View Full Version : (Historical) Why did slingers disappear?
There are rather a lot of slingers in EB (and vanilla and other RTW era mods), and they're pretty handy. Rhodian and Balearic slingers were famous, even I've heard of them. I translated bits of the Anabasis that mentioned slingers at school. Yet one hardly ever sees them mentioned later in history.
What happened? Why did they go out of fashion?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2007, 11:46
For two reasond mainly. The sling is hard to learn to use well and it allows a peasent to take down an armoured warrior.
For two reasond mainly. The sling is hard to learn to use well and it allows a peasent to take down an armoured warrior.
And because of that the peasants didn't use slings anymore?:inquisitive:
Krusader
08-29-2007, 12:10
And because of that the peasants didn't use slings anymore?:inquisitive:
More like they weren't allowed. And also you could get more troops into the field by getting them to use bows instead which was much quicker to learn.
On a related note, Western European Knights tried to get the Pope to ban the use of crossbows because it was a 'cowardly weapon'. Real reason of course was that it basically took a few hours to learn the basics of using a crossbow, while it took 15 years to become a knight. For many a knight it must have been bad knowing one has spent his entire childhood being a squire and when he finally is a knight, he can get bolted down by some down-trodden peasant who has spent his childhood growing crops and just a few hours training to use a wooden stick which happens to be quite lethal.
Who knows, maybe there was something similar going on earlier among other nobles?
And because of that the peasants didn't use slings anymore?:inquisitive:
No, people just stopped using on battlefields. Same reason why archery went out of fashion to the crossbow. Peasants still use slings today, but it is a weapon that is only of any use in mountainous terrain. Made one myself the other day, just a little experiment, quite fun really.
Foot
No, people just stopped using on battlefields. Same reason why archery went out of fashion to the crossbow.
Foot
...and why crossbows went out of fashion due to the arrival of firearms...
Since it is easier to use, there is no point in, say, having 10 slingers while your enemy can train 150 archers at the same time
...and why crossbows went out of fashion due to the arrival of firearms...
Since it is easier to use, there is no point in, say, having 10 slingers while your enemy can train 150 archers at the same time
I don't know if muskets were easier, they seem more complicated than just pulling back a string and sticking a bolt in. I think the crossbow to gunpowder was more driven by the superior power (particularly emotionally - the deafening roar would have scared the shit out of those who had never seen something like that before) of the musket over the crossbow.
Foot
It certainly was a lot less effective at reloading at first than the crossbow. The psychological effect had to be very important for a couple of years perhaps, but not once everyone had encountered it before. I would guess the balls provided more reliable killing of armoured enemies, IE a greater chance of penetration?
Tellos Athenaios
08-29-2007, 12:56
Not really, decent arrows (meaning: good quality arrow heads) would penetrate even steel armour. Which was the main advantage over say longbowmen: longbowsmen typically used their own arrows; with iron heads and they would bend on impact (but not penetrate steel).
Not really, decent arrows (meaning: good quality arrow heads) would penetrate even steel armour. Which was the main advantage over say longbowmen: longbowsmen typically used their own arrows; with iron heads and they would bend on impact (but not penetrate steel).
Have you ever seen what a musket ball did? It pancaked out and made a very large very round hole in the person hit. It didn't cause incapacitating wounds, it killed them outright. You could survive a bolt, you couldn't survive a musket ball. The only saving grace of a musket was its inherent inaccuracy (until they got the rifle).
Foot
Slings were the typical weapon for poor shepherds because it was cheap and simple to make. It was a weapon best suited for skirmishers in loose formation because each slinger needed a lot more room to operate than any other missile weapon. Stones or leadballs also doesnt have the same penetrative power compared to arrows/bolts.
Bows have existed for thousands of years and seems to have been the preferred weapon for hunting. So its not like slings were the only weapon used in Ancient armies.
So when an army had the opportunity to train and equip missile units, instead of just hiring whatever they could get in the local area (poor slingers looking for money), it was much better to go for bows.
----------
The pope didnt just try to ban crossbows. It was both bows and crossbows and IIRC two popes tried but as history shows it was not very successful.
----------
Getting hit by any missile weapon is generally not good but a musket was certainly not a insta-death weapon. With the limited medicine in those day, a hit in the torso and especially in the guts was very bad for the chances of survival, but some did.
----------
Tests with handguns shows muzzle velocities of around 350 m/s and arquebuses either same or perhaps 400 m/s. At shorter ranges that produced penetration equal to the standard crossbow if not better. They were much cheaper to make than crossbows, the higher velocties meant soldiers had to worry less about range/elevation, and movement of enemy soldiers had less effect. So although they could not deploy in deep ranks and shoot massive volleys as bows/crossbow could, they were perfect for siegework and for skirmishers.
CBR
keravnos
08-29-2007, 15:02
There are rather a lot of slingers in EB (and vanilla and other RTW era mods), and they're pretty handy. Rhodian and Balearic slingers were famous, even I've heard of them. I translated bits of the Anabasis that mentioned slingers at school. Yet one hardly ever sees them mentioned later in history.
What happened? Why did they go out of fashion?
Well, actually they didn't. It is just that with Cavalry becoming prevalent and infantry getting a backseat (only spearmen and archers), they just got "demoted" to provincial and backward places. I imagine they would be used a lot in situations where the infantry could feel secure from quick cav thrusts that would decimate them.
Case in point. Byzantine slingers in a silver "plate" from about 730 AD.
