The Somme: 100 Years

July 1, 2016 marks an important anniversary; 100 years ago the Battle of the Somme began. Usually I try to pick somewhat lighter topics for this blog, but this is a something that is very close to my heart. It is one of the most tragic stories in human history, and it's one that many Americans know very little about. I am not going to get into the gritty details about tactical dispositions or strategic plans; those are available elsewhere online and I will post some sources at the end of this blog if you'd like to read more about the Somme or the war. Instead I want to give you a very brief overview of the first day, and I want to try to convey the horrors experienced by the British soldiers there.

Exhausted French soldiers of the 87th Infantry Regiment at Verdun

By 1916 the Western Front of the First World War had devolved into trench warfare, a slow, constant slugging match in which neither side could make significant gains. To change this, the leaders of Russia, Britain, and France agreed to a massive assault scheduled for the summer to overwhelm the defenses of the German Empire and end the war. However, before things could get going, the Germans launched their own massive assault against the French, beginning the Battle of Verdun in February 1916. This battle became a meat grinder which dragged on for months, badly weakening the French army. As a result the British, who had originally been planning to perform only a supporting role in the upcoming offensive, became the main attackers in an updated plan. 

Allied mine explodes under German positions on the day of the attack.

In brief, the plan was for 13 British divisions supported by 6 French divisions to capture a number of German forward positions which could later be used to launch further attacks. Preparations for the offensive were significant; the British alone fired over 1,500,000 artillery rounds at German positions and allied aircraft flew reconnaissance missions to map out in detail the German positions. Tunnels were dug and packed with explosives to be detonated on the day of the attack. The allied commanders believed that things would go off without a hitch. 

The morning of July 1st thousands of artillery shells were fired and the mines were detonated. Officers blew their whistles and men went over the top. 

British soldiers train to go "over the top". 

The British attack was a bloodbath. 

While it had some early successes, many of the German positions were too well prepared. German infantrymen had survived bombardments in deep bunkers and galleries. In some cases entire platoons were simply scythed down by machine gun fire seconds after they emerged from their trenches. Entire battalions were wiped out in minutes. In a few areas the British artillery had been more effective and the advancing infantry were able to capture German positions. However, in nearly every case the Germans counter-attacked and overran the now-defending British who had been isolated by their own or enemy artillery fire and cutoff without support. 

Irish troops advance.

In one case, the Devonshire Regiment lost 161 men killed. Some of the men had fallen in their own trenches, others in no-man's land, and some had died storming German positions. At the end of July 1 brief truces were called to bury bodies, and the Devonshire men were taken back to their own lines for burial. Three days later a wooden cross was erected where they were buried. It read simply "The Devonshires held this trench, the Devonshires hold it still." After the war a permanent marker was put up in the spot which read the same. 

At the end of the day, the gains made had been minimal. The French attacks were more successful for a variety of reasons I won't get into, but basically boil down to a combination of weaker targets, better artillery, and better command and organization. 

Opposing Trench Lines During the Battle

I think the best way to sum up the battle is in the following quote, made by a British Captain remembering the end of the first day. 

The trench was a horrible sight. The dead were stretched out on one side, one of top of each other six feet high. I thought at the time I should never get that peculiar disgusting smell of the vapor of warm human blood heated by the sun out of my nostrils. I would rather have smelt gas a hundred times. I can never describe that faint, sickening, horrible smell which several times nearly knocked me up altogether. 

19,240 British men gave their lives on that day, and altogether their casualties numbered some some 57,470. It was the deadliest single day in British military history. To put the numbers in context, the deadliest day in American history was the Battle of Antietam during the Civil War. On that day, both the Union and the Confederacy lost a combined total of around 7,650 men killed.

Not all of the British casualties were from the British Isles. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment from Canada sent 780 men into battle. Only 110 were alive and in fighting condition at the end of the day.

