" weapons were more popularly depicted and often used than the flail is that spears and pikes were far easier to use in formation. The chain aspect of the flail makes it more difficult for the opposing knight/armed peasant to know where the weighted end will land. This is useful in a duel. But in a massed, organized (or semi-organized) military, it easily becomes disastrous for one's comrades. The "friendly fire" potential of a flail was thus a major detriment to its commonality in the historical record because wars are fought with many people surrounded by yet more people, not one-on-one.
The "friendly fire" potential from flails really wasn't worse than from most other two-handed weapons that needed to be swung rather than thrust. At least not with real flails, like the ones in the picture IAmSposta posted on the first page. The mace/morningstar-with-a-chain style flail is significantly worse but that weapon also appears to be something that was dreamed up in the Renascence Era by someone who didn't actually know what a flail looked like and made assumptions. The flail's real disadvantage compared to spears and pikes was that it was far less effective at fending off mounted cavalry attacks.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The mangual which I referenced in two of my earlier posts is a historical weapon used primarily on the Iberian peninsula. It had multiple metal orbs attached to chains that were swung using a long handle. It was wielded with two-hands and could strike with greater force than a mace due to the momentum of the swinging chains. It was not something merely "dreamed up" by some
HollywoodRenaissance artist. This was certainly a weapon difficult to use, however, in anything close to a tight formation, which made it far less common.On the note of spears and pikes being effective against mounted cavalry, that is true. Keep in mind, though, that a cavalry generally consisted of a lot more than one horse and one rider. IOW, your statement about the superiority of the pike/spear against cavalry is largely because a commander could order that a bunch of militiamen cluster close together to collectively fend off a mounted charge by a group of opposing mounted knights without worrying about friendly fire b/c the pointy end would all be in one, unified direction. My point was that pikes and spears are excellent as in-formation weapons whereas flails are more effective one-on-one but horrible as in-formation weapons. Thus, even if the cost of military flails were in line with that of pikes/spears (that is an unknown), it made sense that pikes/spears were far more popularly used in mass combat.
For reference, Illustration from a 15th century manuscript by Hans Talhoffer. On the left, you see a multi-headed flail. On the right, you see one-headed peasant flail. There are...various other weapons and devices depicted as well. Talhoffer was a Germanic master-at-arms (thus not a professional artist).
I, for one, am glad that WotC didn't let history nerds ruin the classic sick-ass fantasy flail. Man, that thing is rad.
Except the flail we got in 5e rules does no more damage than a Longsword and possesses none of the special properties that might really distinguish it as a rad weapon.
So that would make the "martial flail" (mangual) the most powerful and effective melee weapon in 5E. Seems overpowered.
While I like the idea of the ball and chain, as someone that is relearning to use a nunchaku the idea of trying to learn to wield a spiked ball on a chain scares the excrement out of me. The idea of having those spikes hitting me when I mess up is not a pleasant thought considering how many times I hit myself with the chuks. You pretty much have to be wearing armor just to practice making it a knight’s weapon by default.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's because 5e wants fighters to be the basic bonk class, and making choosing a weapon more than an aesthetic choice interferes with that goal.
I don't care if you give it a 1d6, 1d8, or 2d6 damage at your table. If you're the DM, you will run it by your rules. I started this conversation to get more chatter on the forum about what's supposed to be a cool weapon that most people simply ignore b/c they take it for granted how it works and forget what a flail even is b/c it has exact same stats as the Warhammer (minus Versatile).
Well, I guess that's part of the reason that Champion Fighter is the most popular class as shown in DDB's 2020 data scrape of users. I mean ease-of-access for new players does come at a cost.
Except the special property of being a sick-ass spiked ball danglin' from my hand, rattling and bangin around. Damn, that thing is rad. Those dudes in Sposta's image look like dorks and I'd never be caught dead wielding their historically accurate abomination of a weapon.