Nowadays
when we use the word “tinderbox” we are usually speaking metaphorically. To
many of our ancestors this meant something more sophisticated than a simple
container of tinder. I suspect some of our ancestors would have had a good
chuckle at the performance some outdoorsman make of using a flint and steel!
During
my recent researches I came across a number of tinderboxes of the following
pattern:
Essentially
the box has two compartments. One compartment contains a flint and steel and a
number of sulphur matches. The other compartment contains a pad of charcloth. A
wooden damper fits into the second compartment. In some example the tinderbox
only holds the charcloth and damper, the other components being kept
separately.
When
fire was needed the flint and steel was struck so that sparks landed on the
charcloth. Charcloth has a very low ignition temperature so is well suited to
use with flint and steel. Once the charcloth is burning it is used to light one
of the sulphur matches. The match is used to transfer the flame to you
kindling, clay pipe or wherever else you need it. The damper is used to snuff
out the burning charcloth until it is needed again. In some examples replacing
the tight lid may have been enough to extinguish the flame.
An
interesting component of this system were the sulphur matches. If you look at the
boxes of some brands of modern matches you may still find the statement that
they are “self-igniting” or similar. This is because matches as we know them
are a relatively new invention. For centuries the word match meant something
like the burning cord of a matchlock or the sulphur matches in a tinderbox.
Sulphur
matches were also known as brimstone matches or spunks. They are simply strips
of wood with each end dipped in molten sulphur and allowed to dry. Commonly
they were made and sold by street vendors. Below is a nice video on making
sulphur matches.
I
am not sure where or when was the first time I encountered the idea of
charcloth. Over the decades I have lived in a variety of locations, none of
which had a garden so certain experiments could not be conducted. The making
and testing of charcloth was one of these. Today’s blog will mainly pass on
some links and impressions.
To
make charcloth you need some form of vessel. This needs to be nearly airtight,
only requiring a small hole for pressure equalisation and to allow the escape
of smoke. The internet shows a number of different vessels used. One of the
most practical uses a soda can. Sadly, these can often be found in wilderness
areas. The vessel is made by cutting the can in half and slitting the walls of
the lower part so the upper can fit snuggly over it. The tab is pushed back up
so only a small vent hole remains.
The
bottom of the can is packed with torn-up pieces of old cloth. These can be
cotton, linen or any other vegetable derived cloth. You can use some of the cotton wool you got for the fire kit! No synthetics or mixes. The
upper half of the can is fitted and the can placed on a heat source. The heat
source can be a campfire, barbeque or camp stove but it should be outside since
the charring cloth will produce a lot of smoke.
Continue
to heat your vessel while the smoke is produced. Once the smoke production begins
to die off carefully remove the can from the heat and put it to one side to
cool. Give this plenty of time. If you try to open the can while the contents
are still hot you will probably burn your fingers and the inrush of oxygen will
cause the charcloth to catch fire.
Once
cool, you should have some charcloth, suitable for tinder.
Charcloth
is sometimes called charpaper. Charcloth is made from vegetable materials so an
obvious question is can you make charpaper from paper? We seem to spend much of
our lives surrounded by excess paper, so why not turn them into something more
useful?
This
video shows an interesting method for making charpaper from a paper tissue. It
might work with other layered pages too.
Can
you char paper in a vessel in the same way you process cloth? From what research
that I have been able to do the result resembles burnt newspaper. It may take a
spark but has little structural strength, making it less than practical. Waste
cardboard, on the other hand, may be more practical. I have encountered
suggestions that newspaper should first be mixed with water to form a sort of papier-mâché, allowed to dry
into a solid mass and then charred in a vessel. This seems a bit involved and I
wonder if the lengthy drying phase can be done away with given that you will be
heating the mass anyway.
Both
cardboard and wet paper are materials worth experimenting with for charpaper
production. Alas, I will have to leave that to those who have better access to
the open air than myself.
A
couple of recent blog posts have been about fire and cooking and I intend to
make a few more on this subject in the near future. Continuing the tradition
that Friday posts are a little more “off-topic” I will relate the following
story from my past.
