Deadliest Warrior has finally become what it was meant to be

[Thanas]

Ossus, you confused the SA with the SS and you vastly underestimated the value of slingers. Also, the range of a thrown speer is longer than 10 or twenty meters.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Ossus, you confused the SA with the SS and you vastly underestimated the value of slingers. Also, the range of a thrown speer is longer than 10 or twenty meters.

Hmm. Basically he just said that composite bows (compound bow is a modern invention) and English long bows were superior to slings, which is true as far as I can tell. I am still somewhat skeptical about slings being consistently lethal against armored opponents despite what Roman sources say; in my mind an experiment would be required to confirm that.

The SS started as Hitler's bodyguard, so describing them as MPs or gendarmes is not entirely incorrect. Waffen-SS came later. However, it is clear that the show was thinking about the Waffen-SS post-1942 when they called them an "elite" force, which of course still applied only to some divisions of the Waffen-SS.

[Thanas]

Ossus, you confused the SA with the SS and you vastly underestimated the value of slingers. Also, the range of a thrown speer is longer than 10 or twenty meters.

Hmm. Basically he just said that composite bows (compound bow is a modern invention) and English long bows were superior to slings, which is true as far as I can tell.

I was referring to the "20 meter range", when we know specialist slingers could very well outrange bows. Not composite bows by any shot, but standard bows? Yes.

I am still somewhat skeptical about slings being consistently lethal against armored opponents despite what Roman sources say; in my mind an experiment would be required to confirm that.

Roman slings are not typical slings. They use special lead bullets, which are far more dangerous than stone slings.

The SS started as Hitler's bodyguard, so describing them as MPs or gendarmes is not entirely incorrect.

It is. Guard units are neither MPs nor gendarmes.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Honestly, I think the gel torsos are what make the show and they should just focus on what kind of damage you can do with those weapons with more of those instead of pigs and (fake) blood filled plaster torsos. Oh well, at least I still have my memory of the SWAT guys hitting that gel torso and watching it's head balloon.

Roman slings are not typical slings. They use special lead bullets, which are far more dangerous than stone slings.

Well we have had Roman-style slings with the Gladiator Vs Apache: 'For long-range weapons, the Sling was tested against the Bow and Arrow. Steven Dietrich launched a lead Sling shot at 91 mph. The shot was then simulated by an air cannon which drove a lead Sling shot into a gel head and shattered the upper jaw, penetrating just past the nose.'

The IRA's sling was a toy slingshot with a ball bearing, the Jaguar Warriors tematlatl used stone, and the Celt had a stone sling, So it's more that most of the slings we saw were people who didn't have ready access to lead bullets.

Weirdly enough in the Centurion Vs Rajput Warrior they had the Centurion using a scorpion.

[Master of Ossus]

Ossus, you confused the SA with the SS

Conceded.

and you vastly underestimated the value of slingers.

Evidence?

Also, the range of a thrown speer is longer than 10 or twenty meters.

What type of thrown spear are we talking about? And what would you characterize as the weapon's "range?"

I was referring to the "20 meter range", when we know specialist slingers could very well outrange bows. Not composite bows by any shot, but standard bows? Yes.

20 meters was the range that was tested on the show. The fact that it was effective at that range does not mean that 20 meters is the maximum range at which the weapon could cause fatalities.

The maximum ranges that I've seen estimated for slings vary so greatly as to be nigh-useless, but I've seen figures of somewhat greater than 200m quoted as the maximum experimentally demonstrable range of a sling. I've never seen anything to suggest that the sling could be lethal at those types of ranges.

Until the developments of composite bows, longbows, and recurves, the sling was an effective weapon. In fact, prior to those developments it was the dominant ranged weapon in ancient warfare. However, in terms of lethality is is markedly inferior to any of the more advanced bows, and Deadliest Warrior highlights its shortcomings.

Roman slings are not typical slings. They use special lead bullets, which are far more dangerous than stone slings.

