Flail or Morningstar; which is which?

Weapons come in all various shapes, sizes and uses; not to mention their history can be quite fascinating. A particularly interesting and still somewhat unclear one is the case of the flail and the morningstar. Were flails actually weapons? Is a morningstar a flail?

To put it simply - Morningstar is historically a two-handed weapon with a long shaft and a spiked, metal attachment at the end of it. Whereas flails can be long or short, with different shaped attachments, that are linked to the handleit with a rope, chain or otherwise.
Sometimes these attachments will be the same shape as the morningstar, but it doesn’t make the flail a morningstar.

The Morningstar

Usually a two-handed weapon, on average around six feet (roughly 180 cm) in length, with a wooden shaft and a spiked metal ball attached. Used the same way as one would use a mace, for blunt-force and puncture attacks.

The weapon’s roots are currently traced back to 14th century Germany, and it’s quite well documented. It was mainly used by infantry and cavalry. You will find three versions of it:
high-end military level, used by soldiers, made by expert weaponsmiths using lathes,
simpler type, hand-made by peasant militia, fitted with nails and spikes by the blacksmiths,
more decorative, short-hafted morningstars, made entirely of metal.

The Flail

Shaft of wood or metal, linked to an attachment of various types of materials by a string, chain or otherwise.

There are two general types of flail.

One of them being the longer, two-handed weapon of the middle ages, with a roughly cylindrical attachment. Its roots lie with the flail of the German and Central Europe peasants of late middle ages - the agricultural tool used in threshing, to loosen the edible parts of the crops. You can find depictions of the long peasant flails, imbedded with studs and spikes, which does imply that at least at some level, whether for attack or protection, the peasants did adjust their tools for combat purposes. One of the most commonly mentioned examples would be the Hussite peasant armies of the 15th century.

Second one being the shorter military flail. One of the first records of it dates around the 11th century in Central and Eastern Europe, and it seems to have been further adopted into West Europe around the 12th century. It’s predecessor seems to be the 9th and 10th century’s kisten used by the Russians - a short-shafted weapon that can have various types of attachments, attached by a leather or rope.

Why the confusion?

Remember what we established earlier? That the Morningstar is a spiked-ball head on a shaft, and the Flail is a shaft attached to a head by a chain?

Well, some people think the term ‘morningstar’ refers just to the spiky-ball head. And since there are some flails out there that have a spiky-ball head, just like that of a Morningstar, mounted on the end of their chain, people today have also taken to calling these flails ‘morningstars’.

But this is incorrect. The term ‘morningstar’ is not a name for the head of the weapon–it is the name of the weapon itself, inspired by the shape of the head!

So, I can understand the confusion around this. And by the way, choosing to instead call these flails ‘morningstar flails’ is a little better, and if we’re being honest, it’s a good description, but it’s still technically wrong.

If you’re trying to be accurate - a Morningstar is not a flail, even if it has a spiky ball for a head.

And when it comes to the flail - the main reason why enthusiasts and historians seem to debate if the flail was a weapon is that there's somewhat limited amount of data. On top of that, the data consists of depictions and stories, and a fair amount of weapons in the museums, but some argue that they are all later made replicas, therefore, not necessarily an actual proof of flails being legitimate medieval weapons.

I have looked at various people’s opinions on this, and one of the points I keep agreeing with is - if they are all replicas… that is a lot of replicas. Conspiracy theory amount of replicas.

Furthermore, you can find several German martial arts manuals (15th -17th century) that include ‘how-to’ for using  the peasant flail as both defensive and offensive weapon. If there were tutorials around, surely that’s proof enough. A tool used by the common folk to defend or harm is still a weapon.

And then there’s the fact that Kisten could be traced back to Asia, where their version of the flail used for threshing rice eventually morphed into nunchaku and three-part-staff.

So the history can be a bit murky, but it’s almost hard to come to a conclusion that flails were not used or adapted as weapons. It seems that this is a question of skepticism - if the sceptic in you is strong, you will deem the data as not enough proof. I digress.

You know who isn't too skeptical and just wants to have fun? Wizards of the Coast.

Dungeons and Dragons

Multiple video games and TTRPGS use medieval weapons, depicting them as accurately or loosely as they please. One of the most popular ones being Dungeons and Dragons.

The game has multiple versions, and while this might enrage many, I will use the 5e edition stats and player’s commentary about it as the basis for answering the question “Should I pick a flail or a morningstar for my character” .

They are both one-handed martial melee weapons, doing the same amount (1d8) of different types (bludgeoning vs piercing) damage, with no properties. Morningstar is a bit more heavy and a bit more expensive.

So technically there aren’t too many differences between the two weapons, and you would choose one over the other based on your own visual / stylistic character choices, maybe feel of the character, and potentially the damage type.

Now what?

Weapons come in all various shapes, sizes and uses - sometimes those shapes and sizes and uses change and adapt over time, and the line between them can seem blurry. Tools can be used as blunt weapons and can become sharp weapons if you stick needles in them - desperate times call for desperate measures.

If you want to be historically accurate, although some historians will still argue with you about flails - no flail is a morningstar, and no morningstar is a flail. Morningstar’s signature spiky sphere being adapted for other types of weapons is just a natural progression. And sometimes the progression will leave some confusion in its wake.

And if you play DnD, you can forget the historians and just figure out if your character wants to smash things with a stick, or a stick with a flaily bit. As long as you’re having fun. With violence.