How are flails any more useful than a mace?

i think with the chain you can bend the weight around a shield or something and hit them, while the mace can be blocked a bit easier
plus the extra force from swinging the weight around must make it hit harder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

>>1913228
Aren't you also at a way higher risk of hitting yourself though?

also, chain weapons in general are intimidating as hell due to their difficult to predict range and accuracy, as well as the noise they make.

maces are superior to equip armies with. less training, less collateral damage.

>>1913222
I understand it was a farming tool before it was a weapon. How was it used in farming?

>>1913228
>>1913248
So generally, flails are better than maces if you know how to safely use them?

>>1913253
You've never heard of threshing before?

chain weapons are easier on the user. since less no shock transmitted back to the user's hands.

>>1913242
youre in a battle mate, an extra thing trying to hit you probably adds negligible amounts of risk

>>1913222
Same reason trebuchet beats catapult. The chain gives it extra momentum when you swing it right, making it fly faster and hit harder.

>>1913228
this too

File: 28382.jpg (133KB, 652x2716px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 652x2716px

>>1913228
I find this rather unlikely for a variety of reasons:

- When shields were common on the battlefields, which was mostly during the antique into high middle ages, flails weren't really around in warfare. The vast majority of flails (and there aren't many that remain) are from the 16th - 17th century, plenty of them likely forgeries from the 19th century.

- Pretty much all flails had short chains so that you couldn't hit yourself with them - but also making it impossible to wrap them around anything. Also, the majority of flails were those you see depicted in >>1913222 - i.e. the farming tool equivalent pole-arm weapon. The archaetypical morning star flails were exceedingly rare and they were most likely, if they existed at all (as most remaining pieces are rather dubious when it comes to their authenticity), cavalry sidearms.

- Attaching a weight to a chain or string does not make it hit harder.


It is possible that these two-handed flails had an advantage when used out of static defences, e.g. from a Wagenburg, due to the fact that you can hit someone with a swing from above who's on the other side of the defence. When it comes to one-handed cavalry side-arms it's possible that it's easier on the wrist when riding past someone and hitting them since the energy goes into the rotation of the weight, but this is highly hypothetical at best and most likely not significant enough for these weapons to ever become common.

>>1913222
Protip: They saw extremely little use, because they were indeed inferior.

>>1913222
Infantry formation would need weapons of long length while using a mace would mean implement by spear. The real question imo is why they would be favorable to other long polearms.

I'm not an authority on this, but maybe it was used in areas where overhead swinging was possible and thrusting was not. Where this would occur I don't know.