I
had recently brought a couple of those alcohol gel stoves that resemble a paint
tin with a pot stand. These were a relatively new innovation back then. Hence,
when visiting the family home for the weekend I took one with me to show my
younger brother.
As
many readers will know, these are fairly simple to use. You light the gel. You
place the pot stand in place and heat your cooking vessel over the flame. Once
you are done you replace the lid, which cuts off the oxygen and extinguished
the flame. The one I had was more like a paint tin than the screw-capped example above.
Pretty
foolproof, you’d think?
I
show the stove to my brother, who is in his bedroom. He removes the lid and
regards the clear gel inside.
“Lighter!”
he demands from his friend.
The
gel lights immediately and a tall flame rapidly grows. After a few seconds of
admiring this, my brother asks:-
“How
do you put it out?”
“You
just put the lid back on.”
For
some reason my brother decides that this does not mean to replace the tight
fitting lid exactly as it was. What passes for logic in his mind tells him the concave
upper side of the lid will be better at snuffing out a flame.
He
throws the lid upside down onto the flame. Naturally enough the flame licks
around the edges and ignites a large blob of alcohol gel that had adhered to
the bottom of the lid, which is now uppermost. The flame notably increases in
size as the lid is now on fire!
I
wasn’t doing much at this point, stunned and amused by the stupidity of what he
had done. The primary means for extinguishing the flame is itself now on fire.
My
brother snatches up a shoe from the floor and uses it to swat at the flame. As
he raises his hand for a second blow there is a burning circle of fire on the
sole of the shoe.
I
don’t recall how he actually extinguished the stove. All I can remember decades
later was how hard I was laughing at him setting his shoe on fire.
The
moral is, never assume something is foolproof. Fools are always greater than
you think.
In brief, the author (Dr. Sturtevant) offers a hypothesis that the military flail never existed and that all (not just some) examples in museums are fakes. A friend has made the criticism that his main argument is that “flails were too difficult to use”.
“An interesting idea” was my first reaction. The second was “what about Japan?” The Japanese are known to have used a variety of chain weapons. Best known, perhaps, is the kusarigama, literally a chain (kusari) and sickle (kama). Voiced and voiceless consonants often swap in translated Japanese so kama can become gama and kusari gusari. Some kusarigama have the chain attached to the butt end of the kama, others have it attached at the head. Some have two chains attached to the head and there are variants that have one chain attached to the head and another at the butt. Some examples have the chain attached by a long hook or clip so the chain can be easily detached. The term “kusarigama” is also used for two kama joined together by a length of chain but that variant does not really concern us here.
If anything, you would expect a kama with a weighted chain to be harder to use than a simpler ball and chain without the blade. Yet, there are a number of ryu that include the kusarigama as a weapon and have a variety of techniques for using it. Kusarigama with the chain at the butt were typically used with the kama in one hand and the chain in the other. Those with a head-mounted chain were used single-handed and therefore give us some indication of how a short-handled ball flail might be used. Notably many ryu consider the kusarigama to be a “secret” weapon. More on that point later.
In another post I have talked about the chigiriki. This is similar to the familiar European medieval ball and chain flail but a two-handed weapon. Serge Mol’s “Classical Weapons of Japan” shows a variety of other chain weapons. Simplest is a chain with a weight at one end and a loop of chain at the other. The text mentions variations of this that had handles. The manrikigusari is a short chain with a weight at each end. This weapon has become relatively familiar in the west due to the popularity of the book “Spike and Chain”/ “Ninja Spike and Chain” by Charles V Grusanski. Another Japanese weapon has a weight, chain and iron truncheon. It looks like the stereotypical medieval ball and chain other than being all metal. A version with a wooden truncheon also existed.
Another weapon common in the east are the numchukas, derived from the Asian rice flail.
I had a quick glance at Cameron Stone’s book (A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: in All Countries and in All Times). He lists China and India as also being users of the flail.
If all flails are fakes, it was certainly widespread and comprehensive!
Dr. Sturtevant does state that he does not contest the existence of the long-handled flails derived from peasant tools and made with rope or leather. His stance is that it is short-handled ball flails that are fallacies The illustrations in the article only show ball flails, although at least one appears to be long-handled.
