Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 94

Thread: Lethality of the sling

  1. #1

    Default Lethality of the sling

    Ok so I've been watching a lot of tv recently and on Spike's deadliest warrior they've twice had the simple sling and stone tested for lethality. With the Aztec sling they were unable to fracture a human skull but with the more recent Celtic sling they were able to slightly depress the front of the skull, which the doctor said was not lethal, and also cleanly break an arm or leg bone in two. Now I will admit I'm a bit concerned about the true lethality of slings on the ancient battlefield. I've been following the progress here with all the previews and whatnot and the EB team seems to swear by the efficacy of the sling even when compared to bow and arrow in ancient times. I know referencing a tv show is not the best evidence but still, I was rather shocked that the sling could not fracture a human skull in the hands of any of the show's slingers. Not to mention that this was on an unprotected skull and it seems the simplest ancient helmet would easily defeat any sling stone if the unprotected skull can survive a direct hit. That being said I'm perfectly open to the idea that the show's weapons experts may not have been as skilled as actual slingers from antiquity so maybe the test is skewed in that sense. Even so, these guys were getting some serious speed on their stones and could not get a killing blow from their slings. Now I'm left wondering how useful the sling really was in antiquity. Perhaps testing the sling as a killing weapon is the wrong test, the show did establish it could break bones and cause great pain, and perhaps it should be considered a harassing tool more than a killer like the bow and arrow. Yet, the sense I've gotten from the previews is that that the EB team considers the sling to be a deadly weapon in trained hands so I'm a bit conflicted about which side I believe. I would appreciate it if anyone could provide other evidence dealing with the lethality of ancient slings and settle the matter one way or another.
    "Aut viam inveniam, aut faciam." -Hannibal Barca
    http://[IMG]http://img52.imageshack.....png[/IMG]

  2. #2

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Isn't this the show that had the Spartan shrugging off black pepper and glass shards ground into his eyes?

    The EB team never claimed that a sling could shatter skulls, but in Xenophon's Anabasis (the events of which he witnessed personally), Rhodian Slingers make a fairly good showing against Persian missile troops. The descriptions for Slingers in EB describes damaging shields, crushing armor, penetrating flesh and breaking bones (Not neccesarily all in one shot).

  3. #3

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Controlled tests have been done on ancient weapons: I have a huge statistical study on slings that I'll post when i have some more time. For now,

    These figures come from P.H. Blyth's "Effectiveness of Greek Armour against arrows in the Persian War", which was a multi-disciplinary study of the subject and the figures are quite conservative.

    Weapon: Mass: Delivery method: Energy

    Club, Axe or Greek sword : 2kg ; used two-handed ; 130 joules(96 foot lbs)
    Club, Axe or Greek sword : 1 kg ; used single handed ; 65 joules(48 ft lbs)
    javelin :0.8 kg ; thrown, with run-up ; 198 joules(146 ft lbs)
    javelin :0.8 kg ; thrown, one pace only ; 111 joules(83 ft lbs)
    javelin :0.8 kg ; thrown standing ; 60 joules(49 ft lbs)
    javelin :0.8 kg ; thrown,one pace with loop ; 160 joules(118 ft lbs)
    light spear or small sword/dagger :0.8 kg ; close combat ; 30 joules(24 ft lbs)
    sarissa :8(?)kg ; two-hand thrust,pace fwd ; 160 joules(118 ft lbs)
    spear-butt : various ; thrust down, coup-de-grace; 50 joules (40 ft lbs)

    One can see from this that energies of the order of 30-60 joules (24-49 ft lbs) could be given generally to typical Greek Hand weapons, and armour would need to resist this type of thrust, as well as slashing blows up to 60 joules(49 ft lbs)

    Missile weapons:
    sling bullet :24 gm swung one handed ; 30-36 joules(22-27 ft lbs)
    light bow 3-6 gm arrowhead ; 20 joules at 50 metres
    15-20 gm incl shaft ; 15 joules at 100 metres
    9 joules at 200 metres(sufficient to penetrate flesh)

    heavy bow 30 joules at 50 metres
    26 joules at 100 metres
    20 joules at 200 metres


    And these figures are from From Sumer to Rome: the military capabilities of ancient armies by Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz.