Please provide evidence of this. Describe the kinetic energy of a lead sling stone (or its momentum) as compared with the kinetic energy (or momentum) of a stone. You'll see that they're the same. The lead might have significantly better aerodynamic qualities, which could extend its range, b

Intuitively, I don't see that lead slingstones would have dramatically better terminal ballistics, either. They should just deform on contact with a harder material (more so than hard stones), so they should have more difficulty transferring energy to the target. Can you provide evidence suggesting that this analysis is seriously flawed?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Please provide evidence of this. Describe the kinetic energy of a lead sling stone (or its momentum) as compared with the kinetic energy (or momentum) of a stone. You'll see that they're the same. The lead might have significantly better aerodynamic qualities, which could extend its range, b

Intuitively, I don't see that lead slingstones would have dramatically better terminal ballistics, either. They should just deform on contact with a harder material (more so than hard stones), so they should have more difficulty transferring energy to the target. Can you provide evidence suggesting that this analysis is seriously flawed?

Lead is considerably denser material than any naturally occurring rocks. It means that the sectional density of a lead projectile is higher than a stone projectile of the same weight, which in turn means that the penetration and pressure on living tissues on impact is higher. This is especially important if the victim is protected by hard or semi-hard armor and it also increases the probability of the projectile breaking any bones it might hit.

[Thanas]

and you vastly underestimated the value of slingers.

Evidence?

How about the fact that in the Wars between Greece and the Achaemenid Empire the Greeks found the Persian slingers to be superior to their own weapons? The fact that the Romans assigned elite status to their slingers even when they also fielded composite bows at the same time in late Antiquity?

What type of thrown spear are we talking about? And what would you characterize as the weapon's "range?"

The Roman pilum, or later on the spiculum had an effective range of about 20 meters. However, note that this was the heaviest throwing spear fielded in antiquity (with the possible exception of the German throwing spear) and was specifically designed to punch through shields and armor. The Romans also used the Verutum or the Lancea, who were about half - two thirds the length of a pilum and had a consequently longer range, but were not as good against heavy armor. There also were the plumbatae which had a range of longer than 30 meters but were around 30-50 cm darts/short javelins, who added effectiveness due to the way they were thrown and their lead weight.

20 meters was the range that was tested on the show. The fact that it was effective at that range does not mean that 20 meters is the maximum range at which the weapon could cause fatalities.

The maximum ranges that I've seen estimated for slings vary so greatly as to be nigh-useless, but I've seen figures of somewhat greater than 200m quoted as the maximum experimentally demonstrable range of a sling. I've never seen anything to suggest that the sling could be lethal at those types of ranges.

According to some experimental archeologists, the effective range of a sling shot made of lead is around 150-300 yards, depending on the skill of the user.

Until the developments of composite bows, longbows, and recurves, the sling was an effective weapon. In fact, prior to those developments it was the dominant ranged weapon in ancient warfare. However, in terms of lethality is is markedly inferior to any of the more advanced bows, and Deadliest Warrior highlights its shortcomings.

That depends. The Romans had both hunnic composite bows and slingshots at their disposal, yet Vegetius still recommends a lower practice range for archers (180m) than the effective range of the slingshot. Meanwhile, the way the Romans used the slingshots suggests that it was as effective as the bow, even in late antiquity. And it certainly had longer range, considering that ancient sources report various ranges from 180-400 meters (the last one certainly not effective range). Note that the Romans also used three type of slings depending on the distance needed, with projectiles from being up to the size of a tennis ball.

Of course it is not as lethal as a longbow but it measures up very well with the bows of its days. Of course, the Romans also trained their soldiers to a standard not seen until the 18th century again, so....

Intuitively, I don't see that lead slingstones would have dramatically better terminal ballistics, either. They should just deform on contact with a harder material (more so than hard stones), so they should have more difficulty transferring energy to the target. Can you provide evidence suggesting that this analysis is seriously flawed?

Yes. For example, in the Persian wars, Xenophon describes how the Rhodian slingers (who used lead) were better than the Persian slingers, who used stones. Marcus Aurelius also provided details already. Furthermore: A lot of soldiers used padded layers of leather for armor, which meant that arrows had a very hard time penetrating them. Sling shot of course is better against that.

And if there was no armor, sling shots could penetrate the body at about 100 meters, if not more.

[ComradeClaus]

So regarding slings, how would you think the Aztec sling against the unarmored azande fare vs the azande lightweight bow which seemed lackluster in tests?
The results claimed that the bow scored substantially more kills than the sling, but I highly doubt that would be the case for real.

And what are the opinion re: Joan vs William? A teenager who "hears voices" vs a man w/ decades of combat experience.