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/PIC_0338.jpg
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/PIC_0340.jpg
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/PIC_0332.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/PIC_0333.jpg
Now, so far as training slingers are concerned, I have to admit I have read nothing of them. The main reason, as I added earlier, is that now the enemy had a lot more cavalry than in Hellenistic times and the main slingers' targer, phallanx was only used by Byzantines.
Bows can be used with infantry (spearmen mostly) screen, slingers can't. Thus they fell out of use, as it was no longer feasible to have units out in the open as light cav, which was prevalent at the time, would eat them for breakfast.
In Alexiad, Alexios Komnenos in his final campaign against the Turks when he trained his troops to fight it was in bow, spear and sword. No slings are mentioned. Thus, my theory is that if slingers did in fact exist, they would probably be used in small scale by least trained militia units (basically shepherds pressed into service) and against armored knights either foot or on horse, as they wouldn't be able to retaliate as much as the light cav/HA would.
All in all, I believe they did exist, and were used but not extensively as in Hellenistic era. I would consider them a dirtcheap unit which could do substantial damage to armored opponents as the slings wouldn't need to penetrate the armor, but from a protected place, and without anyone standing in front. They would be eaten alive by light cav, which was the mainstay of all armies at the time.
They were much cheaper to make than crossbows
Really? I would think that a musket required more time to make, and more metal? What makes the crossbow so expensive?
good points keravnos.
The sling has survived to this day in its non-militaristic uses. The Baelarics still maintain the tradition and train in its use extensively, competitions are held on the island and on Spain. Apache natives in North America hunted with them and some are still very well trained in its use, though i dont know if they still use it for this purpose. They employ their own slinging technique and style of construction.
a lot of good info can be found at slinging.org: they have pics of spanish infantrymen using it during WW2 to launch granades, and more recent military uses
NeoSpartan
08-29-2007, 15:34
Both Sling and Bows take a lifetime of training to become good at. However, of the two, Bows are a lot more effective. Not just in killing power, but arrows can be loosened much faster, about 10 arrows per minute, than slinging stones. And u can put men closer together and loose arrows. Additionaly, arrows can be fired with a high angle and then fired straight, and BOTH vollies will land at the SAME time. One overhead, one straight on. Very effective and deadly.
On the subject of crossbows and fireweapons. Both of them took a very short time to become good at. Thats why they were used all over and hated. However, u gotta remember both weapons were used together at the same time. Even the Spanish conquistadors had fire weapons and crossbows. Both Crossbows and fireweapons were very good at penetrating armor and BOTH were used. BUT, as time passed as gun poweder technology was further refined, the fireweapon started being better and better than a crossbow until the crossbow was dropped completely. Also, add a long knife to a rifle and you have a PIKE!
Chris1959
08-29-2007, 16:15
One can argue the pros and cons of a weapons effectiveness against others ad-infinitum, i.e. slig to bow, regarding range, killing power training etc.
For one to fall out of favour then it is probably less easy to use effectively on the battlefield.
Without being an expert it would appear the sling has a relatively flat trajectory and needs more room to swing, so one could field more bowmen on the same frontage and in a deeper formation as they can fire over head on a higher trajectory.
Also in a siege a bowman would have to expose himelf less to fire from a crenallation or arrow slit.
Otherwise why stop using a weapon that is very effective, cheap to manufacture and a secondary supply of ammo just lying on the ground.
Really? I would think that a musket required more time to make, and more metal? What makes the crossbow so expensive?
AFAIK both composite and steel prods took more labor to make than an iron tube. The lock mechanism of a crossbow was also more complex than what was used on a arquebus and had to deal with the strong draw weights of a crossbow.
Its not so much about the weight of materials as how many manhours were needed, but I actually think a steel prod did weigh more than the barrel of at least handguns, but I'd have to check to be sure.
The biggest cost issue for guns was gunpowder which saw a continuous decrease throughout the 15th century (IIRC costs were reduced by 50% in that century). Of course lead balls were cheaper to make than arrows/bolt so overall the difference of cost of ammunition might not have been that big.
CBR
The main reason, as I added earlier, is that now the enemy had a lot more cavalry than in Hellenistic times and the main slingers' targer, phallanx was only used by Byzantines.
Bows can be used with infantry (spearmen mostly) screen, slingers can't. Thus they fell out of use, as it was no longer feasible to have units out in the open as light cav, which was prevalent at the time, would eat them for breakfast.
Ah, thank you. That makes good sense.
Tellos Athenaios
08-29-2007, 18:56
Have you ever seen what a musket ball did? It pancaked out and made a very large very round hole in the person hit. It didn't cause incapacitating wounds, it killed them outright. You could survive a bolt, you couldn't survive a musket ball. The only saving grace of a musket was its inherent inaccuracy (until they got the rifle).
Foot
Foot, I replied too:
I would guess the balls provided more reliable killing of armoured enemies, IE a greater chance of penetration?
Which is not the case.
Argue as much as you want, but a little physics dictates that equal force spread out over a larger area means less penetration. (Provided all other factors, such as mass of the missile are equal.) Hence arrows shot from a crossbow have more "AP" than a bullet from a sling or musket. In fact a modern crossbow, outperforms many a modern handgun if it comes to "AP".
The main thing why a bolt/arrow is generally speaking not quite as lethal as a bullet is the fact that a bullet causes lots of internal bleeding; if it comes to the worst the bullet shatters on impact, puncturing a large area of organs/veins. An arrow is more of a 'clean shot'.