The Battle of the Somme dragged on until November of 1916, by which time the combined Allied losses were nearing 800,000. For this sacrifice, the British and French had managed to take 6 miles of territory. This equals out to something like 25 men killed, missing, or wounded for each foot of ground taken. 

In the end the Somme, most especially the first day, was a massive, tragic waste of lives which is usually summarized by even the most pro-British historians as "inconclusive". The trauma of the battle would remain in British minds for decades and continues to reverberate today. In all of Great Britain and Ireland, only 53 villages or towns lost no young men to the war. Despite early writers describing the battle as a hard-fought victory full of valiant sacrifice, the Somme has now become a byword for the futility of war.

Thiepval Memorial to the more than 70,000 missing French and British soldiers of the Somme

If you would like to learn more about the Somme, there are a number of great sources available. For details about the first day, Martin Middlebrooks' "The First Day on the Somme" is fantastic. For the larger battle check out Peter Hart's "The Somme". I haven't had a chance to pick this up but Hart has written extensively on the First World War and his prose is simple and easy to read while remaining interested and jam packed full of information. For a larger view of the war, check out John Keegan's "The First World War". 

I'm not sure what our next topic will be, but I will try to pick something a little lighter. See you next time! 

Random Facts #4: SEGA and the Occupation of Japan

Gotta go Fast!

What does the military have to do with SEGA? Quite a lot actually, at least in the company's early history. SEGA was actually founded in the 1930's Hawaii. With the expansion of the armed forces leading up to World War II, the military leadership began looking for ways to affordably keep large numbers of new recruits entertained. Many training depots and bases were located in remote areas, and keeping men entertained was essential; boredom could wreak havoc on morale and large numbers of young men in one area with nothing to do and lots of training for aggressiveness could lead to any number of problems.

Greatest Generation Indeed

Seeing an opportunity, a group of men in Hawaii founded a company called Standard Games. They made cheap, coin operated games and slot machines which they marketed to military installations and nearby businesses. The military jumped on the idea and soon these machines could be found in military facilities all over Hawaii. After the war, the company split in two: Standard Games continued to make these machines for a civilian market, while a military-focused subsidiary was formed and branded "Service Games" for "Military Service" and the colloquial "service".

Soon new government regulation made marketing their successful slot machines difficult, and to keep up production Service Games opened a branch, Service Games Japan, in Tokyo. Japan had been occupied by American armed forces in the immediate aftermath of World War II, and until 1952 when the occupation officially ended millions of servicemen and women from all branches would rotate through the country. Even after the end of the official occupation, the US military maintained a large presence on the island (especially Okinawa and near Tokyo) which continues to this day.

Douglas MacArthur and the Showa Emperor

MacArthur and later American commanders in Japan were extremely concerned about the behavior of their men in the occupied country (I should note that this concern continues and is growing: the Navy just had to ban all drinking for US forces in Japan due to the criminal activity of American servicemen). The populace was potentially extremely aggressive, and victorious Americans living in what many considered a "conquered" territory could be a disastrous mix; rapes and other sex crimes, theft, assaults, and numerous other crimes were committed by bored and vengeful young Americans.To stem this, the occupation forces command and the Japanese government implemented programs to try to curb these excesses. The Japanese government, from 1945 to 1946, even operated official government-run brothels, termed the "Recreation and Amusement Association," which would cater solely to Americans! By 1946 the occupation command stepped in to shut these establishments down; officially on moral grounds, but in actuality because they led to massive spikes in venereal disease outbreaks.

I wonder how many of our grandpas are in this picture? Ew... 

In the 1950's Service Games began producing their games in Japan to be sold on American installations, and they became a huge success. Before the Korean War young Americans stationed in Japan couldn't find much to keep them entertained; much of Japan continued to be in ruins, the brothels had been officially closed and declared off-limits (this obviously didn't stop many servicemen), sightseeing could only fill so much time, and drinking wasn't appealing to all men all of the time. Military arcades proved to be an excellent solution; they filled the time and emptied pockets of money that may have been spent on gambling, alcohol, and other potentially harmful activities.

