Belaric Slingers Merc

I, as Julii, have just conquered Corduba using a full stack which contain three units of belaric slingers. The Carthagians sally out of the city to try to save their last city. After organizing my main battle line(Romans in the centre) , the slingers were grouped together and put at the left flank on a small high ground for fire support.

The firepower of these slingers is much more destructive than what I expect, one salvo from the group can knock down dozens of shield equipped infantrys. Enemy light cavalry tried to charge the slingers, but they were stopped cold after three salvos and many dead horses were littered in front of the slingers. They have provided marvelous artillery and I'd like to ask my fellow warmongers for experience. Would the slingers be useful against real heavy forces (i.e. Other Romans)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asimov

I, as Julii, have just conquered Corduba using a full stack which contain three units of belaric slingers. The Carthagians sally out of the city to try to save their last city. After organizing my main battle line(Romans in the centre) , the slingers were grouped together and put at the left flank on a small high ground for fire support.

The firepower of these slingers is much more destructive than what I expect, one salvo from the group can knock down dozens of shield equipped infantrys. Enemy light cavalry tried to charge the slingers, but they were stopped cold after three salvos and many dead horses were littered in front of the slingers. They have provided marvelous artillery and I'd like to ask my fellow warmongers for experience. Would the slingers be useful against real heavy forces (i.e. Other Romans)?

---

Yes, those particular slinger units will do quite well against heavily armored troops. Two or three of these units can be devastating when concentrating their fire on a single target.

Put those slingers on the flanks of or to the rear of an enemy unit and watch the body count increase at a phenomenal rate.

Balearic and Rhodian slingers were highly sought after mercenaries in real life. Their incredible skill combined with their unique lead and clay missiles made them more than a cut above the average slinger of that period. Their performance in the game is certainly overstated but their overall value certainly isn't.

How so is their performance overstated? I thought that slingers were extremely effective missile units IRL (even more then archers), while they needed a lot more skill to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellesthyan

How so is their performance overstated? I thought that slingers were extremely effective missile units IRL (even more then archers), while they needed a lot more skill to use.

---

They were, but I meant that within the context that most of the missile units in RTW are overpowered. The exception to this are the javelin throwing units which seem positively anemic (modding by adding 'ap' after the 'thrown' variable in the export_unit_descr.txt file takes care of that). If anything I would say that pilum and javelin units should be the deadliest missile units in the game followed by these specialized slinger units.

In real life I expect Balearic and Rhodian slingers took quite a toll on most enemy troops but the idea that they could take down fully armored hoplites or legionaries with the effectiveness they demonstrate in RTW doesn't seem quite right to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asimov

I, as Julii, have just conquered Corduba using a full stack which contain three units of belaric slingers. The Carthagians sally out of the city to try to save their last city. After organizing my main battle line(Romans in the centre) , the slingers were grouped together and put at the left flank on a small high ground for fire support.

The firepower of these slingers is much more destructive than what I expect, one salvo from the group can knock down dozens of shield equipped infantrys.

---

One point to consider there about how effective your Balearic Slingers were: you'd placed them on your left flank, which meant that they would tend to fire towards the right-hand ie. unshielded side of the oncoming Carthaginians. Whether intentional or not, it's little touches like that which can greatly influence the effectiveness of a unit and thus the outcome of a battle.

I'm in the same camp with Spino. Missile attack is overdone for all but javelins and pila. However the Balearics should be potent compared to archers (yet they come in 2nd best when compared to archers in RTW.)

Well if the AI is smart enough to get shield equipped units stop and adjust their facing when a missile unit is near it would cut down on casualties. If the enemy troops were just stationary targets just trying to weather the barrage, this might work, but in other cases I suspect this would be hard to code and dependent on other factors, ie you wouldn't want the AI to stop if it was a cavalry unit charging your ranged units.

Anyway we've had some previous discussions on this regarding archers, lowering their attack and increasing cost/upkeep:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40765
and a more general discussion:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39757

as well as a mod to nerf attack values for missile units:
http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/?mod=210
where Rhodians/Balearics get 7 for Missile attack and sounds more reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I'm in the same camp with Spino. Missile attack is overdone for all but javelins and pila. However the Balearics should be potent compared to archers (yet they come in 2nd best when compared to archers in RTW.)

---

Sadly this is due to the reputation of the sling in the post-roman world, it was largely seen as a barbarian weapon and just fell out of fashion despite its advantages... This gives rise to the false modern perception of archery being king and slings as not being REAL weapons at all.