    P.S. Have a look at Slinging.org. Actually, it's pretty easy to find this kind of stuff on Google, too.
    Last edited by oudysseos; June 16, 2010 at 06:15 PM.
    οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
    Even as are the generations of leaves, such are the lives of men.
    Glaucus, son of Hippolochus, Illiad, 6.146



  4. #4

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    About the sling. Here is a video of a discovery channel show. I know that it does not represent the facts in the exact historical context, however, it gives you some basic concept of the probable efficacy of the sling.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBa1G12KyTM
    They show the sling around 4:30

  5. #5

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    It is interesting to read the ancient source descriptions of battles and training. Often they both revolve around what in MTW2 would be morale. IE- fighting spirit, ferocity, bravery etc. In many battles it is reported that the rout is when the majority of casualties result hence the ideal of discipline or holding despite fear.

    The actual casualties on the front battle lines between phalanx and legion maniples might have been light with phalanx slightly more vulnerable to flanking due to its less flexible nature. The fear of cavalry in ancient times was due to the shock of the charge trampling and killing outright a few men but more importantly breaking the formation and leaving a formerly disciplined mass of men struggling in isolated groups if exploited by a 2nd cavalry charge or following infantry. Also the swift movement of cavalry upset slower moving infantry formations cohesion and could scatter skirmishers, and circle to attack weak points with more precision and speed than infantry.

    Of course most of the sources on battles are from Greek and Roman writers and were recordings of battles between fairly similarly armored and often known and understood battle formations. Even a stab wound in the arm or leg might have been fatal much more often due to infection though some of the medical remedies available at the time worked well for simple injuries it was not as effective as modern medicine and occasionally a slight wound could still kill. The battles between other less familiar styles of fighting might have resulted in much higher front line losses especially depending on the type of armor worn. Still- it seems fairly constant that the majority of losses occur during the rout hence why things like decimation and most harsh punishments in all civilizations were reserved for those who fled in the face of the enemy. Though some cultures were more comfortable with hit&run tactics where fleeing was actually the expected outcome even if things seemed relatively even.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by Hounf of Culan View Post
    Ok so I've been watching a lot of tv recently and on Spike's deadliest warrior
    FAIL

  7. #7
    sirfiggin's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    smelly smelly fens, inglind.
    Posts
    1,382

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    in terms of comparison, a sling shot is to a mace what a spear is to an arrow- the former would not be able to cause penetration while the latter would, whilst, as Culan said, the celtic sling dented a skull, what affect would that have on the charging enemy? more so on a cavalrymen? or his horse? "killing" someone in total war does not necessarily mean killing them outright, but a soldier who is incapacitated enough to be unable to fight is still "dead"
    The Duke of Dunwich and surrounding fiefdom

    For any who are interested by my FF on occurrences in Rhun and beyond; I have begun a new project (not because the old one is finished, just opening more room for ideas) about one of the minor characters, Rankal. It is in the Third Age AAR index and here is the link http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=376994

  8. #8

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Yeah, the "wounded" category is quite low in MTW2... even with good ancillaries typically the best you see is 25% which I suppose is decent but that is the best case and rarely seen. I'd think that was actually more the normal case and best case would be 50% wounded who recover or even slightly higher. Its would be too much to expect for wounds to be classed by the weapon that wounded. IE- light piercing missiles like arrows incapacitate but depending on armor could high a high wounded vs killed rate while hacking weapons like axes, gladius, 2hand swords have a higher kill rate as well as heavy piercing weapons like javelins. Other light missiles and thrusting hand weapons also have a high wound rate but a low kill rate. So in a battle they are effective at incapacitating- IE winning the battle- but also have a higher proportion of wounded men who fled that will have to be fought at a later date.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    It's not necessary to penetrate the skull in order to inflict a lethal brain injury. The velocity of the impact causing the brain to slam against the inside of the skull is enough to kill. A helmet offers little protection since it's padding rather than solid barriers that are necessary. Even with modern materials (energy absorbing foam) it's difficult to protect the brain from this type of injury.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #10

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterFred View Post
    FAIL

    How enlightening, I'm reluctant to bring up the show but it's the only thing I've personally come across that actually tested the effect of a sling so what else am I supposed to base this on? I think sirfiggin is right to point out that the show's testing is flawed because they are willing to disregard a depressed skull. While not lethal it surely would incapacitate or severely handicap the target. Nonetheless, it's still rather disconcerting that a sling stone cannot cause serious damage to a human skull.