I can't imagine this was good for morale or discipline...

Meanwhile, a man named David Rosen was founding his own company. Rosen had been an officer in the Army Air Corps serving in the Pacific during the war, and he had been one of the Americans stationed in Japan at the end of the war. On his retirement in 1952 he decided to stay in Japan; he had come to like the country and saw massive business potential in the rapidly rebuilding nation. He founded a company called Rosen Enterprises, which specialized in selling Japanese art to people living in America, and photo booth shops which the local Japanese needed because of the many photo ID cards required by the new government. By 1957, seeing the success of Service Games, Rosen had shifted his focus to opening arcades across Japan for both the American military and native population. 

SEGA Slot Machine

In America Standard Games was forced to close as regulation increasingly clamped down on gambling, but in Japan Service Games thrived. They re-branded using the Japanese form of their name, Nihon Goraku Bussan, for official purposes but decided on something a bit easier for marketing and PR purposes: SEGA (SErvice GAmes). In the 1960's they merged with Rosen merged his company with SEGA, forming the company we know today. 

Keeping on with the military theme, the first truly successful arcade game for the company was developed by Rosen in 1966, and was called Periscope. The game wasn't really a video game: cardboard ships on an ocean backdrop were moved mechanically while the player used a periscope to target the ships with "torpedoes" made from lines of small lights. It became massively successful in Japan, especially with Navy personnel stationed there, and the next year was released to American arcades. Despite costing 25 cents, a decent sum of money at a time when a Coke was only 10 cents, the game did exceptionally well and is sometimes partially credited with helping to popularize arcades before the advent of modern video games. 

True high definition action

The company was eventually bought out by Gulf and Western and made a subsidiary, but Rosen continued as chairman through the company's golden era before retiring in the 1990ss.

Hopefully you found this as interesting as I did when I stumbled on the basic story earlier this week! 

Random Facts #3: "The Mad Piper," Bill MIllin

In honor of June 6, I thought I'd do a post on one of the men to have hit the beaches on D-Day. 

William "Bill" Millin was born in Canada in 1922 but was raised near Glasgow, Scotland where his father was from. He joined the Territorial Army (similar to our National Guard) after school, and became a bagpiper for Scottish highland regiments. At one time the Pipers had had an important role: in addition to boosting morale and setting marching paces with their pipes, they acted as stretcher-bearers evacuating the wounded in Scottish regiments. By the time Milliin joined though, they served a ceremonial role and weren't expected to play in combat. Upon the commencement of hostilities, Millin volunteered for training with the British commandos, where he met Brigadier General Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat. Fraser was the chief of the Scottish Lovat Clan and commanded Number 4 Commando. Millin soon became Lord Lovat's personal piper. 

In the run-up to D-Day Lovat, a bit of a traditionalist, insisted that Millin bring his pipes into combat. The 21-year-old Millin cited army regulations expressly forbidding this, but Lovat claimed that these regulations only applied to English units and as Scotsmen, they were exempt. As the ships left England, he struck up a tune which was relayed over the speakers of nearby troop ships, which raised a cheer as they heard the song. 

Millin disembarking at Sword Beach; you can see his pipes near his face.

After hitting the water, Millin began playing the tune Highland Laddie. Millin was carrying only his pipes and a traditional Scottish knife, and is believed to have been the only man on the beach that morning wearing a kilt; he claimed in later life to have not been wearing any underwear. He continued throughout the morning, calmly walking along the beach and playing as men were hit all around him. After the battle captured Germans from Sword Beach claimed that they had avoided hitting Millin as they believed that he was insane. 

After leaving the beach, the unit moved off towards their next objective at Pegasus Bridge, a strategic crossing which had been captured by British glider infantry earlier in the day. During the march Millin continued to play, stopping only once while Lord Lovat himself killed a German sniper who had been shooting at the unit. On arriving at the town of Benouville they again came under fire and Lovat ordered Millin to run down the street with the other commandos. Millin instead calmly marched, again without being hit, boosting his fellows' morale. 

