Talk:Flail (weapon)

Cute picture

It's always neat to see other people expand on an article that you've written. Cute picture!

Harkenbane 06:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Morning star

The terms "morning star" and "mace" are incorrect when used to describe flails, and are themselves distinct from each other. The defining characteristic of flails (which you touched on) are that they are a mass of metal attached to a haft by means of a chain. Morning stars and maces have no interconnecting chain. -CW

From what I understand the termnology in morning star is actually useable to any of the weapons if it had spikes attached. And that a flail only has one chain link, much like the agricultral flails only with metal studs attached. So what is shown in the article is a mornigstar ball on chain, not a flail. -Dob

The EB 1911 article Flail says:

The “flail” was a weapon used for military purposes in the middle ages. It was made in the same way as a threshing-flail but much stronger and furnished with iron spikes. It also took the form of a chain with a spiked iron ball at one end swinging free on a wooden or iron handle. This weapon was known as the “morning star” or “holy water sprinkler.”

What are the reliable sources that contradict that? -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Meteor hammer

A flail and a meteor hammer are two distinct weapons. The hammer has no handle, and a much, much longer chain. Their origins are also completely distinct.--Vince Skrapits 02:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NO MERGE, as per above Calicore 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --James Hales 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT merge these articles. I am currently trying to create a more comprehensive article about the meteor hammer. The two are very different, not only in use but also in shape! --Xanthine 08:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As my major rewrite will now show, the meteor hammer article is not suitable for merging. Though I must thank you, it is a noteworthy point (and one I have mentioned) that chain weapons are often confused with each other. --Xanthine 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This weapon looks suspiciously similar to the 'Holy Water Sprinkler', see 'Tracht Wehr Und Waffen'.

Sources, people

Please, please, don't use Wikipedia to document your beliefs or original research. Look, just below the edit box: content must be verifiable. Any additions to this page really need to be supported by external sources. -- Rogerborg 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, please add 'some sources to this article. There's not a single source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.1.40 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zelda References?

Don't you think that the referencese to single battles where the weapon was used in Legend of Zelda games are a bit too marginal? I think "Use in popular culture" should include something more general, like analytic view of what kind of contexts the weapon is often used, or something like that. LotR reference is a bit marginal too, but probably much more informative to most of the readers. RandomMonitor 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed vague paragraph

I removed the following from the article: The Middle Ages was an extremely violent era in history featuring battles in both Europe and the Holy Land when the crusades, and the crusaders who fought them, were numerous. Feudal lords and knights used such weapons as the flail in different types of warfare. The quest for power led to invasions of lands and territories which had to be fought for. Siege warfare, waged to win a castle or a walled town or city, was a frequent occurrence during the Middle Ages. Warfare during the Middle Ages, or Medieval era, called for a variety of weapon expertise. Knights and men-at-arms (foot soldiers, or archers) used different types of weapons. The flail was predominantly used by knights and foot soldiers. The weapons used were dictated according to status and position. The weapons, armor and horse of the knight were extremely expensive. I don't know how this paragraph adds to the article, but it reads like a copy and paste from a school assignment about weapons and warfare generally. -Phoenixrod 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Leverage

I think the haft and chain arrangement allowed the wielder to swing the head with much more force than with typical maces, for example. I'm not sure if the chain merely adds length to the moment arm, or if the physics is more elaborate, but I believe this weapon hit really, really hard compared to other weapons of similar weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AThousandYoung (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Merge with Mace and chain

I say we merge this page with Mace and chain, as both are nor particularly long, the shorter one is a stub, adn it woudl benefit this article. Comments? --Patar knight 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Variations

I removed the following passage from Variations since I fail to see how it differs from the regular flail.

A variation of the flail is called a chain mace. It is composed of a long chain usually wrapped in leather or another protective material, and has a steel ball at the end of the chain

I altered the subsequent sentence so it would fit without the above sentence but I still find it inadequate.

also in Variations

"A variation of the flail is a handle with several chains attached to it rather than one, none of which have a spiked metal ball at their ends"

i think that merely refers to the flagellant style whip which is sometimes also named a flail, which is allready mentioned in the first paragraph· Lygophile has spoken 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Historicity

I have recently come across an academic study that among others claimed that flails (as a morning star head attached to a handle by means of a chain) were a figment of romantic imagination not unlike the Iron Maiden. I don't recall where I read that but it has sparked some doubt in me. Therefore, I would like to encourage everybody contributing to medieval weaponry on Wikipedia to try and find the following:

• medieval renditions of flails in pictorial sources
• actual medieval examples of flails in museums
• written sources from the medieval era describing a flail

