N. Indian Hammer Flail

[Nihl]

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".

[Tim Simmons]

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.

[Tim Simmons]

https://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/ind...-62/index.html

[Tim Simmons]

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

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

[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

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?