Contemporary illustrations of the use of the ball and chain are relatively hard to find on the internet. Relatively hard, that is, unless you start on Wikipedia. Dr. Sturtevant actually uses some of these illustrations in his article. One of his arguments is that the figures using flails in some of these paintings are fantasy figures. For example, in one case they are meant to represent middle-eastern horsemen but are dressed as European knights. Many medieval painters depicted ancient events such as the Siege of Troy or Biblical scenes using contemporary weapons and armour. Lacking the body of archaeological knowledge we now have they assumed fashions had not changed much. Such paintings give us considerable information about what was in use at the time that the painting was painted. I expect many medieval painters had the same approach to the depiction of events in far-off lands that they had never visited. A middle-eastern warrior would be painted as European knight and the artist would base this on the contemporary equipment he was familiar with. It was easier to copy these than to invent.
From 1025
Whilst illustrations of the ball and chain are relatively rare, this is not the case for the long-handled bar-flail, aka the “peasant flail”. For completeness I will include some.
This page has information on a pre-1579 manual that includes techniques for using the peasant flail. The two-handed bar-flail was an implement used to thresh grain. There can be little argument that it existed. There are numerous contemporary depictions of peasants and soldiers carrying and using them. In many illustrations these flails have been “weaponized” with the addition of spikes or iron banding. Some even have a catch so the swingle (head) does not swing around during prolonged marches.
Franz Kottenkamp’s “The History of Chivalry and Armour” (p.77) provided some useful information:
“The Morgenstern, or spike-covered club varied in its dimensions. according to Meyrick (Sir Samuel R Meyrick, Armour I, p.19), its staff was from two to five feet long, and the chain on which the ball was suspended, even exceeded the length of five feet. The balls, spiked or in the form of a channelled melon, weighed eight pounds in some specimens. Single or triple chains connected the balls with the handles. This weapon did not constitute a part of knightly armour. It was employed by German citizens and the Switzers (Swiss), and surpassed in size and weight the corresponding weapons of other nations. The French probably became acquainted with it, during the sieges of the cities in Flanders.”
Earlier in the same paragraph Kottenkamp talks about the plebeian bodyguards of princes armed with clubs. It is unclear if these clubs were flails.
Very clearly the weapon described by Meyrick is not a description of a farm implement that has been pressed into service. It ball and chain weapon that existed in both short-handled and long-handed forms.
The statement that the flail was not one of the prescribed knightly weapons is informative. In other words a knight was not obligated to learn how to use this weapon. There was no restriction on using the weapon, however. Knights who favoured the flail for any reason would use it. It was an unusual weapon for a knight. Understandably, depictions or descriptions of knights using flails are therefore relatively rare.
One of the objections to articulated weapons is that they are difficult to use. Using them effectively needs more training and familiarisation than some other weapons.
For the long-handled bar flail this argument is easily countered. A peasant would spend a big chunk of the harvesting season wielding a flail. Using one in battle would not be that different. From this page on the Chinese “big sweeper” we have this informative quote:
“The flail was used as though it were threshing, with the women striking the men outside the walls.”
The weapon is being used by women, who were presumably not trained warriors and may even have been unused to threshing as farm work. The peasant flail and big sweeper have long handles and relatively shorter head sections. The probability of the head section hitting the user is very remote.
It is potentially possible to block the head of a bar-flail. The more compact head of the ball-flail addresses this. The length of a chain was selected so that the weight would not swing down and strike the hand holding the handle. The chain was either at least a hand-width shorter than the shaft or was the same length or longer. In all cases the weight would not hang at the same level at which the handle was gripped.
Articulated weapons can behave differently to rigid ones, which is why the user needs to have achieved a greater level of proficiency and familiarity. A swinging chain has a considerable reach and can threaten a large area. Nearby obstacles or obstructions can affect its behaviour. A flailman could hit a nearby comrade or entangle his weapon in an overhead branch. Learning to be aware of your surroundings and those of your intended target was a component of mastering the weapon.