Prove me wrong, please. I'd like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigaranus (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought I had signed that, sorry. BTW: the Hussite examples I've seen so far were just a straightforward peasants' threshing flail with an iron-clad front part, and nothing like the weapon depicted on Wikipedia. Trigaranus 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, ive looked in some books and none of them mentioned morningstar flails, and one book specificly said they were not commonly used, maybe not ever used. The flails used by wheat farmers were used as improvised weapons though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.165.40.133 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2007

I mentioned these concerns in the german Wikipedia article Flegel (Waffe), stating that there are no academic sources for flails as customary weapons from late antiquity to modern times (barring agricultural tools used as improvised weapons). The whole idea of flail-wielding knights or Landsknechte is a ridiculous figment of romanticism and contemporary fantasy-culture (ie Dungeons & Dragons). On the german article's discussion page I suggested the deletion of the whole article, except for a short account of the misconception itself, which (since they actually have been used as improvised weapons) could be placed in the article on the agricultural tool Dreschflegel. The same should be done here.

By the way: The picture is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.87.109 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the handle

Is there a variation of the flail where the handle is just a longer chain? I have seen this type of weapon used in fiction but I dont know if it exists in real life. Diabl0658 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have been looking for contemporary evidence for the use of flail-like (or ball-and-chain-like) weapons during the Middle Ages, or in fact, any time. So far, no results. Any kind of multipartite form (i.e. a massive head flexibly attached to some kind of handling device) -- except the modified threshing flail! -- should best be considered fictional until proven otherwise. Trigaranus 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dating

I've seen that recently two contributors from the US have changed the date (13th-15th centuries to 11th-15th c.). But as so far, nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of a flail of this kind being used ever, I suggest you only change this dating once you have some reliable information to back it up. If you can prove that such a mace-and-chain flail was actually used, please let us know. Trigaranus (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See for examples these threads: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=137632, http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8785 As I understand it the short-handled flails weren't especially common, and most seem to be 15th century or later, but they certainly existed, in a variety of forms. 24.71.150.241 (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Major Revision

I have made a major revision to this page in order to reflect the fact that there is no evidence to support the 'iconic' form of the military flail, meaning a short stick with a ball and chain attached, of the military flail ever having existed outside the imagination of Victorian writers and contemporary fantasists. I have retained the use of the flail as an improvised weapon used on the battlefield by peasant armies, and a reference to the Hussites. If clear evidence is presented to refute me, I will certainly relent, but it is very important that we are presenting information verifiable with real evidence rather than merely reinforcing popular-cultural myths, no matter how cool those myths may be.

Dancer_Man (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but the real problem with the article is that it has no sources, either before or after the revision. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I'll try to drum some up.

80.6.158.42 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I find your revision very well done, as it reflects what is actually known about flails as (improvised) weapons as well as what people believe about them (fantasy genre, roleplaying games asf). As a german user I have to admit, that a major revision like yours is still blocked on 'our' wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.109.174 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add a bit of substance to the historical description, with some contemporary illustrations. I've also added a couple of references to start us off, but more are needed. In particular, some good references to the use of flails by peasant levies. While I like the corrective nature of the major revision, I think it would benefit from distinguishing between the probably mythical short handled chain mace (this is what I grew up knowing it as)and the long-handled derivative, which did exist. This area to could do with some references for verification of the argument Monstrelet (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Trigaranus (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer a mace

The following text was removed from the History section of the article

As of August 15th, 2009, the flail is no longer a mace.

It may be intended to announce a de-linking but, as such, it should be here, not in the article itself. Author has been notified to allow comments

Le Chevalier Delibere

The article contains a detailed description of a woodcut from this book but no citation to the edition. Although Le Chevalier Delibere is rare in that the author provided detailed notes for illustrators to follow, not all editions were the same. The illustration mentioned doesn't appear in the editions available online. Given its prominence in the article, a reference to the edition in which this particular illustration occurs would be valuable Monstrelet (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems the citation request is causing confusion (perhaps in the wrong place?). The source needed is the edition of Le Chevalier Delibere which shows the flail. Either a link or a straightforward citation. It is important because it is the only medieval evidence anyone has referred to of a short-handled flail.Monstrelet (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum Collection

As the description of allegedly medieval flails in the possession of the Metropolitan Museum in New York takes up quite some space in this article, I though it might be important to know that the information is likely outdated. Nikolas Lloyd who does a YouTube series on medieval weaponry recently did one about the flail (youtu.be/O-y6oirEsZA) and talked about how he contacted the Metropolitan Museum for information that he got from this very article. According to him it turned out that they took the opportunity to review the items in question and it turned out (1) they have got only three and (2) their authenticity is now very much doubted by the museum itself. It would be interesting to see if they will be updating information about their collection; this article should also reflect any updates the museum decides to make. --2.240.191.175 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just watched it. For reference, here are the actual links to the collections.

