Will the sling have justice this time?

[Zaamii]

In Rome 1 slingers were ok, like a cross between archers and skirmishers, but they were crap against anything with armour, and their range was pretty small.

But many historians actually recount that slings would usually out range archers. And good slingers were very accurate even on small targets.

Slinging was also very common so there was a large supply of trained slingers almost everywhere in Europe.

Slings are very powerful and could easily kill a man in armour, since the only armour good against blunt force is plate armour, which wasn't around then. The Romans even designed a special pair of tongs to remove lead sling bullets from people.

This article talks a bit about slings vs bows in Roman times: http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html

[RGA]

There were two types of sling: the long one for long-range which annoyed more than killed, and the short one for (very) close range but much deadlier. Even at close range, sling was ineffective against shield, which was ubiquitous in ancient warfare. No one should think sling was nothing but a toy, as it was used as weapon for thousands of years. But one should not turn it into armour-piercing anti-tank gun either.

[Zaamii]

There were two types of sling: the long one for long-range which annoyed more than killed, and the short one for (very) close range but much deadlier. Even at close range, sling was ineffective against shield, which was ubiquitous in ancient warfare. No one should think sling was nothing but a toy, as it was used as weapon for thousands of years. But one should not turn it into armour-piercing anti-tank gun either.

Both types of slings are extremely deadly.

Short = speed, accuracy

Long = range, power

And hitting a large block of infantry is extremely easy for anyone who had even just a year worth of practice with a sling.

Balearic slingers used 250g stones, which were easily capable of crushing armour and shields. Not to mention the lead sling bullets which could serious damage to any human, armoured or not.

[RGA]

Both types of slings are extremely deadly.

Short = speed, accuracy

Long = range, power

And hitting a large block of infantry is extremely easy for anyone who had even just a year worth of practice with a sling.

Balearic slingers used 250g stones, which were easily capable of crushing armour and shields. Not to mention the lead sling bullets which could serious damage to any human, armoured or not.

Is that based on actual tests or just your opinion? Because the fact is: no army used sling in any significant number after, let's say, 5th century AD. If the sling was such a formidable weapon as you said, why did it fall out of use?

[Zaamii]

Is that based on actual tests or just your opinion? Because the fact is: no army used sling in any significant number after, let's say, 5th century AD. If the sling was such a formidable weapon as you said, why did it fall out of use?

I am talking about ancient times. Roman republic, etc. Obviously by the dark ages bow technology had advanced enough to surpass the sling.

The sling fell out of use because it became less popular, and was seen as a "peasant" weapon. Much like how after letting anybody join the Roman Army, actually Romans didn't look as highly on the army. It went from a great honour to a thing to do if you were poor.

[betto]

one of the causes of decline of Corinthian helmet was that it not protected very well against slings

a well throw rock can kill you neck or unconscious head or break a limb

archers mass voley do better again unarmored targets than few slings(slings require much more room)

[UsulDaNeriak]

Is that based on actual tests or just your opinion? Because the fact is: no army used sling in any significant number after, let's say, 5th century AD. If the sling was such a formidable weapon as you said, why did it fall out of use?

It is as hard to train a good archer as a good slinger (10 years plus). So the romans did recruit slingers and archers from cultures with a long tradition in these departments primarily. Obviously slinger cultures disappeared, while archery cultures survived and even new ones like english bow-culture arised in mid-age. But such a cultural change does not depend neccessarily on the power of the weapon.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Is that based on actual tests or just your opinion? Because the fact is: no army used sling in any significant number after, let's say, 5th century AD. If the sling was such a formidable weapon as you said, why did it fall out of use?

Why did the bow and crossbow fall out of use, when we invented firearms?


A bow still kills, does it not? I mean, it's not like a gun will make you more dead.

[Zaamii]

Why did the bow and crossbow fall out of use, when we invented firearms?


A bow still kills, does it not? I mean, it's not like a gun will make you more dead.

Because any man could be trained in the use of a firearm in a few days time.

The sling never really fell out of use before the bow did. The best slingers were from Iberia, Middle East, Mediterranean islands, etc (there were slingers almost everywhere but the best and most famous were from these places). They were hired by Rome as mercenaries.

And seeing how the most of the English speaking world thinks of west/central European history when they think of the middle ages, the sling was not used in those places so it's not widely known about. But slings were used in Spain to great effect against the Moors during the Reconquista. Spanish rebels even used slings against the army in 1780, and won!