If a weight on a chain encounters an object it can sometimes rebound toward the user. This is known as “snapback”. Snapback is not really a problem if the head and chain is shorter than the handle. At worst, the head will slap against the shaft well above the hand. Some flails use a longer chain, however. In these cases the potential problem of snapback is countered by correct technique. Flail strikes are made with a follow through as though the hit was being pulled through the target. Any snapbacks are overcome by the overall momentum in another direction. The physicists among you will hopefully forgive me if I have termed that wrong. See the video below for a better explanation from an actual short-handled flail user.
Another “quirk” of articulated weapons might be termed a “deadstop”. The head puts all of its energy into a target and just stops and drops. Correct follow through partially addresses this. The user also learns to recognise when this happens and how to restore momentum to the head by techniques such as a quick wrist rotation.
The Japanese ryu can give us some useful insight into how the European weapons may have been used. The chapter on chain weapons in Serge Mol’s “Classical Weapons of Japan” proved very useful here. The chigiriki chapter in Sid Cambell’s “Exotic Weapons of the Ninja” was also quite insightful.
A static chain is very little threat. To attack a ball and chain must either be moving or in a position from which it can easily begin moving. Some chain-fighting ryu recommend that a chain be spun at about 80 rpm. Obviously the idea that you can step in to attack after a chain has passed is not practical against such techniques.
Strikes with a chain are made with a follow through, which naturally leads to the use of circling and figure-eight movements to keep the weapon in motion and make successive strike attempts.
I have some familiarity with the manrikigusari. Spinning and figure-eight movements are complimented by halting the chain and quickly returning it to a position from which a new strike can be made. This is done by catching the chain and sliding the hand towards the head to bring the weapon back under control. Potentially this could have been done with the short-handled European ball flail. Possibly a spinning chain could be slowed by impacting the head with the ground or intercepting the chain with your own shield edge. Since the flail was not really a knightly weapon it seems to be neglected by most of the contemporary manuals so we do not know if this was actually done.
The flail was not a weapon for use in a packed infantry formation. The flail was of little use in slowing down massed cavalry. Flail-armed troops probably only formed a small proportion of an infantry formation. Flails were probably used to compliment more commonplace weapons. If cavalry were stalled by spears or pikes flails were useful in the following melee. A flail could take a heavily armoured man from the saddle or bring down his horse. In later periods pike squares included halberdiers who sallied forth once an enemy was locked in combat with a square. Flail equipped troops were probably used in the same way. The reach and power of a flail made it a useful weapon for fighting across obstacles. The quotation above describes the flail used to defend a city wall. The two-handed flail is often associated with the Hussites and regarded as the national weapon. It would be a useful weapon for use from a Wagenburg. For the horseman who had learnt to use it the flail offered both reach and power.
I suspect that the “tail” position from sword fighting was often used with flails. This has the weapon held pointed to the rear at a low or medium level. This is a deceptive and menacing position from which powerful attacks can be thrown from a variety of angles. If a shield is used it obscures the enemy's view of what the weapon is doing. You often see the tail position used in the movie “House of Flying Daggers”. The only photo I could find shows the swords held higher than is usual.
A blow from a competently wielded flail could reach over, under or around an enemy shield. This could compliment the attacks of more conventional weapons. For example, as a spearman caused a foe to raise his shield a comrade with a flail could strike beneath.
Earlier I mentioned that many Japanese ryu regarded their chain weapons as “secret” weapons. In many cases they were not weapons for the battlefield or duelling but for more personal defensive encounters and self-defence. The kusarigama is considered to be one of the weapons suited for use by women. It was probably a weapon that many sword-armed aggressors would have been unfamiliar with. Like the naginata the kusarigama offered superior reach and power compared to a sword. Ninja are also associated with a variety of chain weapons. Chain weapons offered reach and power in an easily concealed package. During night combat the chain would be even harder to see and avoid.
If Kottenkamp is describing bodyguards armed with flails then one can see some logic in the choice. The plebeian bodyguard was a professional fighter rather than a levy so could be expected to put time into mastering a difficult weapon if it offered an advantage.