    Odysseous thanks for those numbers, I'm still rather surprised by how little energy the stones from slings are generating, it seems rather pathetic, especially against armored foes.


    http://www.spike.com/full-episode/aztec-jaguar-vs/38375

    Here is the aztec episode for all to see, just skip to 29:25 to see the sling test. I don't think the celtic sling episode is online yet which is a shame because the guy who did the celtic sling managed to throw it much harder.
    "Aut viam inveniam, aut faciam." -Hannibal Barca
    http://[IMG]http://img52.imageshack.....png[/IMG]

  11. #11

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    These shows always suffer from the major problem that the people doing the test cannot possibly have the expertise that, say, Balearic slingers did. The comparisons are a little unfair.

    If you google "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GREEK ARDJIOUARG AGAINST ARROWS IN THE PERSIAN IWAR (490 - 479 B. C. ) :AN INTERDISCIPLINARY EITQUIRY by PHILIP HENRY BLYTH", you can get a link to download the study for free (you'll have to register with the British Museum online, but no charge).

    Don't undervalue the sling: at a reasonable range, it can in fact shatter the skull or break a bone (or cause a concussion and/or hematoma). This takes less joules than you think, by the way. True, not much good against armour - but neither are arrows, really. And the current world record for distance is 500 metres.
    οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
    Even as are the generations of leaves, such are the lives of men.
    Glaucus, son of Hippolochus, Illiad, 6.146



  12. #12
    pbwu1f's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    120

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    OK let me start by saying that a sling is a pretty scary weapon. I made a couple of them last month and me and friends did some test with them. It was pretty simple to make cause there a many types of slings. I believe the site name is slinging.org, don't know but if Googled you can probably find it. After just about 2-3 hours of practicing we were slinging rocks across a pond that was 200-250 yard across. We were putting big dents in a piece of ply wood and taking good size chunks of a wall from about 50 yards. We were using rocks we bought from Home Depot that were oval shaped and the size of a golf ball. Now if there is an army of hundreds, even thousands of slinger's slinging good size and shaped rocks at ranks I think there is a chance of hitting a soft spot like the face and killing someone . Now me and my friends come from sports back round like American Football and Baseball so I think that helped a little the technique. Only way to know is to try and see for your self. I always thought of slingers to be weak and useless and to honest gay , but after I tried slinging I actually like it and now I have a lot of respect for the weapon.

    Roma...will....fall.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Slings are effective weapons. Killing weapons? Certainly but probably not often versus armored warriors with shields. We used to hunt rabbits and small birds with a sling and with practice sometimes we got amazing accuracy over reasonable distances. A larger target like a man or group of men would be even easier to hit from further away, however there is a huge difference in the type of ammo used and how the sling was constructed that influences the energy delivered.

    I could put a lead ball completely through a plywood target board leaving a hole larger than your 22 caliber rifle at close ranges but even lead lost power pretty fast at slightly greater distances- past 10 meters. Shooting small stones picked up in the field at the same board and was barely ever able to even embed the stone into the plywood. Usually it bounced off or some stones even shattered.

    A modern hunting sling with composite materials and large pouch (which can hold heavier ammo) should be quite capable of killing an unarmored man even at medium ranges though accuracy degrades past 50 feet, at least it did for me even with lots of practice.

    A couple primitive slings I tried to build myself were still effective for small game but were noticeably weaker at transferring energy versus those plywood target boards we used to shoot at so I'd imagine ancient slings made by professionals (in their time) would be somewhere between a modern sling and my primitive constructions.