And in slings during the Spanish conquest of the Americas Incan slings sometimes shot 400g stones! They were also able to kill a horse in one hit.

[Yayattasa]

Slinging was also very common so there was a large supply of trained slingers almost everywhere in Europe.

To raise a slinger is way harder than to raise an archer.

Slings are very powerful and could easily kill a man in armour, since the only armour good against blunt force is plate armour, which wasn't around then. The Romans even designed a special pair of tongs to remove lead sling bullets from people.

Plate armour good against blunt force? Tell that to the warhammers and maces all around.
To fight in group, people needed to use the short sling so they don't hit each other while swinging their slings. So yeah, that pretty much reduced their fighting capabilities.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

To raise a slinger is way harder than to raise an archer.

As a slinger and archer, going out tomorrow morning in fact, I can effectively say that you are talking out of your bottom.

The thing is that linen and leather armor can stop arrows rather effectively. That doesn't mean the defender won't receive the most horrendous thump in his life but at least he'd be alive. Just use common sense.

We have the benefit of shooting through different medium, from car tires to cured saddle leather, and with various bows of widely varying draw poundage. I own a Korean hwal, a long bow a recurve and a compound. So, just from, oh, I don't know, actually shooting and hunting, as opposed to just sitting behind a keyboard with a can of Fresca, I have to call BS on your 'common sense' opinion that linen and leather stop arrows effectively.

[Larkin]

When used effectively (aka from flanks or behind) they were absolutely crushing in Rome. Plus they had an "effective against armour" bonus damage, did they not?

Archers and slingers from the front, except highly experienced ones, were generally quite mediocre in Rome. Otherwise they'd be overpowered and you'd just see armies of archers that could decimate anything before it gets close enough.

[The Despondent Mind]

I read in some book that Rhodos slingers had some metal projectiles , which were devastating on Persian infantry .

[yuezhi]

When used effectively (aka from flanks or behind) they were absolutely crushing in Rome. Plus they had an "effective against armour" bonus damage, did they not?

Archers and slingers from the front, except highly experienced ones, were generally quite mediocre in Rome. Otherwise they'd be overpowered and you'd just see armies of archers that could decimate anything before it gets close enough.

you might be confusing mods with vanilla. if vanilla slingers did have an AP bonus then i'm sure it would've been listed in the unit description.

[Larkin]

you might be confusing mods with vanilla. if vanilla slingers did have an AP bonus then i'm sure it would've been listed in the unit description.

Yeah maybe you're right, I haven't played vanilla RTW in years.

Maybe CA should just hire the Roma Surrectum team to design their game for them.

[Dan113112]

A sling stone killed Goliath (I probably mispelled it). Even if Goliath was wearing bronze armor a stone could have hit him in the face and killed him. They used won of the best slingers in the world in a documentary (I think it was Ancient Discoveries or something) do demonstrate how accurate a slinger could be. Even from a distance.

[Yayattasa]

one of the causes of decline of Corinthian helmet was that it not protected very well against slings

a well throw rock can kill you neck or unconscious head or break a limb

archers mass voley do better again unarmored targets than few slings(slings require much more room)

A sling stone killed Goliath (I probably mispelled it). Even if Goliath was wearing bronze armor a stone could have hit him in the face and killed him. They used won of the best slingers in the world in a documentary (I think it was Ancient Discoveries or something) do demonstrate how accurate a slinger could be. Even from a distance.

An arrow to the face or neck also kills

[Dan113112]

An arrow to the face or neck also kills

Ofcourse it does. Stop being a smartass. I'm just saying that slingers were very deadly. More so than most people think.

[davieholgate]

A sling stone killed Goliath (I probably mispelled it). Even if Goliath was wearing bronze armor a stone could have hit him in the face and killed him. They used won of the best slingers in the world in a documentary (I think it was Ancient Discoveries or something) do demonstrate how accurate a slinger could be. Even from a distance.

That was King David vs. Goliath, and it hit Goliath in the forehead, the only area he had not protected.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Actually firearms had superior range, accuracy and impact. Here is a test between shortbow, longbow, crossbow, handcannongun and musket:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpsKrs1yww
Comparison starts at 3:45

At 60 yards the musket is the only weapon that still bites