Why did the slingers decay?

[nvm]

Why slingers were not used anymore during medieval times?

[Jiub]

Because of armor. Armor got better and slings were way more useless than bows, witch died out too eventually ... x-bows and guns being used until the end of the medieval age, but x-bows lost ground too eventually as technology advanced.

[Highlander of Scotland]

Because of armor. Armor got better and slings were way more useless than bows, witch died out too eventually ... x-bows and guns being used until the end of the medieval age, but x-bows lost ground too eventually as technology advanced.

actually the bow lived just as long as the xbow. The english used the longbow up until the 1600s and I am pretty sure that steppe and eastern peoples used the bow up until much later.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Aye, Jiub got it right. Think about it, why would you use a slingshot which tends to fail quite a bit when you can use a bow and arrow that fail much less often and inflict much more damage?

[Shasqua]

What do you mean by "fail"?

Slings actually have quite a bit of punch to them if you use heavier stones as opposed to bullets. They were still decent against armor, which, for most soldiers, didn't improve much from classical times; it was still usually mail, padding, or leather. Slings were still used in Iberia, and Incan slings were greatly (and rightly!) feared by conquistadores.

[unfortunate crow]

We're not talking about slingshots here papi!

The sling is a very dangerous weapon. Using a golf ball or walnut sized bullet/stone, a sling packs a great punch, and were known to inflict enough blunt force trauma to kill even armored men back in the day.

I think the reason they fell out of use has more to do with other weapons being easier to train with and use in large formations. Slings require a looser formation, and have a flatter trajectory than bows, which makes bows a little easier to use in a large battle. Not to mention it is far easier to defend a castle wall with a bow than a sling. In addition, as the sling ammunition was so heavy (often they were pecan-shaped lead bullets), a soldier could more easily carry a bunch of arrows than he could sling ammunition.

[dacder]

We're not talking about slingshots here papi!

The sling is a very dangerous weapon. Using a golf ball or walnut sized bullet/stone, a sling packs a great punch, and were known to inflict enough blunt force trauma to kill even armored men back in the day.

I think the reason they fell out of use has more to do with other weapons being easier to train with and use in large formations. Slings require a looser formation, and have a flatter trajectory than bows, which makes bows a little easier to use in a large battle. Not to mention it is far easier to defend a castle wall with a bow than a sling. In addition, as the sling ammunition was so heavy (often they were pecan-shaped lead bullets), a soldier could more easily carry a bunch of arrows than he could sling ammunition.

Right on +rep

[penquin11]

What do you mean by "fail"?

Slings actually have quite a bit of punch to them if you use heavier stones as opposed to bullets. They were still decent against armor, which, for most soldiers, didn't improve much from classical times; it was still usually mail, padding, or leather. Slings were still used in Iberia, and Incan slings were greatly (and rightly!) feared by conquistadors.

..... doesn't matter slings have less range, were less reliable, couldn't be fired at as fast of a rate, and definitely weren't as accurate. Plus Incan vs. Conquistadors who won.....

[KngGilgamesh]

...Plus Incan vs. Conquistadors who won.....

A lot of it is was because the the Inca and the Aztecs were dying because of Small pox, Measles etc.
There was also some treachery involved, the Aztecs though that the Spaniards were gods(like their feathered serpent god or some other god). They also fooled the population and Montezuma II
Superior Technology also played quite a part too.

[Double A]

..... doesn't matter slings have less range, were less reliable, couldn't be fired at as fast of a rate, and definitely weren't as accurate. Plus Incan vs. Conquistadors who won.....

A lot of it is was because the the Inca and the Aztecs were dying because of Small pox, Measles etc.
There was also some treachery involved, the Aztecs though that the Spaniards were gods(like their feathered serpent god or some other god). They also fooled the population and Montezuma II
Superior Technology also played quite a part too.

Don't forget horses and guns scaring the living out of them.

[KngGilgamesh]

Don't forget horses and guns scaring the living out of them.

yeah those too, there was no large beast of burden there, and so no wheels, horses, etc.

[penquin11]

A lot of it is was because the the Inca and the Aztecs were dying because of Small pox, Measles etc.
There was also some treachery involved, the Aztecs though that the Spaniards were gods(like their feathered serpent god or some other god). They also fooled the population and Montezuma II
Superior Technology also played quite a part too.

this is like that rock-paper-scissors game except rock-plate-mail-swords....

[empr guy]

.. Plus Incan vs. Conquistadors who won.....

hmmm, wasnt it the incas who couldnt fight unless their king lead them into battle? and guess whose king got captured...

You have a link to a video of people stabbing a big piece of meat covered with cloth and chainmail?

looking now...

ask and you shall recieve.

at about :35 a guy takes a sword and goes right through it.

[decimator22]

..... doesn't matter slings have less range, were less reliable, couldn't be fired at as fast of a rate, and definitely weren't as accurate. Plus Incan vs. Conquistadors who won.....

Actually after doing some reading, slings have a bigger range than most bows. Even the longbow, only the composite bow can surpass the range at about 500m while the slings are at 400m. I guess it came to the same things as fire arms. The crossbow had the same use, but was far easier to fire with it. I also think that the ability of bows to fire parabolically gave them an advantage. Finally, as already said as wars became more a noble's task rather than one of a common man. The use of slings must have been seen as that which a peasent uses.

[penquin11]

Actually after doing some reading, slings have a bigger range than most bows. Even the longbow, only the composite bow can surpass the range at about 500m while the slings are at 400m. I guess it came to the same things as fire arms. The crossbow had the same use, but was far easier to fire with it. I also think that the ability of bows to fire parabolically gave them an advantage. Finally, as already said as wars became more a noble's task rather than one of a common man. The use of slings must have been seen as that which a peasent uses.

what about the long bow? Not to mention that Crossbows were in much use, and I believe that they had pretty good range. Either way rocks just dont strike me as useful as such things as javilens, arrows, bolts, and such... then again mistakes were made frequently in the past...

[SirRobin]

Slings have a huge advantage though: the ammo is found almost everywhere.


But possibly another reason arrows were more popular in Europe is due to much of the population being used to hunt with the bow, and such found it easier to pick up for warfare as well ?

[Surgeon]

Slings were still used for some time, but I don't think they were widespread enough to be incorporated into armies as actual requirements for soldiers, like the Romans had. Eventually they simply got phased out by better technology.

[Kiwiphoenix]

Well, slings stayed in use with ragtag peasant mobs for many years after they had been phased out of professional armies. So I'm thinking that social standing might have played into it as well - kind of like how all the kings wanted firearms when they came to Europe, even though early guns were expensive and only slightly more effective than clubbing your enemy with a big rock. If slings got a sort of peasanty connotation, I'd expect a lot of more 'respectable' professional soldiers to stop using them, regardless of their actual effectiveness.

[SirRobin]

I think there's one more reason:

To fire the sling accurately, you need standardized ammunition of uniform size and weight. And arrows are reasonably easy to produce to standard, but not stones.

You might of course die-cast slingshot from lead, but that might simply be too expensive?

[Surgeon]

I can't imagine lead bullets being more expensive than arrows. Even during Napoleonic times the longbow was actually more effective than muskets, but the arrows were far too expensive to mass-produce to the same scale as bullets.