    ^ Above is re-post from e-mail from a friend I used to hunt with when we were younger- he got into using a sling and become quite good with it while I stuck with a 22. Kind of interesting so I e-mailed him if he still used a sling- he doesn't- but he had lots of practice with one. The "we" in first paragraph is his brother I think because we only ever hunted small birds together, not rabbits.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichon View Post

    I could put a lead ball completely through a plywood target board leaving a hole larger than your 22 caliber rifle at close ranges but even lead lost power pretty fast at slightly greater distances- past 10 meters. Shooting small stones picked up in the field at the same board and was barely ever able to even embed the stone into the plywood. Usually it bounced off or some stones even shattered.
    Pretty much Wargames Research Groups estimate on the sling years ago. Even though it could toss a bullet a great distance, it was only really effective at closer ranges.

    The lead bullet made them more effective, but lead in the ancient world was still an expensive commodity.

    Archery would generally overwhelm the sling in accuracy, range and hitting power. I get the impression the slingers best trick was being nimble on their feet.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by wulfgar610 View Post
    Pretty much Wargames Research Groups estimate on the sling years ago. Even though it could toss a bullet a great distance, it was only really effective at closer ranges.

    The lead bullet made them more effective, but lead in the ancient world was still an expensive commodity.

    Archery would generally overwhelm the sling in accuracy, range and hitting power. I get the impression the slingers best trick was being nimble on their feet.
    Even archery is a bit suspect depending on the type of bow and arrows used. Probably slings and lighter types of bows would be very effective vs less armored men but not have much effect vs men with shields and armor. Though in ancient warfare I would not be surprised that slingers acted a bit like suppressing fire- not necessarily lethal but designed to keep the enemies heads down or in this case shields up- affects would be to increase fatigue as well as make changing formations more difficult. Not sure that can be represented in a MTW2 though. Shields would probably be more important than armor regards slings due to the crushing force of a bullet vs the piercing of an arrow which both armor and shields would stop.


    Interesting discussion found after looking a couple minutes with Google:

    Here is a good discussion of bows vs. slings:
    Bows take very specialist ammunition which needs to be well-made in advance, and maintained. An archer would want to recover as many of his arrows as possible after use. Arrows are expensive, and can warp in damp weather. Arrows are long things need to be carried in an awkward quiver which flops about as the carrier runs. A pouch of sling stones can be a neat bundle, a more manageable load.

    It is well known how bows are affected by weather. Battles have hinged on whether one side, with superior archers, has been able to make use of its bows effectively. Even quite light wind will blow arrows off course badly, and rain will spoil bow strings, and drag arrows down from the air. Slings, while still adversely affected by wind and rain, suffer not nearly so much from bad weather. This may explain why armies with archers often valued having slingers as well.

    Slingers are generally more mobile than archers. They find it easier to shoot on the move and have the great advantage of needing only one hand to shoot, which allows them to use a shield in their free hand to protect themselves. It is possible to load a sling one handed, and I find that the best way to do this is to kneel down quickly and use the ground as a third hand: put the sling down letting go of one string, get a stone, put the stone in the sling, then pick up the sling again by the loose string and stand up again. While doing this, you would want to have a shield for protection, since you have to take your eye off the enemy. One can sling while kneeling, but the shot will not be as powerful or accurate. Archers in ancient armies often wore armour; they needed it more. While some archers did sometimes carry shields, these could not be used for parrying while shooting. All this may explain while slingers were often deployed as skirmishers on the field rather than in huge formations.

    Arrows can be seen raining down upon an enemy, and even when they are flying on a fairly flat trajectory, are visible to an enemy expecting them. Sling stones are much more difficult to see in flight, especially from a distance. It is also more difficult to judge which way they are going, as they are seen as a dot rather than a line. Sling bullets, which are cast lead shot, are especially difficult to see. It has been speculated that this difficulty of seeing the stones in flight might be both advantageous and disadvantageous. A cavalry formation charging into a shower of arrows, might be broken up or slowed down when the riders look up to see the arrows and try and avoid them. Slings would not break up formations this way so readily, but might gain from allowing less evasion.

    One advantage that the bow has over the sling is that bows can be used more easily in deep formations of troops. Archers could angle their bows to shoot safely over the heads of their fellows in front of them. While slinging over the heads of friendly troops is possible, it is much more dangerous and was seldom attempted. In later periods, when fortifications had slits for shooting from, bows and crossbows were better suited to this than slings.

