Why slings should be better against armoured targets than bows or javelins.

[Dunadd]

Almost everyone on these forums and every modder seems to believe that arrows were better against armoured troops than slingshots were. This is simply wrong.

The first argument seems to be that arrows had greater velocity. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Slingshots were swung repeatedly round and round the head to build up speed before being released. On top of that what matters with a projectile isn't just it's speed but the force it delivers. FORCE = MASS x VELOCITY. So both the weight and the speed of what's being fired matters. Sling stones could be as heavy as an arrow. Lead sling shots would likely be heavier than an arrow. And they'd be moving at at least the same speed, if not faster.

Now that means slingers should maybe have a lower rate of fire than archers - and should have to be in a looser formation, but they were still more effective against armour.

The second misunderstanding seems to be the idea that because an arrow is pointed it could go through armour better. The historical sources don't say slings could puncture armour, they say it could cave it in, breaking the bones under it and causing massive injuries without passing through it - e.g caving in bronze helmets and cracking the skulls under them. Slingshots didn't need to pass through armour to batter it out of shape or crack it and injure the person wearing it.

That's why the Romans respected Balaeric slingers as enemies, but not Libyan javelinmen in Carthaginian armies.

Then there's the theory that slingers were only used in the Mediterranean because it was warm there and people didn't wear many clothes or much armour. This is full of holes too. The ancient Britons used slings despite living much further north in a much cooler climate. And half the Gauls and Britons went about naked or naked to the waist. Plus mediterranean cultures used as much or more armour as cultures further North.

Then there's the myth that most slingers were just people throwing stones. Almost certainly wrong. Slings were easy and cheap to make and used by shepherds and herdsmen to keep wolves away from their flocks or herds. So slingers means slingers, not mobs throwing stones by hand.

Then there's the theory that slings went out of use in the medieval period because they were inferior to bows.

That's not the case. Edward I was still using elite slingers recruited from Sherwood forest in the late 13th and early 14th centuries - and they were equipped just like ancient slingers. And medieval English historians reported that slingshots by English and Irish slingers were capable of injuring men even through medieval knights' armour, which at that time was a mixture of chain and plate. (See the Wargames Research Group's Armies of Feudal Europe and Armies of The Middle Ages. Froissart also reports a slingshot at the battle of Najera in 1367 during the Hundred Years War cracking a helmet in two.)

[Cheiftan]

Then why are slings not as popularly known as bows?

[jkjktotalwar]

Then why are slings not as popularly known as bows?

Probably the same reason why people seem to think english longbow is the best bow in the world, and they think that horse archers have the worst range and accuracy (not true) especially if you compare a mongolian composite bow vs english longbow. The mongolian bow far out distances the english bow. People just watch too many movies I guess.

[wulfgar610]

Probably the same reason why people seem to think english longbow is the best bow in the world, and they think that horse archers have the worst range and accuracy (not true) especially if you compare a mongolian composite bow vs english longbow. The mongolian bow far out distances the english bow. People just watch too many movies I guess.

Range isn't everything. The longbow was used to fire a heavy long draw arrow that carried enough force to piece early plate armor. Great range is achieved with light arrows, but they carry less punch.

[jkjktotalwar]

Range isn't everything. The longbow was used to fire a heavy long draw arrow that carried enough force to piece early plate armor. Great range is achieved with light arrows, but they carry less punch.

The arrows for mongolian horse archers varied they had heavy arrows as well as light arrows. The fact is the Mongolian composite bow had delivered more force than an English longbow, it also required a higher draw. I don't know the exact numbers (my memory is not precise) the Elong bow was about 100 lbs, and the M. C bow was about 130 lbs. I could find the article and edit this post..
Ok found it:
. The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds.

http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm

It's some russian website i think, (siberia). Well who else would know about mongolians than the russians?

[Cyclops]

Probably the same reason why people seem to think english longbow is the best bow in the world, and they think that horse archers have the worst range and accuracy (not true) especially if you compare a mongolian composite bow vs english longbow. The mongolian bow far out distances the english bow. People just watch too many movies I guess.

Very true. IIRC tests carried out showed the yew longbow was far inferior to standard composite bows, and notn superior to contemporary European bows (English chauvanism aside). People still have this illusioin the Hundred years war was dominated by bowmen with some knights looking on. I was surpirsed when studying medieval history at Uni to discover English bowmen prefered Burgundian recurved bows and acquired these when possible.

The point was made about light arrows going further and this is true, Ottoman flight bows went 400 yards or more but these were one trick bows built to make Sultans look like heros by reaching unhheard of distances. Your typical mongolian composite bow was the best performed of the pre-modern bows afaik, and it was a military bow, not for trick shots. The onlt problem was a tendency to come apart in humid envirnoments. I wonder how they responded in humid lands? Did the Mongols adopt all-wood bows when venturing into Europe?

I've made thius point earlier but its worth repeating: slngers were low status so their performance in battle may not have been accurately recorded by upper class historians.

[Dunadd]

What sense does your question make? None. It'd be about as relevant to ask "why are cats not known as dogs?"