On arrival at Pegasus Bridge, the commandos crossed despite being warned that it was covered by enemy snipers. Millin calmly marched across while playing, despite 12 more of his comrades being killed. He later stated that the bridge seemed "very long." During the whole day, Millin was hit only once by shrapnel which damaged the bellows of his pipes (they remained functional). He was otherwise unharmed. 

Millin was portrayed in the film "The Longest Day" by Pipe Major Leslie de Laspee

After D-Day Millin served in Holland, before being demobilized after the war. He worked briefly for Lord Lovat on his estate, before becoming a nurse specializing in the care of those with psychological problems. He continued to play the pipes at events around the UK, and talked widely about his experiences. In 1962 Millin was featured in the film 'The Longest Day", where he was played by official piper to the Queen, Pipe Major Leslie de Laspee. He played the pipes at Lord Lovat's funeral in 1995. He passed away in 2010 at the age of 88, 

Statue of Millin at Sword Beach

Random Facts #2: The Fury of the Sacred Chickens

I love ancient Roman history. It comes in a close second behind medieval history for my all-time favorite subjects. It's one of those few periods where everything to study fascinates me; social systems, politics, military science, economics, and religion. Roman history is full of the weird and wonderful, and I'm going to share with you today my personal favorite story.

Sacred Chicken and his pet priests

Strangely, when a lot of people think about the Romans, they neglect to remember Roman religion. But for this story to make sense, you have to remember that the Romans were a deeply religious people; gladiatorial games originated as religious festivals, the Pantheon was a temple, and there is a reason that they got upset when various groups refused to acknowledge dead emperors as gods.

That or the Romans built the largest free-standing dome in the world because they just really liked circles!

Our story takes place in 249 BCE in the middle of the First Punic War. This was a war fought between the Roman Republic and her rival Carthage for supremacy of Sicily and the wider Mediterranean world. The more famous Second Punic War would take place a few decades later; that was the one with Hannibal and elephants marching over the Alps. The first war was largely a naval affair, with several battles between navies being fought for control of Mediterranean waters. Early on, the Romans did extremely poorly in these contests. The Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians who were the greatest sailors and explorers of the ancient world.

This did not end well...

Finally however, the Romans invented a weapon called the Corvus which allowed them to latch onto the more maneuverable enemy ships so that Roman infantry could slaughter the crews. I won't get into specifics here, but Roman naval tactics were really neat and I encourage you to read more about them if you're interested. The war went back and forth, but Rome racked up enough naval victories to make them fairly confident, and in 249 BCE they launched an expedition towards the Sicilian city of Lilybaeum, and that's where our story really gets going.

The commander of this expedition was the senior Roman Consul for that year, Publius Claudius Pulcher. The Romans elected two Consuls every year, and they served as sort of co-presidents of the Roman Republic. One of their main responsibilities were leading major Roman armies, hence Pulcher being involved here. Pulcher decided to attack the harbor of Drepana, where a Carthaginian fleet was anchored; both fleets consisted of about 120 ships, and the Romans were confident.

Now here is where the sacred chickens came in. Sacred Chickens were birds raised by Roman priests and used to predict the future. The early Senate rarely made decisions without consulting these birds, and some of them accompanied Roman field armies. Essentially feed would be spread before the chickens, and the way they ate the feed was used to determine the outcome of a future event. I'm not sure exactly how this was determined, but that's besides the point.

Still more dependable than a TV Psychic...

So as Pulcher lined his fleet up for battle, the sacred chickens were brought onto the deck of his flagship and the major officers and crewman of the fleet gathered around to watch the divination take place. The sacred feed was spread and... nothing. The chickens refused to eat. This was unheard of, and immediately taken as an extremely bad omen, with some of the officers believing that it was a sign that a retreat should immediately be called. Pulcher could see that his men were terrified, and decided to make a joke to keep up morale. It did not go well.