I knew Joan would win since I had a hard time picturing how they'd show her death at williams hand for the simulation, so, she wins. w/ 2 leg stabs & a coup de grace. At least she didn't have to face Vlad...

Plus, do you think the crossbow comparison could've been handled better? They only had 9 arrows each, so the faster crossbow didn't really have the chance to prove itself. And the highpower crossbow was fired at fairly close range too, where it scored the majority of hits too.

Finally, chainmail is harder to move in?! It doesn't really matter much since in real life, William won by living a long life, while Joan had a nightmarish demise after being betrayed.

I can't wait to see how they try to build suspense for next week: The US (really, anyone would win) against the Epic Fail that is North Korea. It'll be the most lopsided match in the shows history. Like a machinegun vs a punching bag. Zero challenge.

[weemadando]

Except North Korean SF have a history of doing shit like turning up in Seoul and and trying to assassinate various South Korean leaders.

Depending on how deep into apocryphal histories you want to go, there's also the many, many, many stories about border raids being covered up/relabelled as training accidents etc.

I still think, as per original predictions that it will be a case of U S A! U S A! cheerleading again (as it always is with an American specimen), but it mightn't be a total curbstomp.

[Thanas]

So regarding slings, how would you think the Aztec sling against the unarmored azande fare vs the azande lightweight bow which seemed lackluster in tests?
The results claimed that the bow scored substantially more kills than the sling, but I highly doubt that would be the case for real.

Don't know anything about Aztec slings.

As to the rest, I do not watch the show.

[R.O.A]

The USA faction(s) have won every battle except for Green Berets vs. Spetznaz, so they will likely win vs. North Korea too.

[Master of Ossus]

How about the fact that in the Wars between Greece and the Achaemenid Empire the Greeks found the Persian slingers to be superior to their own weapons? The fact that the Romans assigned elite status to their slingers even when they also fielded composite bows at the same time in late Antiquity?

Wait, what? The Greeks used slings during the Achaemenid conflict. Xenophon wrote extensively about how the Balearic slingers were superior to their Persian equivalents.

As for the "elite status" of slingers among the Romans, where are you reading this? I don't recall ever hearing about units of slingers operating alongside Roman infantry as part of the legion or its auxilia, and they're usually described in the same breath (perhaps as groups of archers and slingers operating together to achieve roughly the same purpose). I don't recall reading anything which led me to believe that the slingers were somehow viewed as elite, even among the auxilia.

The Roman pilum, or later on the spiculum had an effective range of about 20 meters. However, note that this was the heaviest throwing spear fielded in antiquity (with the possible exception of the German throwing spear) and was specifically designed to punch through shields and armor. The Romans also used the Verutum or the Lancea, who were about half - two thirds the length of a pilum and had a consequently longer range, but were not as good against heavy armor. There also were the plumbatae which had a range of longer than 30 meters but were around 30-50 cm darts/short javelins, who added effectiveness due to the way they were thrown and their lead weight.

Fair enough.

According to some experimental archeologists, the effective range of a sling shot made of lead is around 150-300 yards, depending on the skill of the user.

I've seen figures as high as 400 meters and as low as 100 meters, but something on the order of ~200 seemed to be the consensus that I saw. It probably depends on the definition of effective range, as well.

That depends. The Romans had both hunnic composite bows and slingshots at their disposal, yet Vegetius still recommends a lower practice range for archers (180m) than the effective range of the slingshot. Meanwhile, the way the Romans used the slingshots suggests that it was as effective as the bow, even in late antiquity. And it certainly had longer range, considering that ancient sources report various ranges from 180-400 meters (the last one certainly not effective range). Note that the Romans also used three type of slings depending on the distance needed, with projectiles from being up to the size of a tennis ball.

Of course it is not as lethal as a longbow but it measures up very well with the bows of its days. Of course, the Romans also trained their soldiers to a standard not seen until the 18th century again, so....

I'm not sure Vegetius is entirely the most reliable source, but I can easily believe that slings were superior against some targets than bows for quite a while. I just don't see that they have the straight up lethality of the bow and arrow.