I concur with most of the posts before.
Slings were however used on a certain level through the middle ages by the rural population. There are f.e. reports from HREGN from the 17th c. AD about pesky youths shooting at everything with their slings. That was seen as normal behavior.
Slings were no longer used in war on a broader scale because warfare had changed and/or better alternatives existed. There are of course some astonishing reports from the ancient times about slings (Roman ships with additional protective curtains near the Balearics f.e.). On the other hand numbers of slingers were often relatively low even in the ancient times and other than at Eknomos 311 I never read about decisive use in a battle.
Energy and momentum of sling shots are not greater than that of arrows, bolts and javelins. It was indeed never the mass dead weapon as it appeared in EB. For example, remember Xenophons mention about the bad sling missiles which enter the body so that the skin closes behind. Cruel...or not? Everybody who has spent only a little bit time with modern handgun ballistics knows that projectiles without deep penetration are normally very bad performers. If a sling shot/bullet enters the body for perhaps 3 or 4 cm that is not sheer devastation but a minor wound presumably without incapacitation (if it hits the throat or the spine it is another case but these are very small areas). Nearly all important human organs are deep in the body. So sling shots must rely on their (rather low) impact energy to wound, maim or kill. This is not a very reliable way to incapacitate a person. An arrow was a much better projectile, capable to penetrate unprotected body parts even near the end of its trajectory.
Of course slings could kill people. Mardonios at Plataia was probably killed by a sling stone hitting his head. But even head shots were not always deadly. At Cannae Aemilius Paullus was hit in the face by a sling shot in the first phases of the fight but later we see him still fighting in the center of the battle.
Why did the Greeks, Celts, ... used the sling? They had many people with skills with the sling and often no better alternative.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2007, 19:58
Hmmm, yes. When Civil War era armour was "proved" a pistol was fired at it at close range, if the armour only dented it was good.
Early muskets were probably cheaper than crossbows but the fireing time would have been close to the difference between bow and crossbow, i.e. poor. Even in Napolienic times the British were the only ones who could fire four rounds a minute.
Energy and momentum of sling shots are not greater than that of arrows, bolts and javelins. It was indeed never the mass dead weapon as it appeared in EB. For example, remember Xenophons mention about the bad sling missiles which enter the body so that the skin closes behind. Cruel...or not? Everybody who has spent only a little bit time with modern handgun ballistics knows that projectiles without deep penetration are normally very bad performers. If a sling shot/bullet enters the body for perhaps 3 or 4 cm that is not sheer devastation but a minor wound presumably without incapacitation (if it hits the throat or the spine it is another case but these are very small areas). Nearly all important human organs are deep in the body. So sling shots must rely on their (rather low) impact energy to wound, maim or kill. This is not a very reliable way to incapacitate a person. An arrow was a much better projectile, capable to penetrate unprotected body parts even near the end of its trajectory.
I think you're underestimating the amount of kinetic energy a fist sized rock will have on impact. They are dense and will have a lot more energy at a similar distance when compared with arrows.
If I had to put forth an educated-guess as to why they fell out of use, it would because of their simplicity they could not benefit much from technological advancement. As composite bows became more widely used and arrowheads were refined they could outperform slings, which could not benefit from any other new advancement.
and of course, include the others' points from before:
-requiring extensive training
-slower rate of fire
-larger formations
when compared with archery.
One thing of note is the use of 'staff-slings' in seiges, which was being done during the medieval age. These were basically man powered trebuchets which could fire head sized rocks onto or over battlements.
Boyar Son
08-29-2007, 21:41
good points keravnos.
a lot of good info can be found at slinging.org: they have pics of spanish infantrymen using it during WW2 to launch granades, and more recent military uses
sry 2 be off topic but
:spammer:
Spain was in WW2???????????
oops, spanish civil war, right before ww2...the socialist vs facist deal
Krusader
08-29-2007, 22:23
sry 2 be off topic but
:spammer:
Spain was in WW2???????????
No and yes. Either Elthore is thinking of wrong nationality or wrong war...or he could be right and think about the Blue Legion (was it?) a SS division or brigade made up of Spanish volunteers.
I think you're underestimating the amount of kinetic energy a fist sized rock will have on impact. They are dense and will have a lot more energy at a similar distance when compared with arrows.
...
We don't have to estimate the energy and momentum of sling shots, arrows and bolts, we can calculate it. They have roughly the same performance. We can get the data from reconstructions of ancient and medieval weapons. A typical glandes has a weight of between 30 and 70 grams. Due to human construction and physics such a weight can not be accelerated ad infinitum with a sling. A velocity of the glandes of about 50-60 m/s is normal from a common sling. If we take 60 m/s (which is rather fast) for a glandes of 50 grams we get an E0 of 90 Joule. A typical arrow (not of a Skythic bow but of other composite or strong self bows) weights about the same and travels with about the same velocity when shot from a strong bow of perhaps 100 lbs. It is no magic that it has the same energy (and btw momentum).