Seriously this story is so weird...

Pulcher plucked (ahem) up the chickens and carried them to the edge of his ship. He then proclaimed "Since they do not wish to eat, then let them drink!" and proceeded to chuck the chickens overboard, where they drowned. We aren't sure of his men's reaction to this, but the battle happened anyway and I bet you can guess how it turned out.

The fuck you say?

Of 120 ships, the Romans lost 93 and most of their men. The Carthaginians lost no ships and only a handful of their men were killed. The battle was a crushing defeat for the Romans, who instantly lost their dominance of the sea. Pulcher survived the battle, but was immediately recalled to Rome. The battle had been such a disaster that the Senate commanded Pulcher to nominate a man as dictator; a person given supreme authority and answerable to nobody during national emergencies. However, the Senate disliked his choice, and decided they'd had enough of Pulcher. He was tried for incompetence, treason and, perhaps equally as bad, sacrilege. According to ancient historians including Cicero and Suetonius, the main piece of evidence against him was his abuse of the sacred chickens. Soon after Pulcher was dead; we aren't sure how, but it is extremely likely that he committed suicide in shame.


And that, boys and girls, is why you don't mess with the sacred chickens. And yeah, I know most of these pictures are of Roosters and not chickens, but bite me.

Random Facts #1: The Red Baron and the Silk Road

In the last couple of weeks I have started to put posts together that, when done, were too short or otherwise unsuited for full-length pieces. However, I am always coming up with interesting tidbits of information while reading or working on projects, and I thought a series would be a great way to share these with everyone. I am going to toy around with the exact format for this new "Random Facts" series of posts, but for now I am hoping they will each be relatively short posts with a minimum of personal opinion interjected in. I am aiming to avoid facts that I feel are are relatively common knowledge (Napoleon wasn't actually short, the vikings didn't have horned helmets, etc.) and I am hoping to focus on areas that are semi-obscure, but we will see! So onto the first post!

What do the Red Baron and the Silk Road have in common? A little background. The Silk Road is a term commonly used to describe a network of trade routes between Asia and Europe in the pre-modern period, which fell into decline for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. Today, the term "Silk Road" is actually a bit controversial within the field of history, if you can believe that as I am sure that many of you, like myself, were taught about this trade route during school and possibly even in survey-level history courses you may have had in college. Why is it controversial?

The Traditional Route of the Silk Road, courtesy of Wikipedia

Trade routes have existed between Asia and Europe and the Middle East basically since complex civilizations developed in the regions, but things really picked up with the building of the Royal Road by the Persians, increased contact with Europe brought on by Alexander's conquests, and then especially with the establishment of the Han Dynasty in China. In addition to silk, a wide variety of trade goods were exchanged, as were cultural and religious ideas, scientific knowledge, etc.

Y'all got any more of those sweet sweet Asian empires? Alexander the Great

The problem with the name "Silk Road" and the traditional image of the route (shown above) is that they are really overly-simplistic. There were a large number of routes, and they connected more than the eastern Mediterranean and China. India, Southeast Asia, East Africa, and the Arabian peninsula were all important areas along these routes of trade. Perhaps the thing that most shocks many people today though is that the term Silk Road itself is that it wasn't used in the ancient or medieval world. It's a modern invention.

The really crazy thing is that this extremely well-known and widely used term was coined by a single man, He wasn't, as you might expect, a historian, or an economist, or anything like that. He was a German geographer and (what we would call today) travel writer. And he single handedly coined the term "Silk Road" in... 1877. Just to put that in perspective, that's 12 years AFTER the end of the American Civil War, one year after the first successful telephone call, and only 26 years before the first aircraft took off. That is extremely recent!

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the 1870's were also the decade that inspired the song "Baby Got Back". 

