N. Indian Hammer Flail
 

I have mentioned before that I have actually stopped collecting. However I came across this today. Out of my comfort zone which is not usually a sensible thing to due. I am confident it is Indian and most probably late 19th century. To me a very difficult weapon to be master of, but if you where skilled in handling within a squad or the right circumstance very intimidating and effective. It is going to take some time to clean up. Will show pics when cleaned.

Hello Tim.

This is a very strange item...
1) I am very confused by the handle. The place that you need to hold in your hand is very thick and, moreover, expands at the bottom. I think it's very inconvenient.
2) Mounting on a screw is also very unusual for Oriental Arms, in particular for Indian Arms.
3) Large spikes in the form of "pyramids" are also, as far as I remember, not typical of Indian Arms

Hi Tim, I think you are spot on about this being from the late 19th century. However, because of that, I think it's important to keep in mind that any Indian "weapons" coming from that time period are rarely intended to actually function as such, and are instead near exclusively made for tourists. Consistent bans on weapon making and the practicing of martial arts by the british severely reduced local production of real weapons to only a handful of permitted princely states (most famously those in Rajasthan). As such, most of what was produced in this period was intended to appeal to colonial tourists; seen as "curiosa" that could be potentially added to their personal collection back home. Nowadays I've seen the term "historismus" used to describe these items that vaguely resemble native weapons, but were really intended for display and tourist consumption.

I don't mean to be too harsh in my notes here, or "take the wind out of your sails" as they say, but I think it really is important to have a realistic understanding of these "weapons".

That is the best I can do without taking metal away . The rest will be done with a rust remover solution. I am happy with your comments. I shall add research that backs things like this were weapons but as with many fine swords and weapons in our collections many if not most were never used as such.

like this
 

Pyramid spikes
 

https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ject-1589.html

Wealth always has a bearing on the style and quality of weapons used or not.

I have no questions about this item from the museum. But the same questions about your item remain...
By the way, about spikes. Look again at the photograph of the spikes on the flail from the museum. They are long and thin. On your subject they are thick and not sharp. Spikes like those on your flail are more suitable for destroying European armor.

Just a small thought. The screw is part of the spike to stop the spike from moving back on the impact on what ever. If not meant to be used why have a system that stops the spike from moving. The handle grip is wide because the item is relatively heavy and swing it around you need a firm grip. I often wonder why there usually always a problem with variants. I am well aware of the spikes on the much older and high quality museum weapon. Also being considerably shorter more grip is needed.

Does a smaller spike mean that it does not hurt a person who is not wearing plate armour?

Ok. Let's say I agree with your reasoning. But, holding the handle, which tapers towards the "shock part" is extremely inconvenient. Why then not make it the same diameter along the entire length, where it is planned to hold the handle with your hand?
Now about the screw. As I understand it, in this case, the "thorn" must perform the function that the "Zagnol" performs. I have never seen such a complex structure in a "Zagnol". Why is it needed, if it can be done much easier?

I'm talking about something else. On objects with spikes from India of the 19th century known to me (flails and maces), the spikes are long and thin, like on an object from a museum.
There are too many inconsistencies (unnecessarily complex and completely unnecessary design, a strangely illogical handle and spikes on the flail balls).
I don't think this is India. I think the item is made in Europe for the interior. But, I will gladly admit my mistake if you show a similar object from the museum.

Another thought. If you ignore the chain and spike balls. What is left is a hammer spike that looks very much like something from the Sudan. The simple decoration on the hammer end is very Sudan work. The Sudanese versions of Indopersian weapons are in unusual form and of much simpler construction. I have had a few Sudanese spike axes constructed in the same way wood haft and ball end rather than all steel like the Indopersian originals. This may be why the spike balls do not satisfy Indian collectors, but would not surprise me.

I might also add rather odd construction for a European product.

Yes. As I said - a very strange object. I find it very inconvenient to use.

trying not to be a bore
 

Okay cleaned this up.

I think there is a chance this is Sudanese, if there were thuluth then there would be no questions. Take pics of this axe I once had. Nice forged blade slipped on to a piece of steel pipe. Although I never tried to unscrew the spear top I bet it is screwed in. The end is also a piece of steel pipe, the haft being wood. The pictures will come all mixed so you will need to concentrate.

Now to the pics of the Flail components. If you look carefully you can see that the thread on the screw thing is hand cut and the eye thing is hand forged. I am not an expert but this seems a little odd for late 19th century industry supplied European work. The spike is assembled on a piece of steel pipe as is the thuluth axe. I am not able to show now, but on the acid etch cleaning of the spike you could see the mix of forged steels which again seems odd in industrial supplied Europe. The screw bit on the spike is riveted in the same manner and as I said earlier to secure the spike on impact. The ball pieces on the haft are rather simply cast as you can see by the irregular hole. I shall leave it at that. Make your own mind up as have I. If you can show mw a similar constructed European version then it will be settled.

Excellent Sudanese axes. I like very much. Can be used as a weapon.
Let's take another look at your photos. I see a "war hammer". But his "thorn" is strangely turned. In order to fight, it would be logical to deploy it, as I do in the first photo.
Now about the second photo. Do you think that such a connection of flail balls with a handle is reliable? Ok, let's say this connection is reliable. But why so many difficulties, if you can make a connection by simply making a hole in the handle and fixing the ring in it?

The fact that this piece is screwed together settles it for me. Real indian weapons weren't made to be disassembled like this, and certainly not with a screw thread. This object is purely decorative and was never made to be used (imho).

Unless someone hit you with it. I think a lot of simple weapons where made in the Mahdist period and may well have been used. I see no reason why the axe for example would not be able to slice half an opponents face off. The flail in the mediaeval Mahdist army melee would surly hurt one or two.

Undoubtedly!!!

It is certainly an interesting and curious object. But, I don't think anyone has ever used it as a weapon. The Sudanese Mahdists would not make such complex, awkward and impractical designs...
This is a good item for the interior.