Heavy arrows from strong English bows reach perhaps up to 140 Joule. Same for strong crossbow bolts. Maybe also heavy sling shots (the fist sized stone you mentioned, with far fewer range however) reached such an energy. That is however still a very low energy compared to the projectiles of muskets or modern guns. Even a medium handgun bullet has an E0 of about 500 Joule (9 mm Luger or .45 ACP). What do you think happens if you would be hit by such a handgun bullet on an aramid vest? It hurts a lot and you get a bruise, nothing more. Then imagine the impact of a glandes/stone on a linen or bronze armour... maybe the warrior would have noticed the noise (exaggerated:laugh4: ). And please take into account that a heavy low velocity projectile like a sling shot looses energy rather fast, and the enemy was not 0 metres away. Only the very good aerodynamic performance of arrows and glandes allow for the reaches of 200 to 300 metres.
There are some very rounded opinions here, and I think they all contribute to the abandonment of certain weapons.
However there is one argument left to be discussed.
Energy - Human Energy
You can always count on human beings trying to find the easiest/most efficient way to do things, it's in our genes to try to conserve our own energy. Who after all wants to spend years in training, or hour upon hour pulling back a 140lb bow, or getting a bad back hunched over a crossbow trying to get the drawstring back?
From sling to gun, you can see the human mind at work finding the easiest most efficient way to kill from range.
And the gun truely is the lazy mans most deadly weapon - energy saving, easy to learn, easy to make, easy to kill.
Mega
Boyar Son
08-29-2007, 23:33
No and yes. Either Elthore is thinking of wrong nationality or wrong war...or he could be right and think about the Blue Legion (was it?) a SS division or brigade made up of Spanish volunteers.
There was legendary spanish warriors of the ancient era that was painted blue also right? could that SS division be like a homage to their predecessor?
NeoSpartan
08-30-2007, 00:13
There was legendary spanish warriors of the ancient era that was painted blue also right? could that SS division be like a homage to their predecessor?
Sounds like it...
Back on topic.
I don't know about you guys but bows are NOT easy to master. The English longbowmen practiced SINCE childhood to fire arrows, and almost everyone was required to learn the skill. This is why the French (or any other European country) could never field an effective Archer force like the English. So the French and the rest had to stick with crossbows, and later bring in more guns and cannons.
Hell, even the Romans had to "import" their "Quality" archers from either Crete, or other locations in the East.
Tellos Athenaios
08-30-2007, 00:42
Waitaminute... you are talking about the longbow; which indeed requires quite a bit of practice. (And despite the myths surrounding it, isn't such a great weapon anyway.) The main reason is that you've got to develop the muscle & technique to use a longbow.
On the other hand, cheap and cheerful bows only require you a few months of practice to get as far as to allow the unit to shoot a volley. And that's all there is to archery (or any other kind of missile-based warfare, save for the siege engines): firing lot's of rounds reasonably quickly and hope that some missiles will hit the mark. You will not be able to fire at the same range a longbowman would, but then again you will not have to practice as much.
Now the crossbow provided the inexperience archer with a powerful long range weapon which had a much improved accuracy at that. However it took considerably more time to load, shoot and reload than any other type of bow would. And the bow was more expensive.
The only reason the English had a particular effective archery was that unlike many other medieval armies; the English army had to be payed for by the King. And the King went cheap and cheerful: preferring the 5 pence archer over the 40 shilling nobleman (day wages). (Figures are to give the impression, not to be accurate!) So the English armies simply featured a lot of them, increasing the amount of firepower. Which didn't mean much as soon as steel plate armour was worn: the longbowmen use iron arrow heads, which would bend on impact instead of penetrating the armour.
On the other hand, cheap and cheerful bows only require you a few months of practice to get as far as to allow the unit to shoot a volley. And that's all there is to archery (or any other kind of missile-based warfare, save for the siege engines): firing lot's of rounds reasonably quickly and hope that some missiles will hit the mark. You will not be able to fire at the same range a longbowman would, but then again you will not have to practice as much.
That is true in theory, but have you ever tried firing volley after volley after volley, for maybe hours on end (a battle say)? I consider myself to be a very fit sportsman, and I have tried the above with just a normal bow. I lasted maybe 10mins and after about 2mins my accuracy went to crap, I coldn't even hold the bow completely vertical either. I managed about 5 arrows a minute.
Whether it be with longbow or normal bow there is no doubt that the archer, to be effective, would have to be very well conditioned indeed.
The more training one does, obviously the more effective he becomes. Maybe a few months would be enough to teach a unit to shoot a reasonably accurate volley, but to teach a unit to shoot volley after volley with a degree accuracy would certainly take longer than a few months. A normal archer using a normal bow would be expected to shoot about 8 arrows/min, an inexperienced longbowman was expected to shoot about 10-15 arrows/min, a yeoman was expected to shoot about 20 arrows/min and a crossbowman was exected to shoot about 3/4 arrows/min.
You are right that the longbow was overated as a weapon. The only reason it was as effective as it was, was because of the man drawing it. There are very few people around today who can even draw back an equivalent of a medieval longbow, let alone shoot it accurately. A modern hunting bow has a draw of approx 80lbs (enough to kill a full grown stag deer) where as the longbow typically was between 140lbs and 160lbs, there have even been finds of longbows up to 180lbs. So you can 'dis' the longbow, but you cannot 'dis' the longbowmen! ;)
Mega
NeoSpartan
08-30-2007, 06:26
....in addition most the time the English funnel French forces, fought them is wet terrain, dug trenches, etc, plus the French took FOREVER to learn to FLANK!
Ok enough of that....
Now that Megalos has showed us the rate of fire "expected" out of many QUALITY archers and crossbowmen. What is the rate of fire expect of Slingers????
