N. Indian Hammer Flail

[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.

[Tim Simmons]

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.

[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?