I remember many people stating "A unit of Slingers!, A SLING as a Weapon!!" when the carthaginian Slinger hit the .COM Pages.

David and Goliath.

What took Goliath down?

A sling.

Yes, a sling killed goliath. But you can't ignore the situation: Was he at bowshot range, or was he 30 feet away? Did he throw the stone through Goliaths helm, or just smack him in the head?

I question the ability of a sling to kill a man at bow range (longer than the normal range of an archer in this game), assuming it doesn't hit any of the armour he is wearing.

"Stones or bullets could be projected from a sling to greater distance than either arrows from a bow, or javelins with the aid of a thong."

http://www.slinging.org/30.html

Livy relates that the Achaean boys were wont to practise slinging with smooth pebbles on the sea shore; "their sling," he says, "was made, not like the balearic, of a single thong, but of three strengthened with stitching, and thus they effectually provided against the slipping of the bullet; they ply their slings with a longer range, and with surer aim, and greater force than the Baleares; they can hurl their missiles through small rings placed at a considerable distance, and hit not only the heads of the enemy, but any part of the face at which they choose to aim."

From the same web page.

Note: I'm just cuttin' and pastin' not an expert.

From what I gather, the better compound bows used by the Parthians and such had a lot more hitting/penetrating power and range. I suspect that weapons like these eventually led to the demise of the sling since it really could not match their range. Around the time of the start of RTW (3rd century B.C.) slings were favored over archery as a ranged military weapon...and javelins were the primary skirmish weapons both for infantry and cavalry.

If the Greeks and Romans did not have compound bows, then perhaps slings were more there things.

Suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
That's what my enemies get.

But the Locrians followed not with the great-hearted son of Oïleus, for their hearts abode not steadfast in close fight, seeing they had no brazen helms with thick plumes of horse-hair, [715] neither round shields, nor spears of ash, but trusting in bows and well-twisted slings of sheep's wool had they followed with him to Ilios; with these thereafter they shot thick and fast, and sought to break the battalions of the Trojans. So the one part in front with their war-gear, richly dight, [720] fought with the Trojans and with Hector in his harness of bronze, and the others behind kept shooting from their cover; and the Trojans bethought them no more of fight, for the arrows confounded them.

From the Iliad
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...=Hom.Il.13.716

So I guess missile fire can cause phalanxes to rout.

Both Roman and Greek writers say that the sling could out-range the bow. The advantage of range is repeatedly stressed. This could, it seems to me, be because the sling had a greater effective range, arrows losing their power to air-resistance after a while, and falling out of control onto their target, whereas a sling stone might build up a more dangerous speed just from falling. The effective range of slings seems to be in excess of 360 yards. Assyrian reliefs show slingers attacking cities from further away than the archers. Perhaps this is because the archers were used to shoot straight at defenders on the walls, while slingers dropped stones into the city, or perhaps it is just another clue to the greater range of slings.

Writers tell of the terrible wounds that slings would inflict, especially bullets. The Romans developed a special pair of tongs designed for getting bullets out of people. Arrows, unless barbed and deep in the victim, are easier to extract. There was also a belief, presumably false, that sling bullets got white hot as they flew through the air. Julius Caesar writes about clay shot being heated before slinging, so that it might set light to thatch.

Sling units were employed in the auxiliaries in the Roman army in the Republican period. The use of the sling was part of the basic training of all soldiers, who were also trained to throw stones up to one pound in weight by hand, a method which was considered more readily employed, which I can well understand - it takes a fair few seconds and preferably both hands to get a sling out and ready. Pompey in the civil wars favoured the use of very large units of slingers. They were used beside archers, at sea, and in sieges. Scipio used them against elephants, and Caesar comments that the sling was particularly effective against them.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.l...ons/sling.html

Bows, slings, who cares - why were islanders excellent at ranged combat? Cretans, Rhodians, Balearians... I'm suprised Lesbians or Cypriots weren't praised for their long range efficacy, it seems to go with the turf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chemchok

Bows, slings, who cares - why were islanders excellent at ranged combat? Cretans, Rhodians, Balearians...

---

Maybe they had too much free time on their hands? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan

So I guess missile fire can cause phalanxes to rout.

