Printable View
I'm not 100% sure the question would be on topic here but in case a kind moderator could redirect in in a more appropriate place...
I've seen statements (and read some xenophon) about ancient slings being more effective that most western bows of the time both in better range and effectiveness versus armour.
Since I'm trying to recreate the effect in the RTW engine in a semirealistic way I would like suggestions from somebody more versed in ancient weapon hostory than me.
Thanks!!!
Apparently slings were good enough to keep the Persian archers and horse-archers outside killing range during the ten thousand march.
Well, those where supposedly rhodians and somewhat veterans, I'm more interested in the general picture...
Go to RTW heaven. One of the regulrs there Ace_Cataphract is a slinger. He can give you all the info you need. He's actually slung led shot at steel plates, for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarax
You might also approach it at least partly from an ammunition standpoint. As long as their are small rocks in the area, the slinger won't run completely out of missiles, as an archer eventually will.
Ajax
Sure the stone was free but lead was preferred and more effective. Also when they were down to there stone shot they may have reduced range and effectivenessQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Right. As I said, they won't run completely out of missiles. Effectiveness will decrease, but at least they'll still be chucking something. (I think I remember reading in one of Cornwell's Sharpe books that the British used a slightly larger bore on their standard muskets than the French, which meant that in a pinch they could use captured French ammunition, though with horrible accuracy, while the French would have no use for the British shot too large to fit down their barrels. Don't know how accurate it is, but a similar principle anyhow)
Ajax
Slings are better in trained hands. The Greeks didn't draw bows that effectively. From what I understand, the Greeks used their two fore and middle fingers to pinch to their thumb and draw the string. Not the most effective way to draw a bowstring, especially when composite bows required several pounds to pull it.
Slings were easier to make, and very simple to chuck. While veterans could go about as far as a good bow, the novice could still throw a piece of stone at you. Like it is often said in books, the ability of slingers wasn't something to be sneezed at. They could crack bones, from thighs to skulls.
Do you remember David&Goliath? Slings won the day!
However, once improved archery techniques were devised (thumb ring, two finger draw, etc.) the archer could fire quickly, accurately, and they could fire it from a moving object.
Regarding the sling's effectiveness versus armor, Cortez's Spanish feared Aztec slings far more than Aztec bows. Being concussive weapons, slingstones (I haven't read of Aztec use of lead shot) could inflict injury without actually penetrating armor where the weak draw of the native bows wouldn't allow their arrows to pierce said armor.
On a similar note, the Soviets used an 82mm mortar. This allowed them to use captured German 81mm rounds during WWII. I don't know if modern US or NATO rounds still work in modern Russian mortars.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
By what I know of it slings aren't all that easy to use effectively; however, rural commoners widely used them to hunt small game, chase wild animals off fields, scare predators away from domestic animals and occasionally to debate matters with neighbours and/or social superiors, and as such could have ample practice from very young age (chasing birds off sown fields was usually detailed to children for example). The weapon itself was very cheap to make and for everyday civilian purposes at least ammunition - river-smoothed rocks, clay pellets etc. - was pretty much free.
Ergo, as "peasant levy" weapons go it was among the more effective if often overshadowed by good bows, which AFAIK tended to have a better range/killing power equation for as-such comparable amount of practice hours. Still, most armies used them for fire support (Medieval ones found them particularly valuable in sieges) to a greater or lesser degree and sometimes the weapons played a surprisingly prestigious and central role. The Assyrians are known to have used armoured slingers for example.
Well, a torso hit would at most net you cracked ribs or thereabouts. Hardly major. Head hits, on the other hand, could cause serious if not outright lethal cranial trauma right through steel helmets - this is also why Medieval European armies found them so useful siege weapons, as what you usually saw of the defenders behind the crenellations was rarely more than the head anyway...Quote:
Regarding the sling's effectiveness versus armor, Cortez's Spanish feared Aztec slings far more than Aztec bows. Being concussive weapons, slingstones (I haven't read of Aztec use of lead shot) could inflict injury without actually penetrating armor where the weak draw of the native bows wouldn't allow their arrows to pierce said armor.
Still significantly more damage than an arrow fired from a weak bow, possibly only stone-tipped or fire-hardened, than merely glances of a breastplate. Also, as a massed "peasant levy" weapon, multiple hits would eventually tell. Nor are cracked ribs something to be sneezed at - literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Fair enough, but the point is that as far as combat damage goes that's pretty insignificant. Although when it comes to bows, well, apparently the Conquistadors eventually dropped their breastplates as excessive and started using the native quilted cuirasses instead; stopped arrows and the assorted obsidian-edged weaponry well enough presumably, and I'd guess the multiple thick layers of textile ate most of the impact power of the slingstones as well.
You must remember that doctors wern't excatly that good at this time, a cracked rib could kill you.
People got those all the time even in armour. And in any case that's still way preferable to getting your innards skewered by something pointy - given the level of surgery available, guess how well deep internal bleeding and organ damage could be treated ? Nevermind infections now. Or the pesky way the body tends to go into potentially fatal shock upon getting its innards messed with.
Exactly. Bows didn't become men's favorite hunting weapon for larger game for nothing. A bigger killing zone and more serious internal wounds are strong arguments for the bow. The sling remained the best pest-chaser and was very effective for small game - the Balearics used it exactly in this ways.Quote:
People got those all the time even in armour. And in any case that's still way preferable to getting your innards skewered by something pointy - given the level of surgery available, guess how well deep internal bleeding and organ damage could be treated ? Nevermind infections now. Or the pesky way the body tends to go into potentially fatal shock upon getting its innards messed with.
Slings are the kings of momentum in the long range race. A quantum leap were lead shots - huge amounts of momentum thanks to a far lower airfriction and a great sectional density enabled them to penetrate through the skin well into the body. Still, without cutting edges it could not damage the innards like a bladed arrowhead...
OA
Well, whatever takes the other guy down is all good really. The thing about slingers is after all also that you pretty much just need to recruit them - the peasants know how to use their strips of leather already, and odds are they're going to be more effective with them than if given a pointy stick, some excuse of a shield and made to stand in a clump. Not much further training necessary. Didn't quite a few armies cheerfully just employ slingers and archers side-by-side for slightly different tactical roles that made the best use of the capabilities of each ?
Well the sling is a great weapon for chasing away pest of all kinds - humans among them. It is always impressive to check just how massive the depots of clay slingshots were in all those fortified cities of middle east from 4000 BC onwards. Thanks to the cheap weapon and the cheap and uniform, mass-produced missiles practically every citizien could throw with little training something at the enemy. Suppressive fire at it's best around 3000BC...
Shepards with slings should have made nasty enemys, given that they were fleetfooted and fine slingers. Hard to find a more pesky skirmishers on foot...
OA