Talk:Morning star (weapon)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Comments

Is it intentional that the first sentence of the article defines a morning star as having a chain (unlike a mace)?

"The morning star is a medieval weapon consisting of a spiked ball on a chain, resembling a mace, usually with a long spike extending straight from the top and many smaller spikes around the particle of the head."

I thought that the weapon with a shaft, chain, and spiked ball or balls was referred to as a flail? I note also that the picture shows a weapon with no chain, and the immediate discussion talks about how morning stars differ from maces - without mentioning anything about the fact that maces don't have chains. It seems to me that the word 'chain' should be replaced by 'shaft'.

.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.236.254 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"holy water sprinkler (from its resemblance to the aspergillum sometimes used in the Catholic Mass)."

.... isn't that on a chain connected to a stick? doesn't that contradict:

"the name "morning star" is often erroneously applied to the military flail (also known as the therscol), a similar weapon, but with the head attached by a short chain."

isn't that on a chain connected to a stick?—I've never seen one that was made in such a fashion. This photograph depicts a typical aspergillum; as you can see its head is attached directly to its handle. —No-One Jones ^(m) 07:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a morning star is distinct from a flail, why is it illustrated with a picture of one? Franey 09:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common agreement about the terms. MathKnight 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight, I noticed that in the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e book, the picture of a morning star matches this description. One of my player's has expressed disbelief, calling that mace. I think actually the term "Morning Star" refers not to the weapon, but to the ball of spikes on the end of it. Therefore the correct usage would be to say "Morning Star Flail" or "Morning Star Mace". Its not clear cut however, and I think someone should ask a real Medieval Historian. -- NathanO 13:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly morning star can have a short chain connecting the 'star' to the handle as opposed to shorter handle and longer chain of flail. 11:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The "holy water sprinkler" is another name for a type of Flail (weapon). Any weapon with a heavy mass connected to a short haft by a chain falls under the category of flail, not morningstar (whether flanged, spiked, or a just simple iron lump).

And morningstars are distinct from maces in that they have a long spike protruding from the head of the weapon. Other than that, they can be smooth, or spiked elsewhere along the metal of the head.

The "goedendag" is like a morningstar, but is more of a polearm. It was an metal spike jammed into the end of a shaft of wood, and bound by an iron ring to prevent the wood around the spike from splitting. It was quite versatile and could be used like the pike it most resembled, or could be swung to smack things with the heavy ring area. The goedendag really deserves its own article, under polearms. - CW

I compleatly agree with Nantho on this one and that the discription can be placed on any type of weapon as long as it has the spiky head Dobington

The second sentence of the first paragraph describes the weapon as being designed to both use blunt force and puncture to kill or wound the enemy. This is a common misconception. The reason for the spikes was not to puncture armor but instead to allow the star to bite into armor to better allow it to transfer its energy into the person wearing the armor. Medieval armor is designed to be smooth to cause weapons to glance off their surfaces without allowing the energy to be transferred to the person wearing them but by adding spikes, the weapon has a better chance of not glancing off the armor but it isn't designed to penetrate the armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.91.178 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

Can of worms, I know, but this article is connected by mutual interwiki to Fr:Fléau d'armes. Does Fléau d'armes really mean morningstar, or should that article be linked to Flail (weapon) instead? --Iustinus 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like over there they merged morning star and flail together in one article. Sgtlion (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

There is a conflict with a local (en) image called Morgenstern.jpg --Avatar-en 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godentag

I don't think godendag should be included within "Morning Star". The illustration I saw had it as a stout club with a single spike on the end. With a long club, you can poke someone with the single spike for nasty damage, and then use it as a club later. I've seen a period illustration of it. I apologize, but I cannot seem to find the site right now. Theblindsage (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goedendag

Goedendag is indeed not the correct therm for this weapon. Although there is still confusion about it in popular culture. But a goedendag is a very different weapon indeed. Thus I removed the word from the article.

Bobby Siecker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.240.189 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Weapon?

I can't remember the 'star being "holy" in D&D, or in any other fantasy/medieval game I've played (if anything, the ordinary (non-spiked) mace gains that role). I can't vouch for Knight Online, since I haven't played it. 81.16.160.34 (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you need a citation for that?

How do you need a citation to confirm the fact that Havik uses a morning star? It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The game is there, anyone can see that. Would anyone write "The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second (citation needed)"? No, so why would anyone need a citation to see that Havik uses a morning star? Devil Master (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are asking for a rationale approving Original Research? I don't have this game, i never will; so how can i be sure that what WP has is correct? Because it is verifiable from published sources. Cheers, Lindsay 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game itself is a source. Using your rationale I should go around asking for every citation from material I can't get access to be replaced — this is sure to work splendidly when looking for sources on incredibly rare esoteric documents; which themselves may also be rare. No, the problem isn't that the game isn't a credible published source, the problem here is the game isn't cited.