    One further comparison with the bow which should definitely be made is that of the skill needed to operate the weapon well. A man might be taught how to use a bow to a useful standard quite quickly. Judging the range of an oncoming line of troops might be difficult, but at least the archer could shoot an arrow well enough to make it look threatening. Slings are different. To get good range with a sling takes practice. With one of my slings, I might sling a stone a bit bigger than a golf ball only seventy yards or so. Ancient slingers with much more skill than me could get a stone over twice this distance. There are peasant boys in Africa who use slings to herd sheep and goats. They sit in the shade of a tree, and if they see an animal straying, they sling a stone in front of it to scare it back into the flock. To gain this sort of skill, I am told it is necessary to start young. Good slingers in antiquity were in demand. Particularly famed for their skill with slings were the men of the Balearic Isles (islands in the Mediterranean including Majorca, Ibiza and Minorca). These slingers practised their skill from a very early age, their original purpose being to hunt and to scare pests. Their skill brought them employment from the Romans.
    More useful info:
    Xenophon mentions Rhodian slingers being asked to volunteer to fight in the Greek army against Mithridates. These slingers, who did not fight in formal units, were said to use bullets which gave them twice the range of the less-skilled Persian slingers who used fist-sized stones.

    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.

    Contrary to popular belief, the sling is not whirled above the head several times, building up speed, before the stone is released. A sling might be whirled a couple of times slowly if the slinger had time, to get the feel of the weight of the stone, and while sizing up the target, but it is one big movement which sends the stone on its way. Anyone who makes a sling will find that they can whirl the loaded sling round and round far faster than they can cope with when it comes to releasing the stone. Also, slings are generally used over-arm, like bowling a cricket ball, rather than side-arm, like skipping a stone across water. A side-arm action allows for greater accuracy regarding elevation (up and down) but less regarding windage (left and right). A slinger who makes an error using a sling sideways is in danger of hitting his friends to his left or right. A slinger slinging over-arm will err only to sling into the ground in front of him, or over the heads of his foes; and he needs less room to sling, and can sling from behind a wall.
    [...]
    The power of slings is famous. When iron plate-armoured Spaniards went into South America against the Aztecs, only the slings of the Aztecs were feared. The stone-tipped arrows would glance off or shatter against the armour, but the sling stones would damage the Spaniards by sheer smashing force.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    I would look into those few pages surrounded the table comparing impact energies in Gabriel's 3 volume work that Oudysseos referenced. I've read those texts and they're really great. The intro section of volume #1 goes into armour, weaponry, and so on, and you'll find comparisons in the weaponry section.
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  17. #17

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by mamik_yev_konak View Post
    I would look into those few pages surrounded the table comparing impact energies in Gabriel's 3 volume work that Oudysseos referenced. I've read those texts and they're really great. The intro section of volume #1 goes into armour, weaponry, and so on, and you'll find comparisons in the weaponry section.
    It is a great work in measurement. The only parts I have issue with is measuring mostly the striking power vs how it would likely be employed. IE- axes... one of the better striking power weapons but rarely ever employed as a main weapon by more than a few cultures(not counting throwing axes) and never employed that way as far as I know when not already employed in agriculture/forestry. An axe can be crushing, piercing, and slashing and sounds good weapon looking at impact results. However to actually use one in combat is awkward. Short range, small strike radius with small axes and longer range, slow strikes, and inertia is easily turned due to the distribution of mass in the axehead.

    Spears, overhand vs underhand is also compared as if its almost equal in operation but the overhand is much better chances to pierce armor. That discounts many factors like speed, accuracy, defense position, fatigue, and how manageable the length is with one hand. Of course probably one use is not exclusionary to another use but all the arguments are really conjecture.

    I worked at an equipment testing range a few years ago and from that experience I am always suspicious of weapons/tools which have wonderful properties but are functionally impossible to use very well. Just looking at the stats vs considering the way its used can lead to erroneous assumptions. I haven't read the whole volume but the parts I did read made me question the rest when it speaks about how the equipment would be used in a battle vs merely testing impact force on difference equipment types. Although I admit there is little conclusive evidence on how weapons were actually used in ancient battles sometimes a little more recent experience goes a long way and I trust that more than thought experiments based on scanty relevant data.
    Last edited by Ichon; June 18, 2010 at 02:02 PM.