A normal archer using a normal bow would be expected to shoot about 8 arrows/min, an inexperienced longbowman was expected to shoot about 10-15 arrows/min
Again I must show my ignorance. Why is a longbow so much quicker to reload and use, that an inexperienced longbowman can fire nearly twice as fast as a mediocre archer?
It is not. I think when Megalos speaks about the "inexperienced longbowman" he figures a person with still more experience than the normal archer, the inexperience was only in comparison with the yeoman longbowman.
A English (long)bow was a simple self bow, bows with similar dimensions were already in use in the Germanic countries in the first millenium AD and before. It is nothing mystical around this bow. The performance was in the archers who trained a lot and became masters. The same person cannot shoot faster with a longbow compared to a composite bow of similar strenght. More the other way round because a composite recurve bow needs lower draw weight to offer the same performance as a longbow (= primitive self bow).
I really doubt that draw weights of 160 or 180 lbs were common. There is a certain border for performance around 120 lbs. Stronger bows seemingly don't offer considerably better performance.
What Megalos set right was the exhaustion that the use of strong bows brought to the shooter. Although the archery duel hardly lasted for hours only very fit men could show constant performance. This was one of the best arguments of the "musket faction" who argued against the use of the bow in war in England in the second half of the 16th c. AD.
Again I must show my ignorance. Why is a longbow so much quicker to reload and use, that an inexperienced longbowman can fire nearly twice as fast as a mediocre archer?
The longbow isn't faster to reload and use, infact it's the opposite.
The difference is the man behind the bow. An inexperienced longbowman still had years and years of training (from childhood). The Yeomen were the elite longbowmen if you like, they were given about 70 arrows at the start of the battle, with small boys running about replenishing the arrows as they began to run out.
It is kind of frightening to think how many arrows the English loosed at the French in the battle of Agincourt. Taking the lowest figures of 10 arrows/min from 5000 longbowmen (there were probably more than 5000 btw) the french between 15000 to 35000 strong would have faced about 50000 arrows a min or 800 arrows a second. The English would have loosed about 350000 arrows in total (if you say there was no re-supply of ammo) which would have lasted about 7 mins total (in some battles yeomen would shoot their bow upto 2 hours). Add to the fact that the French had to cross a recently plowed, boggy wet field that was knee deep in places, in heavy armour and in such dense formation that they couldn't even take full steps for about 200 yds (the effective range of a longbow) before they could even get close to the man shooting at them.
That is ten arrows for every Frenchman fielded if you take the 35000 extreme that the French fielded.
To see how effective that barrage may have been I found this source from the twelth century (the longbow had been refined alot by the time of Agincourt) from a historian who lived in my hometown of Gloucester for sometime - Gerald of Wales
" … in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. "
Very messy indeed. Chivalry may have been honorable, but it was also very stupid at the same time! ;)
I have no idea as to the rate of fire of slingers, I could not even speculate as to how many stones a minute they might loose.
I found this nice little PDF on archery awhile back fo those that might be interested, and it even has some chapters on Greek and Roman archery. As to how that part of it is accurate I have no idea ( I rely on EB to give me my knowledge of antiquity! ;) ). The book is some what romantic, but very interesting nether the less in places.
http://www.sacred-archery.com/Book%20of%20Archery.pdf
Mega
I have no idea as to the rate of fire of slingers, I could not even speculate as to how many stones a minute they might loose.
An observation from playing EB here: in a reasonably even infantry battle, I will manoeuvre and engage to make sure that my slingers get to fire all their ammunition. Rate of fire doesn't matter so much as total ammunition. Five minutes with arrows or ten minutes with slings, it's the total damage that counts.
The more cavalry the enemy has, the harder it is to do that. You have to expose your slingers to fire, and the more cavalry there are the less time you get before they're running for cover. In that case a high rate of fire would be much more useful.
I have found this bit of info as to the rate of fire of slings.
"The weapon was inexpensive and easy to make. Sinew, plant fibers, animal hide, hair, and many other materials could be used for the cords and pouch. Unlike a bow, which required specialist skill to produce, a sling could be made by anyone. The sling of the late Paleolithic is basically identical to the modern sling because the design is so simple. The major focus of innovation was the sling’s payload. Stones from riverbeds were popular as their polished, smooth exterior caused less air resistance than angular rocks, which improved accuracy and range. However, no matter how selectively these were collected, the shape of natural stones varied. This meant the slinger had to compensate for changing projectile weights, reducing overall accuracy. Near Eastern armies began supplying their slingers with uniform projectiles, made from baked-clay or carved stone, by the end of the 7th millennium B.C.. At first, these were spherical, but by 3000 B.C., biconical or ovoid projectiles were discovered to be superior. The latter two types would orient point first and spin through the air like a bullet or American football. (Hawkins, 1847; Korfmann, 1973; Ferrill, 1985; Carman, 1999) This improvement increased range dramatically, much as barrel rifling did for firearms. The point first orientation also increased penetration ability. By Hellenistic times, projectiles were being cast in lead, increasing the density more than eight times (Walker, 2004). Since the projectile was roughly the same size, air resistance remained the same. However the increased mass meant it suffered less from the effects of drag. These lead projectiles were also far cheaper than arrows or bolts, making slings cost effective (Wise, 1976). A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."
http://www.slinging.org/47.html
And this part of the Article discusses what we have been talking about here:
The sling’s unique combination of power, range, accuracy and versatility made it an exceptional weapon. So why is it that other weapons, inferior in many respects, would supercede it in popularity within a relatively short period? A number of factors are likely culprits, including changes in military and social organization, an evolving style of warfare, and advances in armor.