And now to the point of this post. What was this well-traveled geographer's name? Baron Ferdinand von Richthofen. Richthofen led an interesting life; he traveled widely, including several major expeditions around Asia. He spent year in America, where he used his geographical knowledge to help locate gold fields in California, having a major impact on the California Gold Rush. In addition to his coining of the "Silk Road" name, he pioneered several important geographical concepts. He taught a number of students who went on to have major impacts in the scientific and geographical communities, including Swedish explorer Sven Hedin who was the first European to accurately map Central Asia, and Wilhelm Sievers whose work in South America formed the basis for the modern study of South American geography. His works were considered must-reads in various fields for decades after his death and geographical features were named after him, including one of the highest mountains in the American Rockies.

Ferdinand Richthofen

Pertinent to this post though is that Ferdinand came from a very prominent family. One of Ferdinand's brothers founded the Denver chamber of Commerce and is sometimes considered a founding father of Colorado. One of his cousins was Freida Lawrence, the wife of famed novelist DH Lawrence; her sister Else von Richthofen was one of the first female sociologists in the world. The Richthofens produced scientists, diplomats, academics, and socialites, and even a few military men.

Else von Richthofen

And we finally come to the point. Ferdinand had another brother, Major Albrecht Philipp Karl Julius Freiherr (Freiherr being a German noble title usually translated as "Baron) von Richthofen, who, despite his impressive name was not particularly notable. However, in 1892 Albrecht had a son, whom he named Manfred.

Manfred von Richthofen

You probably know him better by his World War I nickname, the Red Baron. So there you go, The Red Baron's uncle created the "Silk Road", at least in a round about way. For such an interesting family, there is surprisingly little information available about them, at least in English. My sources for this little post were mostly German pieces found online. Despite my best efforts to stay in-practice my German remains rusty, so if any of the information found here is erroneous please let me know! I should note that Manfred's brother also became an Ace, as did his distant cousin Field Marshall Wolfram von Richthofen. Many members of the family immigrated to the United States, including a branch to right here in the Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati area.

I love that history has all of these hidden little connections; it's one of the coolest thing about studying it! This post ran a little longer than i expected, but hopefully you still found it interesting. Let me know if you'd like to see more of these!

Woot!

Just a short blog today about a couple of personal items.

Firstly, I received a very nice gift in the mail yesterday from an anonymous reader. They somehow managed to track down my Amazon Wishlist and ordered me an item from it!

Bully!

I have misplaced the gift note that came with it sometime in the last 24 hours, but it essentially said something along the lines of "From a fan of the blog, keep up the good work." If it was you, please let me know so I can thank you personally! I've added a wishlist link to the sidebar; not that I want or expect anything else! I do this blog purely for fun and to keep up on my own writing, but thank you all the same! Mostly I'm hoping that it'll give you good ideas for books to look into yourself; I add to it pretty regularly just in case you're looking for something to read up on yourself. As you might expect, it's mostly history books, but I do occasionally add non-fiction and a handful of other items as well.


The second thing is that the blog is doing surprisingly well. As of the time of writing I am getting pretty close to 1000 page views. Some of those are me looking at posts to make sure formatting went through correctly, but either way that's way more views than I had expected! Again, thank you so much for your support, it really means a lot to me. I haven't been posting as frequently as I would like (I am trying to shoot for a decent history-related post every few days at least) but I am going to redouble my efforts. If you have any suggestions for posts, please let me know!

Thirdly, As of the time that the bank opens tomorrow and transfers my payment, I have officially paid off my undergraduate loans! I'm still buried in ones from grad school, but regardless I feel extremely relieved not to have those payments to make anymore each month.

Anyway, that is it! See you next time!

Flailing About

Today's post was written at the request of a former professor of mine, and is response to this article. In it, the writer essentially ascertains that the flail either did not exist and was a creation of imaginative medieval artists, or did exist and was an extremely rare experimental weapon solely of late Medieval Europe. The piece is interesting, but unfortunately, I don't believe any of it.