To be frank though, I'm sick of all the various [citation needed] crap everywhere. It's far too frequently used on things that are neither unintuitive, controversial, or difficult to confirm. It's getting to the point on some articles where every second sentence is sourced, sometimes more than twice. –Xoid 06:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I quote from the articulated clubs section of "Weapons, An International Encyclopedia from 5000B.C. to 2000 A.D." from the Diagram Group ISBN 0-312-03950-6 :
"Articulated clubs use flexibilty in some form to multiply the force of a blow and to make it more difficult to parry. The simplest were war-flails, adaptations of the grain-threshing tool. More effective against armor were clubs of the "morning star" type, a spiked ball on a chain"
The acknowledgements page of this book refers to many world-wide military museums and esteemed personages of military society and study so it's safe to say they are a fairly accurate and reliable source.
Also can I just point out that when discussing serious historical tools of war can I remind the Role-playing community that it would be better to quote a source that wasn't derived from mythology and story telling. Kinda detracts from the authenticity of it all when I keep reading things like "In the 3.5 rule book of D&D..." like it was a reputable piece of literature on European warfare or; "That's not right, On Fanboy Online it says...".
Rant over Ah-thankyou. --Cruxinshale (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming & categories

I've visited the site and while here done a bit of tidying, referencing etc. However, before devoting any more time to this, I'd like to ask some basic questions

Is the title correct? The morningstar is only one of the weapons dealt with. Would Medieval Spiked Clubs be better? Or should it be stripped back to just the forms of Morningstar, with linking references to weapons like the Mace and flail ? Should Goedendag be here at all? It is quite different to the other weapons, lacking a bulbous head and multiple spikes. It also has it's own (better referenced) Wikipedia entry Goedendag. Should this content be combined with that?

The other thing to note is that there are actually some good books that have been used to create this article but there is no proper inline citation. Can't do it myself as I don't own the books. There are also some strange assertions, which need citations (like Blind John of Bohemia).

I am happy to work on this article, if we have some structural consensus and others possessed of references can drop them in. Monstrelet (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge meteor hammer into morning star?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge. -- Phasma Felis (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and picture on the article misrepresent it, as the article later says that it includes things that are flails with things on the end too (which is what a morning star usually refers to in contemporary usage). On that level it is basically the same as meteor hammer and the two pages should probably be merged with a writeup on how two cultures came to develop the same thing rather than treating them as totally different! --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they are totally different. A morningstar is a rigid weapon. It gets its name from the star-like arrangement of spikes on the top. The thing with a chain with things on the end is a flail. It is hard to see how the meteor hammer can fit in this article. --Monstrelet (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really combine the articles because the meteor hammer's operation and function are completely different from the flail/morning star. The morning star uses leverage and mass to destroy the opponent, whereas the meteor hammer uses mostly speed. No. --67.41.246.29 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. A flexible weighted whiplike weapon is not similar in function to a morning star--a mass weapon. --Mzmadmike (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. The meteor hammer has different origins, handles differently, and doesn't even come close to resembling the morning star. If the two get merged you might as well merge bolas and chained cannonballs. The reason the term morning star and flail often get equated is because at least the two look similar and people did not do the research, possibly combined with the German name for a flail — chain-morning star — which may itself be incorrect. I've seen it suggested elsewhere that "morning star" referred to the type of spiky head used. –Xoid 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Leaving aside the controversy over whether a morning star has a chain or not (and we really some proper medieval scholarship on that)--even if we're talking about a true flail, there's no comparison to the meteor hammer. They're constructed and used in very different ways. "Weight on a chain/rope" is no stronger a connection than "blade on a haft/hilt". You might as well try to merge Sword and Axe. Phasma Felis (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we've got consensus, so I'm closing the discussion and removing the merge template. Phasma Felis (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Morningstar etymology?

Where does the name come from?

I heard, at one time, that this weapon was used by medics after battles, when they would come to collect the wounded and wanted to grant mercy kill for the hopeless. This would be done in the morning after battles thus naming the weapon morningstar. I would like some reference to this as I think the name comes purely from the look of the weapon which is resembling a star(Venus = Morning star).

What is your thought on this?

Be well, Kpreitsetljiann (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary would agree with you - the name comes from the comparison of the head to a star. Apparently it is used earliest to describe the weapon in Danish, is adopted into German and reaches English in the 17th. century. The other definition belongs in the category "urban myth". The wounded would have been despatched with any weapon to hand - they didn't need to create a special weapon for the purpose Monstrelet (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]