I've given you the evidence that slings were more effective at penetrating armour than bows were in ancient times - and still effective against even better armour and still used as late as the Hundred Years' War. They may have had a lower rate of fire, since the slingshot had to be swung round the head repeatedly to build up power before releasing it. For the same reason they may have needed to be more spread out. I don't know what their accuracy was like relative to bows - but that they were better against armour is not in doubt. Every ancient historian confirms it.

[Trippinbillies]

What sense does your question make? None. It'd be about as relevant to ask "why are cats not known as dogs?"

I've given you the evidence that slings were more effective at penetrating armour than bows were in ancient times - and still effective against even better armour and still used as late as the Hundred Years' War. They may have had a lower rate of fire, since the slingshot had to be swung round the head repeatedly to build up power before releasing it. For the same reason they may have needed to be more spread out. I don't know what their accuracy was like relative to bows - but that they were better against armour is not in doubt. Every ancient historian confirms it.

to answer "chieftan" Bows are more versatile by well a ton. Bows will kill more unarmored men. bows for hunting duh, a sling can kill small animals rabbits squirrels etc. thats all. you can fire bows more over walls more effectively. and most importantly bows can be fired quicker, and since ranged attacks weren't really meant to kill (ofcourse they wouldnt complain if they did kill) they were meant to demoralize and break up formations. another reason bows were popular over slings, a ton of small rocks against a shield may make your arm sore but thats about it, but alot of arrows make your shield structurally compromised. if not totally destroyed or perhaps your shield was inferior or flawed and the third fourth or fifth arrow breaks through your shield, now at the very least you have no shield and perhpas you are dead.

ill keep reading this thread hope i didnt add to the clutter( well no i did no matter what)

[Dunadd]

to answer "chieftan" Bows are more versatile by well a ton. Bows will kill more unarmored men. bows for hunting duh, a sling can kill small animals rabbits squirrels etc. thats all. you can fire bows more over walls more effectively. and most importantly bows can be fired quicker, and since ranged attacks weren't really meant to kill (ofcourse they wouldnt complain if they did kill) they were meant to demoralize and break up formations. another reason bows were popular over slings, a ton of small rocks against a shield may make your arm sore but thats about it, but alot of arrows make your shield structurally compromised. if not totally destroyed or perhaps your shield was inferior or flawed and the third fourth or fifth arrow breaks through your shield, now at the very least you have no shield and perhpas you are dead.

ill keep reading this thread hope i didnt add to the clutter( well no i did no matter what)

I wasn't arguing that slings were better in every way than bows, nor throughout history - only against armoured enemies and only in most of the area, among most of the peoples and the period covered by Rome II. From what AusHaching quotes from Xenophon i may be wrong even on that - but note that Xenophon's account shows Persian and Greek slings as having had longer ranges than the bows used by the Aechemanid Persians at the time - and the Greeks didn't fight off the Persian slingers with archers but with Rhodian slingers.

There isn't much doubt that more powerful composite bows like those used by the Huns and the Mongols (the Hunnic ones also being unusual in having a much longer top half than lower half) and longbows were more effective in pretty much every way than slings - those are outside the period of Rome II though (so is Xenophon technically in the other direction, but he's one of the few ancient historians who was also an experienced soldier and so an unusually credible source.)

And the other part of my point was that in the Western Mediterranean and Britain for at least 700 years from 500BC to at least 200AD slings were widely used in warfare and bows barely used at all (only exception i know of being Numidian archers - and the Numidians had more slingers than archers too).

a sling can kill small animals rabbits squirrels etc thats all... ton of small rocks against a shield may make your arm sore but thats about it, but alot of arrows make your shield structurally compromised. if not totally destroyed or perhaps your shield was inferior or flawed and the third fourth or fifth arrow breaks through your shield

I don't think any of that is backed up by any historical evidence for the period Rome II covers. Whether or not slings could kill or injure armoured heavy infantry, we know from Xenophon that they could definitely kill light troops - and when Persian slingers and archers were attacking the Ten Thousand's light troops it's not the archers but the slingers who Xenophon says were the big problem and causing most casualties - and the Greeks beat them off with Rhodian slingers using lead bullets.

Diodorus says Balaeric slingers used rocks the size of a fist - not exactly small or light. Any ancient writer for the period Rome II covers (280BC to about 300AD) on arrows destroying shields? I don't know of any.

[Velico]

Well, they're different types of damage. A bow has much higher penetration power, and could punch through some of the weaker armor of this time period. It generally was ineffective against anything with decent mail or linothorax. On the other hand, slings have a higher concussive power, so their use against the heavier armor could be effective, but it was still pretty spotty from what I've read. The big thing with both is that they were largely ineffective against larger shields, which almost all factions used at this time. Glancing blows were very common, and even if the bow did penetrate a shield, there was a good chance it wasn't going to make it far enough to wound the soldier behind it. Most slingshots just bounced off shields. Neither were very good or reliable at taking down armored units. That's why so many factions preferred light and heavy javelins; they have the penetrative power and lethality that neither the bow or sling of this era had. At the very least a javelin could disrupt formations and render shields useless from the extra weight.

