Effectivness of slingers described on their unit cards a bit over the top?

**Conan** · 05-27-2010, 02:43

Hi guys,

Something just been playing on my mind and since its 2 am in the morning here in the UK and I can't sleep, felt it was time to get this of my chest....

In the unit descriptions of slingers it mentions them being able to "crush" armour and "shatter" shields... when I read this for the first time I remember thinking this sounded a bit excessive... I remember thinking if that kind of force is involved in a sling shot surely Galioth's head would have exploded with a hit from David's sling.

Any how with this in mind a few years back now I spend a weekend with a Roman re-enactment group. In the group was a bloke who played the role of a auxillia slinger from the baleric Isles. He had a couple of "home made" slings and was a pretty accurate shot with them. I remember asking him how effective the slings where against shields/armour and so he said he would show me. So he propped up on of the roman shield against a wall and slung small round pebbles about 2" in length at the shield from a distance of 10-12m. He but force in his swings and the sling shots hit the shield at some force, but they did just bounce off.

Now before I go any further I will attempt to tear my argument to pieces. This bloke, by his own account was no wear near as skilled as a real auxillia slinger would have been, also his "homemade" slings would probably been no wear near as effective as the genuine ones used would have been. Also the ammunition he was using was probably no were near as damaging... plus they weren't even lead. Even so I asked him if he felt trained professional slingers could have "crushed" armour and "shattered" shield and he said what I've felt since first reading the unit descriptions which is... no.

He said they certainly could have damaged and dented armour and equipment but said to heavy infantry slingers would have been more an annoyance than a real threat... however very effective against cavalry or unarmoured infantry as we all can imagine lead pellets would be devastating against unprotected flesh.

So does anyone else share my thoughts or am I a rebel without a cause?

**Qvintvs** · 05-27-2010, 03:15

What do you think shields were made of? It is wood, covered with decorations. Maybe he could stand even further away, or the shield was not made of wood.

**gamegeek2** · 05-27-2010, 04:50

Many shields actually had leather, as well as other materials, reinforcing them in order to make a more effective defense. Many have a metal boss in the middle. Others are covered with a layer of bronze. Others are made of wicker.

**Macilrille** · 05-27-2010, 08:33

And AFAICR Roman shields were effectively made from plywood...

I also seem to recall one found with several holes from slingshot in it. But I cannot be certain.

**Conan** · 05-28-2010, 01:06

These shield were made with plywood if I remember correctly and got pretty heavy after you had been lugging them around after a while.

**ziegenpeter** · 05-29-2010, 12:22

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Many shields actually had leather, as well as other materials, reinforcing them in order to make a more effective defense. Many have a metal boss in the middle. Others are covered with a layer of bronze. Others are made of wicker.

vI can only speak for medieval times but I think it was rather raw hide. makes more sense

**Moros** · 05-30-2010, 18:48

Both leather and raw hide were used I'd think. But without a doubt it varied much from region to region. In Arabia it would mainly have been leather covered shields (with or without boss) and wickershields.