---

Actually the Greek warriors of the Iliad were from a pre-hoplite era of warfare and so were not in a phalanx

Thanks for all the response, gentlemen. I've just tested the mighty firepower of the slingers again, this time I pitted them against the bodyguard unit and the effect is still pretty deadly. I guess that resolve the question of their usefulness against armored units. ~;)

The odd thing about slings vs. archery and especially with respect to range, is that compound bows had been around for a very long time. One would think that they would easily outrange a sling--effective range, not just the "how far can it make it in ideal conditions" range. Simple bows are another matter. I don't believe many of the 200+ and 300+ yard ranges stated for slings. While some might be able to reach that range with effort, I doubt they would have any efficacy. I'm at a loss to understand how compound bows could be in use by various cultures for centuries and yet failed to be an effective weapon for quite some time. It seems to have been the case, but it puzzles me greatly. The Persians didn't have much luck with them, yet they incorporated cultures that had compound bows at the time (someone set me straight if I am wrong--I've not studied the Persians closely yet.) Carthage didn't use bowmen in field armies despite their Phoenician compound bow using origins. The Parthians were successful later on, and used an improved compound bow.

One advantage I've heard stated for slings is that you couldn't necessarily see their projectiles coming. Also, the noise of the projectiles apparently frightened elephants.

My personal opinion about slings' advantages is that they may be more effective in fighting heavily armored enemies. As arrows are a pentrating weapon, they have to be able to go through the armor and shield in order to injury the enemies. However, early bows and arrows didn't seem to be particular good in armor prieicing, I think the first effective anti- armor bow type weapon is the crossbow, then the longbow earn its infamous 'armor killer' title lateron.

However, slings' bullets are a different matter, they can't penetrate the armor, but they don't have to, because the brute force projected by a high velocity projectile is enough to knock out and bruise an armored person, something arrows can't as they are too light. Imaging what would happen if a lead bullet hit the chest of a heavy Cav, his armor would withstand the attack, but the rider might have one or two ribs broken. Something similar to such case has been observed in modern days, that is the bullet- proofing vest. Some law enforcements officers have been hit while wearing the vest, the bullet failed to penetrate the vest, but the impact force still cause serious internal chest injuries to aforementioned people.

here's some more advantages that Slings had over arrows for anyone who is interested...

Ammo.
Arrows themselves take longer to make than a lead bullet and are harder to carry into battle given their length. Sling bullets can be easily made by pouring some melted down lead (heated over the campfire) into an impression made in the ground by your thumb and left to cool... You can also carry a lot more ammo with you by having a bag or two hanging from your belt.

The weapon itself.
An archer has to take care of his bow, should it break in combat chances are he won't have another. It is also rather big and prone to breakage. As for slings, you can carry a number of spare slings on your person easily, and its quite concealable and easy to make...

Number of hands used.
Archers need to load, aim and shoot with both hands. Skilled slingers on the other hand (pun not intended) can load, aim and shoot their projectiles with only one hand... This often meant they could also carry a shield into battle on their spare arm for additional protection, something an archer would have to do without.

Shock impact.
This has been mentioned but I have to agree with it. A Sling has a lot more of a shock impact than an arrow. For instance when the Spanish were fighting the Aztecs in South America, the Spanish were mor eoften than not very well armoured. The Aztec's arrows glanced off their armour very easily, yet the weapon the Spanish feared the most was the humble sling which would impact with enough force to cause serious injury to the person hit...

It was a very good weapon.

it would be great if (first, all range attacks less effective, besides maybe jav and pila) the slingers get have a higher missile rating then the archers, and get armour penetration. (to simulate the effect described over here)

Another thing to remember is that compound bows only work where it is dry and hot. You try using one in Britain and it would fall apart as soon as it gets cold or rains. Hence the rise of the longbow in medieval times over compound bows.

"then the longbow earn its infamous 'armor killer' title lateron"

I saw a program recently which tested the penetration power of an english longbow against the sort of armour french knights would have worn at the battle of Agincourt. Surprisingly, despite the reputation of the English Longbowmen, it in fact didnt have the ability to penetrate the plate armour.
Apparantely.
Didn't mention slings though.
Maybe thats how we won ~D

The simple answer is that yet again, money decides history.

As with the early handguns later, bows took over from slings only because they were far easier to learn to use. A average slinger needed an extensive (and thus expensive) training, a good slinger had to be in training since his youth (therefore, only from the islands where the sling was used for hunting the best slingers came). A bow can be used by practicly everyone, a little basic training is enough to make a useful unit.
This happened later in history. The longbows from the English were much, much more effective then the new handguns. However, a longbow needed years of training, while the handguns were cheap and easy to use. Therefore, although they existed together for a while, the handgun slowly took over.