  18. #18
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
    It is a great work in measurement. The only parts I have issue with is measuring mostly the striking power vs how it would likely be employed. IE- axes... one of the better striking power weapons but rarely ever employed as a main weapon by more than a few cultures(not counting throwing axes) and never employed that way as far as I know when not already employed in agriculture/forestry. An axe can be crushing, piercing, and slashing and sounds good weapon looking at impact results. However to actually use one in combat is awkward. Short range, small strike radius with small axes and longer range, slow strikes, and inertia is easily turned due to the distribution of mass in the axehead.

    Spears, overhand vs underhand is also compared as if its almost equal in operation but the overhand is much better chances to pierce armor. That discounts many factors like speed, accuracy, defense position, fatigue, and how manageable the length is with one hand. Of course probably one use is not exclusionary to another use but all the arguments are really conjecture.

    I worked at an equipment testing range a few years ago and from that experience I am always suspicious of weapons/tools which have wonderful properties but are functionally impossible to use very well. Just looking at the stats vs considering the way its used can lead to erroneous assumptions. I haven't read the whole volume but the parts I did read made me question the rest when it speaks about how the equipment would be used in a battle vs merely testing impact force on difference equipment types. Although I admit there is little conclusive evidence on how weapons were actually used in ancient battles sometimes a little more recent experience goes a long way and I trust that more than thought experiments based on scanty relevant data.
    A weapon's ability to defeat contemporary armor has pretty much always been more important then how easy it wields. In history swords had to adapt a lot more often to new armor-types then axes.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobz View Post
    A weapon's ability to defeat contemporary armor has pretty much always been more important then how easy it wields. In history swords had to adapt a lot more often to new armor-types then axes.
    It wasn't until full suits of armor that a weapons ability to pierce(or blunt trauma) become the most important factor in deployment. Even then since not all fighters in a battle wore full armor many other weapons were used for other reasons.

    Swords in many ways have been secondary weapons for a long time. More like the side arm of modern soldiers than their primary weapon. Certain times swords became a primary weapon but usually only of a small group even within a culture.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Lethality of the sling

    Quote Originally Posted by Hounf of Culan View Post
    How enlightening, I'm reluctant to bring up the show but it's the only thing I've personally come across that actually tested the effect of a sling so what else am I supposed to base this on? I think sirfiggin is right to point out that the show's testing is flawed because they are willing to disregard a depressed skull. While not lethal it surely would incapacitate or severely handicap the target. Nonetheless, it's still rather disconcerting that a sling stone cannot cause serious damage to a human skull.

    Odysseous thanks for those numbers...


    ... I don't think the celtic sling episode is online yet which is a shame because the guy who did the celtic sling managed to throw it much harder.
    I bring up the show not to mock its format, but the use of its 'tests'. Heck, I'd be pre-disposed to like the show if I thought they had anything to bring to the table in terms of weapons skill or methodology. The problem is, I have absolutely NO confidence in the setup of their 'tests' or the 'experts' they bring in to demonstrate techniques. You say it yourself that you wish the celtic sling episode was online because that guy was a better slinger. I'll go ahead and assume without watching the episode that the guy they got to do the aztec test was picked because he looked more "aztecy" or at least had a bit of an accent, rather than actual expertise in slinging.

    Since the 'tests' on the show are ridiculous on their face, and also in the details (who they use on the show as 'experts'), the show is FAIL.

    But I agree with you in thanking Odysseous for giving some hard research for us to chew.

    And I'll admit, its inherently interesting to consider how armies far removed from each other in time would fare in battle. Would the Marian Roman Army dominate the Medieval world? Or would the advent of the crossbow render them useless? What would happen if the massive fleets of the First Carthaginian War met the Ventitian and Muslim fleets of later eras (ignoring the strategic but not tactical importance of improved sailing technology)?

    Silly questions, sure, but interesting. But just the sort of question Spike's TV show is absolutely uninterested in actually pursuing.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •