N. Indian Hammer Flail

[Turkoman.khan]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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.

[Tim Simmons]

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.

[Tim Simmons]

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

[Turkoman.khan]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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

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.

[Tim Simmons]

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.

[Tim Simmons]

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

[Turkoman.khan]

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

[Turkoman.khan]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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.

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?