Yes. For example, in the Persian wars, Xenophon describes how the Rhodian slingers (who used lead) were better than the Persian slingers, who used stones. Marcus Aurelius also provided details already. Furthermore: A lot of soldiers used padded layers of leather for armor, which meant that arrows had a very hard time penetrating them. Sling shot of course is better against that.[

And if there was no armor, sling shots could penetrate the body at about 100 meters, if not more.

If there's no armor, then bows penetrate at essentially the maximum physical range of the bow. If there's padded armor on up, I don't see the sling or the bow as penetrating at any substantial range (more than ~50 meters, we'll say), and at that range you should be looking for effect.

To your specific points from the ancient writers, is this the passage from Xenophon that you're referring to:

From this place they made, in one day's march, four parasangs. During their march Tissapbernes appeared with his own horse, and the forces of Orontas, who had married the king's daughter, together with those barbarians who had served under Cyrus in his expedition; to these was added the army which the king's brother had brought to his assistance, and the troops the king had given him. All these together made a vast army. When he approached he placed some of his forces against our rear, and others against each of our flanks, but durst not attack us, being unwilling to hazard a battle: however, he ordered his men to use their slings and bows. But when the Rbodians, who were disposed in platoons, began to make use of their slings, and the Cretan bowmen, in imitation of the Scythians, discharged their arrows, none of them missing the enemy, which they could not easily have done, though they had endeavored it, both Tissaphernes himself quickly got out of their reach, and the other divisions retired. The remaining part of the day the Greeks continued their march, and the others followed without harassing them any more with skirmishes: for the slings of the Rbodians not only carried farther than those of the Persian-s, but even than most of the archers could throw their arrows. The Persian bows are long, so that their arrows when gathered up were of service to the Cretans, who continued to make use of them, and accustomed themselves to take a great elevation, in order to shoot them to a greater distance. Besides, there were found a considerable quantity of bow-strings in the villages, and some lead, both which were employed for the slings.

If so, I see no strong support for the view that slings were superior to bows. He's clearly referring to exceptional slingers, and is impressed that they are matching (rather than far exceeding) the range of "most" of the archers. Beyond this, it makes little distinction between the Rhodian slingers and the Cretan archers, which were collectively effective in repulsing the Persian skirmishers, but I see little credit given to one and not the other group.

Is this the passage from Vegetius that you're referring to?

Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any encumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.

If so... I'm afraid I don't take that as very strong evidence one way or another. It's clear the Vegetius has never seen the sling in use vis-a-vis the bow, and it's also clear that he's not really talking about its actual effectiveness in combat, but rather psychological factors surrounding its effects. He's advocating its use in comparison with the bow, but he can hardly be claimed as an authority from this passage since he's obviously describing his understanding of "ancient" combat and not speaking from first-hand experience.

Rather, it kinda seems like the writers are grouping slingers in with the other ranged skirmishers. I don't see that they were given a clearly separate role, additional prestige, or anything else as compared with archers. And, again, I agree that slings were effective weapons, but I see little evidence that they were superior to bows.

So regarding slings, how would you think the Aztec sling against the unarmored azande fare vs the azande lightweight bow which seemed lackluster in tests?
The results claimed that the bow scored substantially more kills than the sling, but I highly doubt that would be the case for real.

I don't have trouble seeing that at all. They're both bad weapons relative to many of the other offerings on the show, but the sling really has trouble causing mortal wounds. Instead, like the ninja's black egg, it was probably useful mostly for injuring opponents so they could be killed more easily with other weapons. The bow can both maim and it can kill. It makes perfect sense that the kill-o-meter would heavily favor the bow, even if they scored comparable numbers of hits.

And what are the opinion re: Joan vs William? A teenager who "hears voices" vs a man w/ decades of combat experience.

I knew Joan would win since I had a hard time picturing how they'd show her death at williams hand for the simulation, so, she wins. w/ 2 leg stabs & a coup de grace. At least she didn't have to face Vlad...

Again: the dramatization is just stupid eye candy. It's not how the actual simulations played out, and it's invariably retarded.

I can easily see Joan winning the battle even without lances (which would've swung it completely in her favor). She has better siege weapons (cannons v. catapults), better crossbows, and her sword goes through William's armor but William's sword cannot go through hers. Joan has four hundred years of technology on her side. They went from chain mail to plate in that time.

Plus, do you think the crossbow comparison could've been handled better? They only had 9 arrows each, so the faster crossbow didn't really have the chance to prove itself. And the highpower crossbow was fired at fairly close range too, where it scored the majority of hits too.