In antiquity, armies would recruit soldiers from particular regions which offered unique skills. Soldiers from Rhodes, the Balearic Islands, and several other areas were proficient in the sling from extensive childhood training. These were assimilated into the military and frequently kept together as slinging units. However, increased cultural diffusion and urbanization in the Middle Ages meant local cultural traditions, such as slinging, were weakened. Instead, European culture was homogenizing. By Medieval times, there were few pockets of experienced slingers left, certainly not enough to be organized successfully. This is probably the primary reason why the sling rarely appeared on the medieval battlefield: the lack of skillful slingers.
When looking at the evolution of ranged weapons, there is a trend towards increasingly simple operation. The sling requires enormous skill, one that can generally only be obtained with training from childhood (Hawkins, 1847; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Ferrill, 1985). Without this mastery, a person armed with the weapon would be practically useless. The sling is exceptionally difficult to aim because it is being rotated when fired. It is common for people to fire projectiles backwards when they are first learning, meaning a high degree of proficiency is needed before they can be safely placed in a battlefield situation. On the other hand, the bow could be taught at any point in life, and be deadly with minimal experience. The bow does not suffer from the sling’s accuracy problems because of its ability to be drawn and then aimed. However, archers did have to be strong, which increased the required training time (Wise, 1976). The development of the crossbow with a mechanical device to cock the weapon enabled anyone to use it and have the ability to kill even an armored soldier at distance. The crossbow was the first true ‘point-and-shoot’ weapon, as it could be cocked and then easily aimed using the large stock. Although much slower to reload than bows, it was seen as an acceptable tradeoff for the ease-of-use gained. The shift to firearms was similar. They were even slower than the already sluggish crossbow, at least at first. However, the operation was simple and there was no physical strength needed to load the weapon. Also, its ‘point-and-shoot’ nature made someone with almost no experience immediately useful on the battlefield, and very deadly. This evolution occurred primarily because of changes in military and governmental organization. In feudal times, lords could recruit their serf population as soldiers (Wise, 1976). Many of these men were already proficient with the bow or sling, which were used for hunting game. However, by the High Middle Ages, nations and cities had developed large standing armies, which were recruited, sustained, and equipped by the government (Martin, 1968). An increasing number of these recruits were from urban populations which had far less exposure to ranged weapons. These units had to be trained from scratch and there was a high turnover. This led to the increased use of weapons that were deadlier with less training. The sling was perhaps the least effective choice of ranged weapon in this role.
The style of warfare in medieval times changed as well. There was a progressively better military organization and leadership structure, causing the direction and deployment of troops to be much tighter and more integrated. Compact groups of homogenous units became increasingly prevalent during the medieval period (Ferrill, 1985). Because of the rotational action required to cast a projectile, the sling required considerable space to operate effectively. Armies of antiquity, like the Greeks, used slingers as highly mobile and loosely structured skirmishers. It would have been troublesome to pack multiple rows of slingers into a typical medieval assemblage, where each soldier would fire over the row in front of them. Even a slight misfire, launched in front but too low, could cause friendly casualties. Archers could simply point upwards, over their fellow soldiers’ heads, and could be formed into relatively dense formations. Soldiers equipped with crossbows or firearms could also be closely grouped.
Ranged attacks work especially well in volleys, as the concentrated firepower is likely to wound more people simultaneously, causing confusion and fear, and making it harder to regroup. A group of archers could draw their bows and fire simultaneously. Crossbows and firearms could do this even better. The sling was much harder to coordinate as the arming, aiming, and firing of the weapon was a single motion. People with different length arms and casting styles would fire at different moments, even if starting at the same time.
More cohesive and robust economies in later medieval times lead to a surge in castle and fortification building. This meant that armies were increasingly placed in siege situations instead of face-to-face on a battlefield. The sling was an important siege weapon in antiquity. Its high rate of fire, accuracy, arching trajectory, and versatile payload made it extremely effective. (Wise, 1974; Ferrill, 1985; Grunfeld, 1996; Bradbury, 2004) However, as the style of siege warfare matured, so did the architecture of the fortifications. Bombardment by slings became less and less effective because units were garrisoned in fortified positions. The premier armaments in these battles were heavy weapons, like trebuchets and cannons, which were able to pulverize defenses so infantry could attack. Also, newer fortifications sported special slits for ranged units (bows, crossbows, firearms), allowing them to fire from protected sniping positions (DeVries, 1956). Soldiers could draw or cock their weapon in safety, and poke the tip out of the opening. Even an experienced slinger would have great trouble firing through a thin slit or hole in a cramped chamber, let alone hit an enemy. Firing from the castle ramparts would be an equally dangerous affair for a slinger. A crossbowman or rifleman could fire from a crouched, leaning or prone position, exposing very little to the enemy’s ranged units. However, a slinger must stand, and have room to get a powerful and accurate shot. This made slingers considerably more vulnerable. Furthermore, castles had limited room on their ramparts, towers, and other defensive structures. It was vital to pack as many ranged defenders into this area as possible to repel the enemy. Since slingers required more room to operate than other ranged troops, they were rarely used in defense.
