An ancient military weapon, like the common flail, often having the striking part armed with rows of spikes, or loaded. Example Sentences: 1 Angiographic features felt to indicate valve tearing were present following 17 of 25 procedures and included increased excursion or straightening of leaflets, localized change in leaflet motion flail leaflet , and the presence of an additional contrast jet through the valve.
Mace Definition: n. A money of account in China equal to one tenth of a tael; also, a weight of A kind of spice; the aril which partly covers nutmegs. See Nutmeg. A "holy water sprinkler" can also refer to a type of mace, because of its resemblance to the "aspergillium" used in Catholic holy rites.
The German "morgenstern" literally, morningstar and English "holy water sprinkler" are both of this type. Some specimens are seven feet long or more. Here's an interesting fact, many historians now believe that the flail as a weapon actually didn't exist. It wasn't very practical as a weapon, a "medieval nunchuck" I call it since it was dangerous to the user as it was the enemy and it was thought it was more of a ceremonial weapon than anything.
Post a Comment. Posted by Brer at PM. Randall Moffett. Marcus Irgens. Joined: 08 Apr Posts: 3. Eversberg II. Hendrik De Coster. Location: Belgium Joined: 20 Jan Posts: Tony Peterson.
Gary Teuscher. Joined: 19 Nov Spotlight topics: 1 Posts: Nathan Gilleland. Joined: 25 Apr Posts: Jeff A. Joined: 16 Oct Posts: Log in. Forum index. Spotlight Topics. This is a standard topic. Go to page 1 , 2 Next. Gene Green Joined: 13 Mar Posts: It seems that flail does all that a mace does, but better no impact on hand, ability to strike behind the shield or block, probably ability to strike with much greater force.
So, why would anybody even want to carry a mace, when a flail is about the same size, same cost, and is seemingly superior?
What were the advantages of mace over flail - portability? Status symbol? Or did it allow to do things flail couldn't do? Was it because flail would pose a danger to other warriors in a tight formation?
Posted: Sat 15 Nov, pm Post subject:. I don't know of any period sources that really say. I suspect it has to do with the fact that a rigid object a mace is easier to control than a flexible one a flail. A flail would require a bit of "wind up", telegraphing your intent more. Feints would be far harder to conceal, for instance. On the other hand, the flail has certain abilities that the mace lacks, such as the ability to reach around shield s, and also the potential to hit harder, as you've mentioned.
All of this is pure speculation, though. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise. Brian Hook Joined: 12 Jan Posts: Gene, The simple answer to that question is in my opinion is a flail is a lot more diffcult to use on horseback and runs the very serious risk of also hitting your horse.
To expand on Bill's point on control, if your strike with a flail is blocked or parried it would take more time to strike at another target on your opponent than with a mace. With a mace you can swiftly change directions to make a hit where you must get the flail swinging again. I see pro's and con's to both weapons but I would disagree that either is superior. Posted: Sun 16 Nov, pm Post subject:. OK, this is pretty informative stuff, thanks.
Come to think of it, you can parry a strike with a mace but not with a flail or at least not easily, or so I think so this would explain why somebody would want to have a weapon that's perhaps a bit less effective in offense doesn't hit as hard but can be also used in defense.
Thanks to all who replied! Hi Gene Just to build on the points that the others made, I know from using nuchaku back when I took karate lessons that it is very easy to hit yourself with a flail type weapon.
0コメント