They were fired at the same range. It's a fair criticism that they rigged the test so it heavily discounted rate of fire, but (as the French guy pointed out) that's effectively what siege warfare was about. The windlass was a significant development in Medieval warfare precisely because it gave the crossbow some chance of penetrating armor at short range.

[Shroom Man 777]

If neither a sling nor an arrow can penetrate the armor a person was wearing, the sling can at least still impart blunt force impact and even if it doesn't penetrate the helmet or the chest armor, that still translates to injuries. Whereas an arrow cannot inflict blunt force trauma, and so if it cannot penetrate, then it can't do any damage at all (unlike a sling that may still bruise a person up or even break some bones).

[weemadando]

Those X factors are a ridiculous contrivance. For example, the "physicality" one:

This is a big big difference, William has more strength because he weighs 200lbs! A 125lb person has a difficult time matching up against this. And so we did give William the advantage here of a 78 versus a 64.

Seriously?

William a man with decades of combat experience (and the strength that comes from that) who holds a massive weight and size advantage only outranks Joan by a margin that small?

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

[Thanas]

As for the "elite status" of slingers among the Romans, where are you reading this? I don't recall ever hearing about units of slingers operating alongside Roman infantry as part of the legion or its auxilia, and they're usually described in the same breath (perhaps as groups of archers and slingers operating together to achieve roughly the same purpose). I don't recall reading anything which led me to believe that the slingers were somehow viewed as elite, even among the auxilia.

Balearic slingers were recruited as auxillary units and/or mercenaries extensively during the Roman Republic. One further example of slingers having good standing is shown in the Notitita dignitatum, where in the command of the Magister Militum per Orientum a slinger unit is attached to the field army. They were also apparently important enough to be shown on several Roman Army depictions, like in the column of Trajan.

I'm not sure Vegetius is entirely the most reliable source, but I can easily believe that slings were superior against some targets than bows for quite a while. I just don't see that they have the straight up lethality of the bow and arrow.

That statement is rather meaningless in itself.

If there's no armor, then bows penetrate at essentially the maximum physical range of the bow. If there's padded armor on up, I don't see the sling or the bow as penetrating at any substantial range (more than ~50 meters, we'll say), and at that range you should be looking for effect.

Because you say so? Then why do some depictions show the slingers firing from farther away than the bow?

To your specific points from the ancient writers, is this the passage from Xenophon that you're referring to:

The remaining part of the day the Greeks continued their march, and the others followed without harassing them any more with skirmishes: for the slings of the Rbodians not only carried farther than those of the Persian-s, but even than most of the archers could throw their arrows. The Persian bows are long, so that their arrows when gathered up were of service to the Cretans, who continued to make use of them, and accustomed themselves to take a great elevation, in order to shoot them to a greater distance. Besides, there were found a considerable quantity of bow-strings in the villages, and some lead, both which were employed for the slings.

If so, I see no strong support for the view that slings were superior to bows. He's clearly referring to exceptional slingers, and is impressed that they are matching (rather than far exceeding) the range of "most" of the archers. Beyond this, it makes little distinction between the Rhodian slingers and the Cretan archers, which were collectively effective in repulsing the Persian skirmishers, but I see little credit given to one and not the other group.

Nevertheless, it shows than the majority of the competent slingers were at the very least as good as the specialist archers of their time.

Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any encumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.

If so... I'm afraid I don't take that as very strong evidence one way or another.

Why not?

It's clear the Vegetius has never seen the sling in use vis-a-vis the bow, and it's also clear that he's not really talking about its actual effectiveness in combat, but rather psychological factors surrounding its effects. He's advocating its use in comparison with the bow, but he can hardly be claimed as an authority from this passage since he's obviously describing his understanding of "ancient" combat and not speaking from first-hand experience.

No. He specifically talks about the effects of sling shot on the body and also, Maurikios further says that troops should be instructed in the use of the slings as well. Really, you are trying to dismiss Vegetius when there is little reason to do so. Clearly the effects of slingshots due to the bruises and internal injuries were considered strong enough to warrant training a substantial amount of soldiers in the use of the sling.