• http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/33866
• http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/25072
• http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/33867

The source being used in this article is both very old (30+ years) and rather poor, being a large book of weapons written for young adult, non-historian readers. It's also worth noting all these flails were donations from collectors in the early 20th century, not archaeological finds, casting further doubt as to their authenticity. The Victorians were infamous forgers of medieval items and have done immense harm to the study of history. It's high time we start calling this out rather than just blindly accepting things.NicoloSt (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that this topic should be enhanched with actual refrences from scholars who specialize in medieval weaponry and/or victorian reproductions. The current version of this paragraph relies solely on the (unreferenced) viewpoints of this youtubevideo, which is rather weak and speculative (note by I.Sonnemans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.160.175 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they did exist

Five minutes of googling was enough to turn up four or five illustrations of knights with the cavalry flail, properly dated, on museum websites. I wish wikipedians wouldn't keep mistaking "I can't research" with "there is no evidence". Also "I read once" does not constitute "considerable debate" <eye roll> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok first off, you will not get far with such a mocking tone and including "eye rolls" in your talk posts. What are you, 14? The rule is prove it or go home. We deal in sourcing here and no, I was not able to find any properly dated illustrations from the medieval period by simply googling "cavalry flail." I just got lots of photos of modern "reproductions" and fakes. That said, my concern at least personally is the truth rather than "being right," so here's some works I did find by consulting some people who are actual experts on medieval weapons.

Detail from Battle between Heraclius and Chosroes, painted by Piero della Francesca circa 1452

This painting very clearly shows a fellow wielding a short, one-handed flail with three ball-shaped heads. Problems are that this was painted in the mid 15th century so technically it's from the Renaissance rather than the middle ages, and it's actually intended to represent a battle taking place in the year 627 in what is now modern day Iraq. Depicted are a bizarre mishmash of armor, clothing and weapons from the 15th century armor, byzantine, and ancient Greek.

I found this one as well, http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/small_perez_mendoza_frontispiece_217.jpg

This is an illustration by Cristóbal Pérez de Herrera in 1618, which technically is Early modern period, not medieval. I'm not exactly sure what the context is other than a collection of weapons, but it's worth noting the length of handle suggested it's a two-handed weapon.

Then there's this one: http://www.mediumaevum.com/75years/Two%20men%20with%20club%20and%20flail.JPG

Supposedly, it's from the 13th century 'Moniage de Guillaume', Biblioteca Trivulziana 1025, fo.142. Can't verify that though. Also, it's clearly a two-hander.

Here's another: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/livre-des-merveilles-francais-2810/2836/

French, about 1410. Very nice example with the ball covered in spikes at the end of a chain, and from horseback by a knight! But also, clearly used two-handed.

So, it appears they were around, but they were a little different that we perceive of them today. Also noted that all of these pictures are obviously out of copyright, and are free game to be uploaded to wikipedia's systems with proper attribution.NicoloSt (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to copy/paste the last two links from the forum that you otherwise copied verbatim. 81.104.141.51 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Bellfortis" 1405 approx - Knight waving a flail while pulling some sort of siege engine

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/bellifortis-of-konrad-kyeser-besancon-bm-ms1360/4158/

"Wonders of the world" - Knight with a short handled flail at his belt

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4303/9819/

Fixed that for you ;-)

Anyway, that whole forum discussion was started by people surprised that wikipedia would deny the existance of something for which there is a reasonable amount of evidence - Prove it applys just as much to claims that things do not exist, hence why the Cite tags. If some scholar has written a book, or even a consensus of scholars all agree that the one-handed-flail was a victorian myth - quotes, page numbers, title, and author thank you! 81.104.141.51 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, guys! You are my heroes! :-) Trigaranus (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, a source is a source, no matter where I found it. I still deserve credit for actually finding the correct attribution for some of them. The forum did not, and I had to hunt them down myself (such as the Herrera woodcut). I left out Bellfortis because it's not a strong source, because it was drawn very strangely by someone who doesn't appear to know what they're doing. This is common in very old period paintings of military actions because the painters were usually not fighting men and made many mistakes, such as the way they depict archers.