As shown earlier in the thread, slingers were in nearly every case better then bows. Still they existed together, because slingers were a very elite unit, while bowmen were cheap levy. Only during the Pax Romana did the sling dissapear as a military weapon. The romans did not need nor want slingers, just as they largely ignored bowmen. But when in later times light infantry became increasingly useful, bowmen could be trained swiftly while the art of slinging was all but lost.

Surely there are some ways arrows can be more effective, in certain situations? I do not believe that a lead shot can be more damaging than an arrow in 100% of all battles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smaug-V

I saw a program recently which tested the penetration power of an english longbow against the sort of armour french knights would have worn at the battle of Agincourt. Surprisingly, despite the reputation of the English Longbowmen, it in fact didnt have the ability to penetrate the plate armour.
Apparantely.

---

I could have sworne that It was a differently battle that was mentioned, it happened just after Henry the 5ths death and before the next king was old enough to take the throne and Henrys brother acted as regent in the between years. The French hired some Milanese mercenary knights with the latest armour technology, they were very effective for a number of reasons not least of which was that the arrows didn't get through their armour. But they were in turn stopped by weapons designed to stop heavy armour the Warhammer and halbard, both of which work on the principle that cutting damage isn't going to get through that awesome armour and concusion damage will.

Was the chap in the program one of the people used in Time Commanders? I always thought that he was cool.

I agree, it was not Agincourt that was mentioned. the armour worm by the French knights was capable of penetration by the bodkin arrows of the english archers. This was tested and proven in trails.

However, the milanese armour worn by the mercenaries hired by the french in a later battle was carefully designed to deflect the arrows. It was not a case of the arrow not having the force to penetrate merely a case that there was no surface upon which it strike effectively.

The battle you're thinking of is Verneiul in 1424. The French had hired about 2000 Italian mercenaries who were armored in the latest face-hardened 'arrow proof' full plate. The Longbowmen proved ineffective, but the Italians blew there chance for victory by continuing onwards to loot the English baggage train and by the time they got back they found that the Duke of Bedford had rallied his men and beat the French. As usual. ~:)

BDC, composite bows were treated to enable them to survive the effects of bad weather, the same as longbows needed to be, so it is wrong to say that an eastern composite bow would fall apart. Sure, eventually it would do, but then what doesn't in our blessed isle? ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smaug-V

"then the longbow earn its infamous 'armor killer' title lateron"

I saw a program recently which tested the penetration power of an english longbow against the sort of armour french knights would have worn at the battle of Agincourt. Surprisingly, despite the reputation of the English Longbowmen, it in fact didnt have the ability to penetrate the plate armour.
Apparantely.
Didn't mention slings though.
Maybe thats how we won ~D

---

Yea I saw a program saying that an arrow shot from the longbow into a charging knight at a close distance (cant remember exact) would strike at 140mph
gotta love the history channel baby

~:wave:

I prefer using vanilla merc slingers than vanilla archers but the fact that all good slingers are mercs balances that out a bit.

But all must hide from my 4/6 archer army! :hide: :whip: :smash: :skull: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Kiowa, of course arrows were better for some battles.
Arrows could easier be fired over obstacles and it could be lit. Perfect for sieges.
Also, while bullets could deal horrendous damage to the body it was seldomly deadly (in fact a very positive property as the man would demand care and could later tell about the horrible slings) to anyone with armour or even just dense quality clothing. The clothing would enter the body along with the bullet, but not in a ripped state such as with the gunbullet, so the injured man would 'merely' need to pull at the clothes and out would come the bullet. The same would not be possible with arrows (unless you wore quality silk).
The slingers would also need considerable space to operate. Each sling is slung over the head and out to the right (at least that was how it was done back then). That makes the slingers bad at forming good units, and thus very unruly before a battle as they would be everywhere and nowhere.
Also their trajectory are much lower making them hard to use if there is a guy in front of you, so no more of the several ranks we see.
All this makes the slingers perfect skirmishers but obviously inferior to the bow as a weapon used en masse (bows can be in dense and deep formations).

Red Harvest... Try and read Xenophon's Anabasis. There they arm Rhodian and other traditional slingers with slings, eventhough these guys had signed up as hoplites (and were thus not the best slingers around). But these guys, only a few hundred kept the Persian archers and horse archers, who as we know numbered thousands, at bay. So obviously the sling was superior in range to the composite bow (the compound bow is a modern invention).