If neither a sling nor an arrow can penetrate the armor a person was wearing, the sling can at least still impart blunt force impact and even if it doesn't penetrate the helmet or the chest armor, that still translates to injuries. Whereas an arrow cannot inflict blunt force trauma, and so if it cannot penetrate, then it can't do any damage at all (unlike a sling that may still bruise a person up or even break some bones).

Thank you. Somebody who gets that.

[weemadando]

Also - SHIT YEAH for Tim Kennedy being the Ranger for that ep.

[Winston Blake]

Roman slings are not typical slings. They use special lead bullets, which are far more dangerous than stone slings.

Please provide evidence of this. Describe the kinetic energy of a lead sling stone (or its momentum) as compared with the kinetic energy (or momentum) of a stone. You'll see that they're the same. The lead might have significantly better aerodynamic qualities, which could extend its range, b

Intuitively, I don't see that lead slingstones would have dramatically better terminal ballistics, either. They should just deform on contact with a harder material (more so than hard stones), so they should have more difficulty transferring energy to the target. Can you provide evidence suggesting that this analysis is seriously flawed?

Some thoughts:

Pocket: The pocket for a denser projectile can be smaller, thus reducing drag during throwing. A sling pocket is a highly turbulent and draggy sort of shape.

Impulse: The amount of momentum a human can put into an object can vary greatly depending on its inertia. For example, consider sitting on the floor and then being given a bowling ball and a hollow plastic ball of the same size. If you are told to roll each ball as hard as you can (using only your arm, without moving from that spot), the bowling ball will do more damage to whatever it hits (such as a mouse). Same applied force, same distance, same kinetic energy, E = Fd. Aerodynamics plays no role. The trick is that the lower acceleration due to higher mass means there is a longer time for that force to be applied, and impulse = Ft. So the bowling ball has much higher momentum and causes more damage.

• Rotational analogies exist - nunchucks and blackjacks. In this case, the swinging or flexing effectively increases the duration over which the force is applied, 'storing' more angular momentum, compared to a solid stick. This is harder to describe, but consider a simplified case in which a swinging or flexing stick is initially and finally straight, and that for the same swing distance and force, it can do more damage than a solid stick. The key point is that it is slower to swing.
  
  From the 'feeling' of these examples I hope it's possible to imagine how a heavy lead projectile can have superior momentum to a stone one.

Shape: lead sling bullets were cast en masse in the almond shape of a flattened American football, unlike stone shot, which I assume would have to be painstakingly carved to achieve the same shape. This shape is vastly more aerodynamic, and the action of the pocket on the flatness spins the projectile as it leaves. I.e. lead bullets can be aerodynamically-shaped and spin-stabilised in a practical/cheap way, unlike stone shot, greatly increasing accuracy and terminal velocity. I think there is an ancient passage somewhere which mentions a sling bullet punching through one side of a person's head and out the other, but I can't find anything about it on Google.

Terminal ballistics: the higher momentum and lower in-flight drag improve that. While deformation does absorb energy (IIRC lead sling bullets were hot to the touch after impact), a brittle stone projectile can fracture or shatter on impact, which would also absorb energy. Further, a fractured stone projectile which is in one or more highly irregular pieces should be much more likely to cease 'pushing' and 'skip off' armour, whereas a ductile, deforming lead bullet which stays in one piece would tend to keep 'digging in'. An arrow would also be much more likely to skip off armour.

• Note also that the 'almond' shape is pointy, so it should be able to deform on impact without increasing its overall cross-sectional area by much - instead the length is reduced to form a teardrop shape. Finally as Shroom mentioned, blunt force trauma can kill and injure armoured opponents where an arrow would not cause damage.

Regarding the vague question of whether slings are 'superior to bows', a further piece of evidence in favour of long sling ranges is that, generally, spin-stabilisation is more accurate than drag-stabilisation, as seen in modern tank ammunition - HEAT rounds fired from a rifled barrel are generally more accurate than any KEPs (although they have a longer time of flight). Similarly, sling bullets are spin-stabilised and arrows are drag stabilised. Although arrows can be made to spin, slender projectiles benefit little from spin, due to their small moment of inertia. For KEPs, a slow spin helps even out perturbations, but isn't done for stability.