Alright so here's the plan. I'm going to try and upload these into the system once I write out all the attribution information, as well as rewrite the section itself. Please, if you know of a good text source, post it. I do still stand firmly by the assertion that the many of flails found in museums are fakes and that many of the books written about these weapons have very poor sourcing, if any at all.NicoloSt (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I forget, I think the Talhoffer works might contain some depictions and even strategy, but I need to look those up again.NicoloSt (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall Talhoffer showing the single handed flail (or any other fechtbuch for that matter). I agree with NicoloSt though that we need to be careful of many museum specimens because of their lack of provenance. So a clear image of a single handed flail from a period source is what we need (we have no issues with two-handed flails from sources). The Bellifortis, suitably cropped to get rid of distractions, works quite well. Contrary to above opinion, I'd say it shows a weapon similar in design to a 15th century mace (iron handle, guard over handgrip) and is more plausible than some. It would be helpful if someone can turn up a text source to go with it but previous attempts have proved fruitless.Monstrelet (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of this image [1] I wrote that, but of course now that I look at it, it's obviously not a flail. Mair's fechtbuch on the other hand does have entries on the long peasant flail, complete with martial spikes. [2]

The Mair image is good - lively, colourful, illustrates the nature of the weapon precisiely. Maybe one for the lead, to replace the accurate but rather dull image there at the moment, which could be recycled to gallery? Monstrelet (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. The current one is not only dull, but the info says it was drawn in 1907.NicoloSt (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of cropping, I was trying to compose a decent gallery of attributed historical images, but I can't get it to work with cropped images. I'm not skilled enough with this type of editing. Can you help? Here's one I cropped from an image that was already in wikipedia.

Detail from The Travels of Marco Polo, circa 1410, showing an armored "Mamluk" with a short, spiked flail tucked into his belt

Regarding the single-handed flail (which is, as I understand it, the one whose historicity is disputed), none of these sources are really usable for whether or not the flail existed, since they're primary sources. Relying on them for that point would be original researech. Most of the scholars who have expressed doubts about the historicity of the one-handed flail have acknowledged its appearance in art, but have argued that it was a fantastical weapon (a figment of the imaginations of artists, which was later reproduced in purely decorative and ceremonial purposes and never saw use as an actual military weapon), or that single-handed flails were drawn by artists who didn't understand how actual (two-handed) flails worked. What we need if you want to answer that are modern scholarly sources (historians, etc) writing about the flail's history, not zoomed-in images and your own personal deductions based on them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The need for sources does cut both ways - it would be equally OR to reject all contemorary illustrations as fantasy, without sourcing that to a legitimate sources. The main academic source quoted at present appears to be Waldman, who came to the conclusion of an extant but rare weapon. In cases such as this, the correct position is surely to reflect the fact debate exists as to whether the the flail existed and to source the main positions. Monstrelet (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, your comment also seems to focus on this thread's sources rather than the sources used in the article itself. The article has some of the pictures, but doesn't rely on them as proof they exist, rather using books sources such as Walman and DeVries and the expert commentary contained within.

I knew this article was going to suddenly attract attention again when that Sturtevant article came out. It is a good article, as Sturtevant is a PhD historian and he even quotes DeVries, but a few of his remarks are purely opinion and he does not appear to be aware of Waldman, who provides photographs and more detailed commentary on these weapons. An important thing I learned from Waldman is that these weapons are remarked on in German- and Czech-language sources, and so may escape the notice of English-speaking historians, much like the article on the fountain pen is completely oblivious to Leonardo da Vinci's working invention because the sources are all in Italian.NicoloSt (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new (to the article) information about the kisten, an early form of military flail, complete with academic source, to strengthen the discussion. Monstrelet (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitaine de Bast (1836) source

There's a reference mentioned in one of Nicolas Lindy's videos of a French source penned by a Capitaine de Bast in 1836. I need additional verification on this work, but I did find the text online on a possibly unreliable site (can't tell, I don't speak French): http://www.crcb.org/batons-et-fleaux-defensifs-1836/.html

With a bit of google translate, "Le fléau" variously translates as "flail" or "scourge." Best first refers to "Le fléau ou martinet," or "the flail/scourge or whip" and the description sounds like he's actually talking about a cat-o-nine-tails that has been modified to be a lethal weapon. The handle is very short, it has up to nine strings (not chain), which are tipped with lead balls. Best describes it as a purely attack oriented weapon that has the potential to kill its wielder if he doesn't know what he's doing. The second weapon Best describes is "le fléau à battre le grain" which is roughly "the flail to beat the grain," a fairly obvious reference to the long peasant's flail. It sounds as though Best describes its use as an extension of stick-fighting, which is consistent with Mair's early work. The last one is "Le fléau brisé" which I think literally means "broken flail," and describes it has having an iron ball with points. This sounds like a reference to the spiked-ball-style flail, but I can't really make sense of the French. Anyhow, an interesting source that may be of use, even if it's several centuries later.NicoloSt (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The fleau brise does seem to be a spiked-ball flail, with the novelty that it is held together by eel skin Monstrelet (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Eel skin? Very strange. I have no idea where Best would have seen such a thing.NicoloSt (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Peasant flails in Manuals of Arms

Some more pictures I found on Wiktenauer, a HEMA wiki, of peasant flails in Renaissance documents.