Just to start, a flail was a weapon made of a weight (or weights), sometimes spiked, attached to a short chain which was then attached to a handle. You probably know it better as a morning star or ball and chain, both of which are technically incorrect names but this isn't really the place to get into that discussion. They have historically been used for harvesting grain plants, and were relatively common in one form or another across most of Eurasia since at least Roman times.

A Threshing Flail

At various points in history, these were turned into weapons. This was a pretty common practice in pre-modern warfare; militias, conscripted levies, and the like often used whatever items they had laying around as weapons as pre-modern states rarely had the case or surplus equipment to outfit these levies properly. Over time, many of these improvised weapons were improved upon and modified to become dedicated weapons. My favorite example is the bill.

Not that kind

The bill was a weapon mostly used by the medieval English. It was adopted from the billhook, a type of implement used in forestry and agriculture, used especially for hacking through grapevines, tree branches, and similar tough plant matter. Military bills were adapted from these by being mounted on poles. This produced a highly effective weapon that could be used as a spear or as a long-handled axe, and had the bonus of including a hook which was useful for dismounting cavalrymen, hamstringing horses, and pulling shields or pikes out of the way leaving the bill user's friends an opening to exploit.

That's more like it! A group of reenactors holding bills during an event at Cardiff Castle, Wales.

So, we have some background on adapted weapons and their use. Let's dig into the article a little more, shall we?


The article first cites two books, one stating that the weapon existed but was probably rare, the other stating that they were made up. The first book probably has the right of it; a flail offers few advantages over the much simpler to manufacture and use  mace (basically a highly-specialized club). The second book, from 1968, claims that they never existed, but the author goes into no more detail. 

The criticisms of the flail as a weapon which follow are equally ridiculous. The author states that the weapon was too unwieldy to be used safely, but I am not sure he is actually familiar with melee weapons. Some of the best attested, more common medieval weapons were extremely unwieldy. Two of my personal favorites are the German zweihander (a large, two-handed sword most likely used to batter enemy pikes down) and the viking daneaxe, a massive axe used to hack apart enemy shields in the early middle ages and famously carried by the Byzantine Varangian Guard. These weapons had to be swung in wide arcs to be effective. 

Actual medieval combat probably didn't look quite like the formations you see in film, and they were rarely especially dense as this could spell disaster on the field as men were squeezed together, unable to defend themselves as allegedly happened to the Romans surrounded by Hannibal at Cannae. Additionally, we know that these weapons are completely functional in combat; numerous modern western martial arts and HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) groups practice with the weapon, and using German sources (more on that below) have recreated fighting techniques to figure out how they would have been used in combat situations. Just google "HEMA Flail", there are a ton of YouTube videos showing HEMA members practicing, and some of them are pretty good! We also know that trench weapons were made during the First World War in the shape of flails and the like. We have multiple examples that were used by storm troopers and trench raiders during the war that have survived. 

German WWI Trench Flail, Ca. 1917

The rebound of the weapon is noted, but this was also unlikely to be an issue; as shown chained items were used commonly in agriculture without serious risk of injury. He notes that the chains would be liable to break in battle, which sounds like a good argument, until you consider that literally the most common weapon in human history is this:

Japanese Yari, a type of Spear

And guess what? Spear shafts, broke, a lot. Men carried more than one weapon into battle. So I am not convinced that breakage is an argument against the flail. 