• Also, considering drag, I feel that an arrow ought to have more drag due to the higher wetted area and the reliance on small drag forces on the fins to keep it stable, but I'm uncertain about this. Due to fin forces, a weathervaning effect should come into play at very long ranges, in which crosswinds would tend to turn the arrow and make it fly into the wind slightly. This weathervaning effect is why RPG projectiles have to be aimed 'away from the wind', and is almost certainly part of the reason why the RPG-7 is less accurate at long range than the Carl Gustav rifle, which uses a spin-stabilised projectile.
  
  OTOH, the launch process for a sling is less accurate than for a bow. Although I'm not sure, I expect that relative accuracy strongly favours the bow at 'normal ranges' and for individual shots, but for long range massed fire against area targets the sling may have superior accuracy. (As for why English longbows were used at very long range, this may simply be because it saves having to train on a different weapon and carry different ammunition, both of which will become practically useless once the battle gets closer-ranged. If you're going to pay the costs of longbow training, you may as well use it.).

---

It's clear the Vegetius has never seen the sling in use vis-a-vis the bow, and it's also clear that he's not really talking about its actual effectiveness in combat, but rather psychological factors surrounding its effects

Consider this:

Often, against soldiers armoured with helmets, scale coats and mail shirts, smooth stones shot from a sling or staff sling are more dangerous than arrows, since while leaving the limbs intact they inflict a lethal wound, and the enemy dies from the blow of the stone without the loss of any blood’ (I.16).

Also from that page, regarding projectiles with far-from-ideal density and shape:

Korfmann observed Turkish shepherds sling ordinary pebbles, ‘in 5 out of 11 trials the pebbles reached 200 m, and the three best casts were between 230 and 240 m (1973), while Dohrenwend has himself thrown beach pebbles over 200 yds (1994: 86).

---

This post got away from me a bit, but based on the above, comparing the sling to the bow at very long ranges, for massed fire against area targets, I expect the spin-stabilised almond-shaped lead bullet to have lower drag & lower sensitivity to perturbations (weathervaning), ultimately giving higher accuracy, longer effective range, and higher terminal momentum. Finally, blunt force trauma, especially to the helmet, makes sling bullets dangerous or lethal even at these ranges, where arrows may not be dangerous. So for this particular application, which was quite common in ancient times, slings are superior to bows.

---

Note: that page also says:

Vegetius is also responsible for the only mention of the range of a sling in the entire corpus of ancient literature, and although this is often quoted of the sling, it clearly refers to the staff sling: ‘archers and slingers used to put up bundles of straw as targets, and moving back to a range of 600 ft (= 177 m), practise hitting them frequently with arrows and stones shot from staff slings’ (II.23; Millner 1993: 91, 57).

I think Thanas mentioned archers having a shorter practice range. If this is the same passage, then it doesn't support that point.

Also, regarding staff slings, they'll clearly be more powerful than hand slings, and might be a better comparison against bows. Apparently they have a minimum range since release is not controlled by the slinger. But then the 'kestros' mentioned on that page appears to remedy this, by being a some kind of staff sling with some kind of release cord. This would allow timing the release, enabling use at short ranges.

Anyway, I need to go to bed.

[MrDakka]

Except North Korean SF have a history of doing shit like turning up in Seoul and and trying to assassinate various South Korean leaders.

Depending on how deep into apocryphal histories you want to go, there's also the many, many, many stories about border raids being covered up/relabelled as training accidents etc.

If you would believe my uncle's old war stories, the only thing the North Korean troops at the 38th parallel do is dig tunnels under the DMZ.

[weemadando]

Except North Korean SF have a history of doing shit like turning up in Seoul and and trying to assassinate various South Korean leaders.

Depending on how deep into apocryphal histories you want to go, there's also the many, many, many stories about border raids being covered up/relabelled as training accidents etc.

If you would believe my uncle's old war stories, the only thing the North Korean troops at the 38th parallel do is dig tunnels under the DMZ.

There's a reason I labelled it apocryphal. But really, it seems like since the 80s there hasn't been much that they've done on the "HOLY FUCKING SHIT DID THEY SERIOUSLY JUST TRY THAT" front.

[Master of Ossus]

As for the "elite status" of slingers among the Romans, where are you reading this? I don't recall ever hearing about units of slingers operating alongside Roman infantry as part of the legion or its auxilia, and they're usually described in the same breath (perhaps as groups of archers and slingers operating together to achieve roughly the same purpose). I don't recall reading anything which led me to believe that the slingers were somehow viewed as elite, even among the auxilia.