Hans Talhoffer (1450s):

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:MS_78.A.15_60r.jpg

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:MS_78.A.15_60v.jpg

Michael Hundt (1611)

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Hundt_088.jpg

Jakob Sutor von Baden (1612)

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Sutor_108.jpg

NicoloSt (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flail (weapon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118014853/http://dvdprime.donga.com/bbs/view.asp?bbslist_id=1511545&master_id=40 to http://dvdprime.donga.com/bbs/view.asp?bbslist_id=1511545&master_id=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

military flail variations

I feel that the section is lacking and statements (regarding danger and usability) refer to those two combined but are in my opinion different.

One version has a short(er) handle (to accommodate one hand) and a long chain - the chain (without the ball) is longer than is the length of the handle. I believe that is sometimes called "chain mace" or "ball and chain. It is closer to a chain weapon than a regular flail and should be considered as such, with inherent dangers of wielding a chain weapon. Chain weapons are notoriously difficult to master, so it's not a peasant's weapon even though it is depicted like that.

The other version which has the length of the chain shorter than it's the length of the handle is actually dangerous, questionably effective and honestly a miss. A failed version of two section staff. It can be a peasant's weapon. There is nothing special about it. But it's dangerous as in the heat of the battle you can forget and grip with both hands (and that can result in crushing one) or the handle can slip. Attention is divided between not crushing your hand and not hitting the body (while with the first version it's only not hitting the body which is a risk with chain weapons). It's very unpractical as it requires attention of chain weapons but does not offer the benefits. It also damages the handle.

To me those two are quite different weapons. They can't be treated the same. Setenzatsu (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple balls

Any records of usage of flails with multiple balls. That seems like something from games and movies. It doesn't seem to have an effective value. The article could touch on that. Setenzatsu (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Francesca painting from the 1400s seen in the article and a few others artistic renderings do show multiple striking heads. However, there are no surviving objects I can find that didn't turn out to be Victorian-era forgeries. It is more than likely these depictions are intended to be fanciful artistic license by individuals with limited or no combat experience. Like the Sturtevant article in the references states to, flails mostly appear in art of "the exotic or fantastical." Plenty of tests show how impractical having multiple heads would be, but the problem is proving a negative.NicoloSt (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a genuine two-ball flail in the Royal Armouries. Note that it is from the 19th century and probably represents a ceremonial rather than practical weapon. https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-1589.html . Medieval illustrations of multi-ball flails exist but usually in "exotic" contexts, so may not represent real weapons.Monstrelet (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

other variations

According to this there are numerous variations:

• STICK FLAIL | CHIN KUA CH'U LIEN | JINGUACHUILIAN, commonly known as a "Tip Stick" also known as Shao Zi Gun (梢子棍) and Pan Long Gun (盤龍棍, lit. 'Coiling dragon staff')
• LONG STICK FLAIL | PA LENG LIEN | BA LENG LIAN | Lian Ting (連梃, lit. 'Linked staff') | Lian Jia Bang (連耞棒) also known as a Two Section Staff 长小棒 is a long two-handed "Tip Stick"
• Three section flail, Lian Zhu Shuang Tie Bian (連珠雙鐵鞭, lit. 'Linked bead double iron whip') is a variant of Tie Lian Jia Bang (鐵鏈夾棒, lit. 'Iron chain with clubs') flail that has two connected striking ends. It could be an early predecessor of the three-section staff.
• DOUBLE HEADED FLAIL | 連珠棍 | LANG YA LIEN | LANGYALIAN - long center staff and a shorter flail head on each end (it's not three section staff) 89.201.201.113 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This one noted that the Russian Wikipedia article has a bunch of information and images that this version just... doesn't. Might be good to look into bringing some of that information to here, too? HighPrincessErinys (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Pyeongon into Flail (weapon)

This article is about a Korean flail. Examples on the flail page include several of these type of flail, and illustrations of non-Korean ones that are exactly as this article is describing. This is not really enough substance to be considered for a page on it's own, and the flail article already has a section for "Variations outside Europe", in which a Korean sub-section can be used to put this info in to, as it is roughly one paragraph long. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merging unreferenced content. Source that article or WP:PROD it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested opposition and no support. Klbrain (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)