Advances in armor design were perhaps the sling’s biggest obstacle. In the early middle ages, it was common for infantry to carry a shield but wear little or no armor at all (DeVries, 1956; Martin, 1968; Nicholson, 2004). The sling would have been effective against these troops. However, by the High Middle Ages, advances in metallurgy and production meant more advanced armor was being used by knights and in greater quantity (Bradbury, 2004; Nicholson, 2004). These improvements trickled down to the common foot soldier. The formation of national or city militias meant that taxes could fund troop equipment, drastically raising the average level of armor in European armies (Martin, 1968). Plate armor became increasingly prevalent during the 1300s. By the 15th century, entire suits of plate mail were used by knights. (Blair, 1958; Nicholson, 2004) While a sling projectile has considerable impact energy, plate armor was often designed to deflect hits, reducing and redirecting the force. In addition, soldiers would wear gambesons and other padded clothes underneath their armor to diffuse the force of an impact. These new innovations made the sling ineffective. Although tipped projectiles were better suited at penetration, even archers and crossbowmen had difficulty with plate armor, which ultimately lead to the widespread adoption of firearms.
Slinging.org - All you need to know about slinging! :2thumbsup:
Mega
Tellos Athenaios
08-30-2007, 13:03
The longbow isn't faster to reload and use, infact it's the opposite.
The difference is the man behind the bow. An inexperienced longbowman still had years and years of training (from childhood). The Yeomen were the elite longbowmen if you like, they were given about 70 arrows at the start of the battle, with small boys running about replenishing the arrows as they began to run out.
It is kind of frightening to think how many arrows the English loosed at the French in the battle of Agincourt. Taking the lowest figures of 10 arrows/min from 5000 longbowmen (there were probably more than 5000 btw) the french between 15000 to 35000 strong would have faced about 50000 arrows a min or 800 arrows a second. The English would have loosed about 350000 arrows in total (if you say there was no re-supply of ammo) which would have lasted about 7 mins total (in some battles yeomen would shoot their bow upto 2 hours). Add to the fact that the French had to cross a recently plowed, boggy wet field that was knee deep in places, in heavy armour and in such dense formation that they couldn't even take full steps for about 200 yds (the effective range of a longbow) before they could even get close to the man shooting at them.
That is ten arrows for every Frenchman fielded if you take the 35000 extreme that the French fielded.
To see how effective that barrage may have been I found this source from the twelth century (the longbow had been refined alot by the time of Agincourt) from a historian who lived in my hometown of Gloucester for sometime - Gerald of Wales
" … in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. "
Very messy indeed. Chivalry may have been honorable, but it was also very stupid at the same time! ;)
I have no idea as to the rate of fire of slingers, I could not even speculate as to how many stones a minute they might loose.
I found this nice little PDF on archery awhile back fo those that might be interested, and it even has some chapters on Greek and Roman archery. As to how that part of it is accurate I have no idea ( I rely on EB to give me my knowledge of antiquity! ;) ). The book is some what romantic, but very interesting nether the less in places.
http://www.sacred-archery.com/Book%20of%20Archery.pdf
Mega
Well it would mainly have been an issue for the crossbowmen: the French did have steel armour in those days; and arrows such as the British used just bounced off. (Because the iron tip would bend on the armour surface.)
The reason why it became so much of a mess was, that as soon as the English had emptied their ammunition supplies; they proceeded to hammer down the French with their axes; daggers and what not. And the French could not properly defend themselves, because they were all stuck in the mud (it had rained the other day).
Tellos Athenaios
08-30-2007, 13:06
A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."[/I]
http://www.slinging.org/47.html
Slinging.org - All you need to know about slinging! :2thumbsup:
Mega
Ouch! Imagine that the English had used slingers instead of arrows at Agincourt!
Well it would mainly have been an issue for the crossbowmen: the French did have steel armour in those days; and arrows such as the British used just bounced off. (Because the iron tip would bend on the armour surface.)
Not entirely true sorry. A typical arrow loosed from a longbow of a draw weight of 120lbs at a range of approx 200 yds would generate enough velocity to pierce platemail upto 1.5mm thick. Although the arrow would rarely be fatal (perhaps 1 in 15) it certainly was incapacitating (look at the large number of French noblemen taken captive in the battle of Agincourt who were later murdered through fear that they may take up arms again if the Fench attacked again)
Only the very best of the best platemail armour could effectively deflect an arrow from a long bow, and that armour was very very rare and very very expensive, so as only the very rich of the rich could even wear it. Even then the armour would still have it's weak spots, but they were very hard to hit, thus the English eventually took up the firearm. It was the angles at which the armourers made the faces of the plate, and the refining of the steel that deflected the arrows, one little hiccup and the mail would be just as useless as bog standard armour. It would take years to supply enough armour of this quality for just a hundred men. Not to mention the competition to buy the armour. It was mainly made to this quality in Italy, but the Spanish, Portugese, The Italian city states, The Imperial City states, the Polish and various rich mercenary organisations (if you were a mercenary and had this armour you could certainly charge a hefty fee indeed) were all trying to buy it as well as the French.
What I never did undersatnd was why the English never again took up the longbow alongside the firearm after the abandonment of armour in 16th century. It was a far more accuarte and had a better rate of fire than a musket....who knows, maybe they thought it uncooth by then or maybe it was the high turnover rate of men in the field? Alot of men died in line fighting.
I love seeing the evolution of things, what next? Flying cars (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6960000/newsid_6969800?redirect=6969878.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&asb=1)?
Mega
Conqueror
08-30-2007, 16:06
A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."