Also, your argument would be more valid if you used sources that date to the time period in question. Using medieval references for an argument in antiquity could be useful as "gravy", but some primary and secondary sources from antiquity would make your case much stronger.

[Dunadd]

Well, they're different types of damage. A bow has much higher penetration power, and could punch through some of the weaker armor of this time period. It generally was ineffective against anything with decent mail or linothorax. On the other hand, slings have a higher concussive power, so their use against the heavier armor could be effective, but it was still pretty spotty from what I've read. The big thing with both is that they were largely ineffective against larger shields, which almost all factions used at this time. Glancing blows were very common, and even if the bow did penetrate a shield, there was a good chance it wasn't going to make it far enough to wound the soldier behind it. Most slingshots just bounced off shields. That's why so many factions preferred light and heavy javelins; they have the penetrative power and lethality that neither the bow or sling of this era had. At the very least a javelin could disrupt formations and render shields useless from the extra weight.

Fair points. I pretty much agree. Though by "heavy javelins" i'm assuming you mean short-ranged heavy throwing weapons that were at least half made of iron (pila) or entirely made of iron (Iberian soliferrum) and were only thrown during a charge, which isn't really what i meant be javelins. By javelins i was meaning lighter throwing spears that only had an iron point and a wooden shaft. Certainly pila and soliferra would have better armour and shield penetration than arrows or most slingshots - though skilled slingers could harm the heaviest armoured troops.

[Theodwulf]

slings , like bows are difficult to use and take years of practice to use well; No one is disputing that slings were a useful weapon of war,how effective is the debate. No where as effective as depicted in the game. Too fast , too powerful. They were probably real effective against cavalry, whose mounts were unarmored, more so than infantry with helmets and more importantly , shields. for a unit that can be bought cheaply with no military buildings they are way over the top.

[Dunadd]

slings , like bows are difficult to use and take years of practice to use well

but there were huge numbers of skilled slingers available because any boy from a family that herded sheep or cattle would learn to use a sling to keep the wolves at bay ; and many others to hunt birds with.

I'd have no problem with e.g reducing their rate of fire (since it would take time to build up momentum by spinning the sling for each shot) and making them have to be in a more open formation to represent them having to avoid hitting the person next to them.

[Zenky]

We kinda need a live test but thats a bit to dangerous.

[Dunadd]

We kinda need a live test but thats a bit to dangerous.

Haha yep - i think i remember some huge annexe on tests of slings versus bows and the historical evidence in a book on the Thracians called 'Gods of War' or something like that - i'll try and find it.

[Velico]

We kinda need a live test but thats a bit to dangerous.

It would actually be quite easy. Set up one of those "real-to-life" dummies that account for organs, bones, etc. and have a competent archer/slinger loose from the same distances. They could test different ranges, armor types, wound effects, kill shots, etc. I'd particularly like to see the effectiveness at 75m or less, I bet it would be devastating having a direct hit from either.

[archone]

Agreed. Arrows were generally more lethal than slings due to the higher momentum of the projectiles (slingers did not actually swing their slings around their heads repeatedly), but slings could injure troops in armor whereas bows of this period could not.

[Mithridate]

Agreed. Arrows were generally more lethal than slings due to the higher momentum of the projectiles (slingers did not actually swing their slings around their heads repeatedly), but slings could injure troops in armor whereas bows of this period could not.

Youre wrong.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...g-Legendary-AI
I reccomend you all to read the thread above, or at least the link in this post
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post13258942

[Naked Emperor]

Agreed. Arrows were generally more lethal than slings due to the higher momentum of the projectiles (slingers did not actually swing their slings around their heads repeatedly), but slings could injure troops in armor whereas bows of this period could not.

A) Slingstones achieve more momentum than arrows

B) Because arrows are pointier or have less impact area it makes them better at penetrating armor

A interesting read that Mithridate was referring to http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

I'd like to add that the composite bow and the recurve bow both had been invented at the time and these were powerful weapons that could penetrate a lot of the armor of the time period. The remains of composite bows have been found as north as Britain as the Roman army started using them because of their effectiveness.

[archone]

A) Slingstones achieve more momentum than arrows

B) Because arrows are pointier or have less impact area it makes them better at penetrating armor

A interesting read that Mithridate was referring to http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

I'd like to add that the composite bow and the recurve bow both had been invented at the time and these were powerful weapons that could penetrate a lot of the armor of the time period. The remains of composite bows have been found as north as Britain as the Roman army started using them because of their effectiveness.

I'm sure some slings had more momentum, but the tradeoff is lower range. Typical slings using excavated ammunition did not, look at the table.

Most bows of the period could not penetrate armor at over 100m. The impact area is smaller but arrows are also more frangible and unstable, meaning that as they come into contact with resistance they will bend or convert their energy into angular momentum. As the arrow strikes the contact area will increase in size until the energy dissipates. Composite bows can pierce armor but they were expensive and impractical for mass distribution.