So to the meat of his argument. The fact that most flails in museums today are reproductions (he uses the loaded word "fake", which in the museum world carries its own definition and usually refers to an item made specifically to trick people into thinking they're real). So what? One of my favorite pieces at the art museum in Cincinnati, Ohio is this: 

The item in the foreground is a a crossbow which was produced as a show or exhibition piece. Many art museums have similar pieces. Does this mean that crossbows weren't real? Just because museum items weren't combat effective doesn't mean that they were never used. Combat items were used, broken, and discarded or recycled. Logically most of what would survive would have been artistic or ceremonial pieces. If you played baseball as a kid, you probably didn't keep most of the balls you played with, but you MIGHT still have that game-winning ball around, right? Same thing here. Even weapons which were historically very common exist today only rarely. Take the Roman Gladius; only a few hundred examples have ever been found (in all the ruins of Pompeii, only four were discovered) despite the fact that, at one time or another, they would have been produced in the tens or hundreds of thousands. If time has been that unkind to steel and iron weapons, imagine what happened to weapons primarily made of wood? No medieval English or Welsh Longbows have ever been discovered, and we only even have a couple hundred from the Renaissance when they ceased to be a common war weapon. We do have surviving examples though, but I'll get to that in a minute.

The article then uses similar poor reasoning by pointing out that the few artistic representations of flails from the period have other fantastical elements, but again, this is ridiculous. Each of the representations shown also show chainmail, spears, swords, etc. Did these weapons never exist? He closes out the article by stating that the weapons were either rare or non-existent, and then talks about why they are so persistent in pop culture, but I'm not here to discuss the latter point. 

So what evidence do we have that flails were used as combat weapons? Plenty!

The first piece of evidence is literary. Flails are commonly attested to in German Fechtbuch or "fighting books." These books were produced during the German Renaissance, and were essentially fighting manuals that were widely circulated throughout Europe. These were not, for the most part, written by amatuers. Many were produced by men who made their lives as fencing masters; they would travel throughout Europe serving as mercenaries or training the nobility in the medieval European martial arts for war and things like trials by combat. 

Text on the military use of the flail on folio 210 r of Paulus Hector Mair's Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica, written in the 1540s in Augsburg, Germany. 

The use of flails, folio 60rv, from Hans Talhoffer's untitled manual.

These manual's are awesome by the way. Original images of the folios can be found here and here. The site, which has been put together by a group of people interested in medieval martial arts, has numerous other fechtbuch examples, and translations are widely available online. 

We do have surviving examples, by the way, They are found in museums throughout Europe, and are far simpler than those shown off at the Met, which, again, were art or ceremonial pieces, not unlike the highly ornate swords carried by some military officers today while in dress uniform. 

Late German Examples, which have been authenticated as originals

We also know that these weapons were in use not just in medieval Europe, but throughout Eurasia and extending their use until a relatively late date. Numerous sources verify that flails were used by peasants during the Hussite Wars of the early 15th Century, as an example.

And they weren't just seen in Europe, oh no! In Japan, a type of flail known as the Chigiriki was used. In addition to examples from the Edo and Early Meiji periods which survive, their use continues to be taught by several Japanese martial arts schools such as the Araki-ryu school, which has existed continuously since the end of the Japanese warring states period and is at least several hundred years old. 

Chigiriki

Similar weapons were also use in China and Korea. In China they used one of my favorite weapons ever, simply for the pure factor of its ridiculousness. It was similar in many ways to a flail, but nothing I can say will do it justice so I will let the video speak for itself. I give you, the Chinese liúxīng chuí, or "Meteor Hammer". 

Examples have also been found in India. They were sometimes used by as late as the 19th Century, both as ceremonial weapons, weapons in the use of Indian martial arts styles, and even in the field against British soldiers. 

A selection of weapons from Lahore, India at the Royal Armouries, Leeds

And this brings me to my last point. Many kinds of pre-modern weapons were developed independently across Europe and Asia (and many other parts of the world), assuming that various cultures and localities had both the need and the resources to produce them. Most pre-modern cultures had some version of the spear, the sword, the axe, the mace or club, the bow, etc. If chain weapons were being used in East and South Asia, their use in Europe, while not confirmed, seems much more realistic. Just because a weapon was rare, doesn't mean that it didn't exist at all. 

If there is a topic you'd like me to dig into, please let me know!