But what is a good slinger, and how does he compare to a... not so good slinger? That is, what should be the difference in rate of fire between elites, such as Balearics, and levied shepherds?
Advances in armor design were perhaps the sling’s biggest obstacle. [...] Although tipped projectiles were better suited at penetration, even archers and crossbowmen had difficulty with plate armor, which ultimately lead to the widespread adoption of firearms.
I know this is talking about medieval rather than ancient armour, and it's perhaps comparing ancient slingers to medieval bows/crossbows. But it leaves me wondering why EB slingers have the "effective against armour" tag and archers don't.
But what is a good slinger, and how does he compare to a... not so good slinger? That is, what should be the difference in rate of fire between elites, such as Balearics, and levied shepherds?
Well it say a good slinger can fire more than 12 rounds a minute. Perhaps he is implying that an average slinger can loose an average 12?
Who knows.
I know this is talking about medieval rather than ancient armour, and it's perhaps comparing ancient slingers to medieval bows/crossbows. But it leaves me wondering why EB slingers have the "effective against armour" tag and archers don't.
Not sure on this question, but this was quoted from the above article:
A quote from Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian from the 1st century A.D. is also revealing:
But when Hamilcar saw that his men were being overpowered and that the Greeks in constantly increasing number were making their way into the camp, he brought up his slingers, who came from the Balearic Islands and numbered at least a thousand. By hurling a shower of great stones, they wounded many and even killed not a few of those who were attacking, and they shattered the defensive armour of most of them. For these men, who are accustomed to sling stones weighing a mina [~0.6kg], contribute a great deal toward victory in battle [...] In this way they drove the Greeks from the camp and defeated them. (Book XIX. 109)
who are accustomed to sling stones weighing a mina [~0.6kg] _ that is some serious weight!
Again:
Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.
Mega
NeoSpartan
08-30-2007, 17:27
Well, EB is making a MAJOR change to slinger in the next built.
Well, EB is making a MAJOR change to slinger in the next built.
Which change is that again? There are a couple of minor changes.
NeoSpartan
08-30-2007, 17:39
Which change is that again? There are a couple of minor changes.
I don't know.... all I knew is that there is going to be a "change".
but thanks for clearing that up.
Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.
Ah-ha. They're effective against armour in the way later knights often used a hammer instead of a sword against plate, not the "armour penetrating" sense.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
pezhetairoi
08-31-2007, 12:32
What major change is that? Something tells me that when they double all the unit stats the slingers' attack is going to stay unchanged, or something like that... o.O
I have the feeling the discussion turns round and round and round. Slings were not effective against armour, not more than the other missiles. A certain amount of energy is needed to wound an armoured man. The energy of sling shots is normally too low. Lets give the sling shot a (overestimated) energy of 150 Joule. A hit on an unprotected head could be deadly or let to blinding (that is also what the Conquistadores told us about the slings of the native Americans). A hit on a helmet could perhaps knock the person down or inflict a minor wound, but not much more. In modern wars a lot of artillery fragments with the same or higher energy were in the air and the helmets were normally capable to prevent deadly injuries from it.
Read Diodoros (and beware: it is Diodoros writing!) carefully: the sling shots "wounded many and even killed not few". That is not the description of a very deadly weapon. The shock of being surprisingly shot at by 1000 slingers seems more the reason for defeat than the killing of many warriors. And it seems reasonable that the heavy stones used (a mnai is about 436 grams) may have crushed shields and dented helmets, so the people hit were not so eager to fight any longer. I would be pleased to read about similar deeds of slingers in other battles.
With 12 shots per minute you would have to release a glans or stone every 5 seconds. This may be possible (not for me but more experienced slingers) but is a doubtful performance under real battlefield conditions. Same for the 10+ arrows a minute with the bow. Performance in battle must have been lower.
The penetration power of strong bows should not be under- and overestimated. In a test I know of an arrow with mild steel point from a 110 lbs longbow was capable to penetrate 1 mm of mild steel from 20 metres distance, a bolt from a (quite weak) 500 lbs crossbow penetrated 1,5 mm and a arquebus bullet 2 mm (with ease). Limb armour were normally about 1 mm, cuirasses 2 mm and helmets 3 mm thick in the middle ages. Such tests are always problematic of course and the results debatable.
I think of missile weapons in the ancient or medieval times more in terms of harassing, annoying, weakening, disheartening than mass extinction. Don't look only at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt but perhaps also at Towton or Flodden to judge about the longbow.
We had such discussions already as far as I know. http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/ , http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/index.php and http://forums.swordforum.com/ are for example good places to read and discuss further about such questions.
Edit: my personal solution for the slinger "problem": all lost the ap feature in my edu except the Balearic slingers, who had only 20 of their big ap stones with relatively low range but 1 more attack rating.
Bootsiuv
09-01-2007, 02:40
Wouldn't the short answer be firearms? They do what slingers did, only much better. They also required far less training. I assume the bow also went out of fashion for use in warfare for this same reason.
Lowenklee
09-03-2007, 05:06
"Read Diodoros (and beware: it is Diodoros writing!) carefully: the sling shots "wounded many and even killed not few". That is not the description of a very deadly weapon.
On the contrary, that Diodoros quote would seem to qualify the sling as quite a dangerous and deadly weapon.
Would you say about a deadly weapon, that it "even" killed not few? If you think about it, it sounds a bit odd, as if killing was the exception for the sling.
And the exception it must have been against armoured targets, given the energy range possible for the projectiles.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.