Balearic slingers were recruited as auxillary units and/or mercenaries extensively during the Roman Republic. One further example of slingers having good standing is shown in the Notitita dignitatum, where in the command of the Magister Militum per Orientum a slinger unit is attached to the field army. They were also apparently important enough to be shown on several Roman Army depictions, like in the column of Trajan.

Is this honestly what you consider to be evidence that slingers were viewed as elite? None of this indicates that they were of higher status than archers. Indeed, your claim that because they were shown on the Trajan column they must have been "important" is laughable. Fucking mules were shown on the Trajan column, as were ditch-diggers and chefs.

Because you say so? Then why do some depictions show the slingers firing from farther away than the bow?

Which contemporary depictions?

To your specific points from the ancient writers, is this the passage from Xenophon that you're referring to:

The remaining part of the day the Greeks continued their march, and the others followed without harassing them any more with skirmishes: for the slings of the Rbodians not only carried farther than those of the Persian-s, but even than most of the archers could throw their arrows. The Persian bows are long, so that their arrows when gathered up were of service to the Cretans, who continued to make use of them, and accustomed themselves to take a great elevation, in order to shoot them to a greater distance. Besides, there were found a considerable quantity of bow-strings in the villages, and some lead, both which were employed for the slings.

If so, I see no strong support for the view that slings were superior to bows. He's clearly referring to exceptional slingers, and is impressed that they are matching (rather than far exceeding) the range of "most" of the archers. Beyond this, it makes little distinction between the Rhodian slingers and the Cretan archers, which were collectively effective in repulsing the Persian skirmishers, but I see little credit given to one and not the other group.

Nevertheless, it shows than the majority of the competent slingers were at the very least as good as the specialist archers of their time.

It does nothing of the sort. They're describing the maximum range; not the effectiveness. I don't understand how you consistently misconstrue "they have long range" to "they are equally effective to bows." Indeed, it doesn't even appear as if they do have long range, because the weapon that Winston identified the possible passage you are describing is not a sling, but a staff sling, which is an entirely different weapon.

Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any encumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.

If so... I'm afraid I don't take that as very strong evidence one way or another.

Why not? [/quote]

Because Vegetius never used a sling, and is clearly talking about his view of ancient warfare from ancient sources. It's not a first-hand description, and doesn't describe contemporary developments in ranged weaponry or tactics. You've been trying to pass Vegetius off as the key source who describes the sling as being used in late antiquity, but that's evidently not true: he was describing its use in ancient battles (even in his day) and projecting those as the pinnacle of technology--a very common trait among ancient writers but not good scholarships.

No. He specifically talks about the effects of sling shot on the body

Yeah. In context of ancient texts. Observe:

Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumberance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city."

and also, Maurikios further says that troops should be instructed in the use of the slings as well.

Passage? Ideally in context, because you apparently cannot be entrusted to provide it sua sponte.

Really, you are trying to dismiss Vegetius when there is little reason to do so. Clearly the effects of slingshots due to the bruises and internal injuries were considered strong enough to warrant training a substantial amount of soldiers in the use of the sling.

By... Vegetius, who apparently thought that the ancient sources were sufficient to support such training. If he alluded to the use of boar's teeth helmets, citing Homer, would you therefore conclude that such helmets were the pinnacle of technology in the fourth century?

If neither a sling nor an arrow can penetrate the armor a person was wearing, the sling can at least still impart blunt force impact and even if it doesn't penetrate the helmet or the chest armor, that still translates to injuries. Whereas an arrow cannot inflict blunt force trauma, and so if it cannot penetrate, then it can't do any damage at all (unlike a sling that may still bruise a person up or even break some bones).

Thank you. Somebody who gets that.[/quote]

I understand it, I just cannot imagine that this is a crucial factor in selecting a weapon given that the sling is vastly less lethal and less effective.

Let's actually do some math to get some additional insight into this issue:

An ancient arrow should weigh something on the order of 30 grams. Deadliest Warrior's test of the Comanche bow (a self bow, mind you) fired arrows at roughly 60 meters per second (180-200 feet/second). So let's that's 54 joules of KE. The sling delivers a ~60 gram projectile at 90 miles per hour=40 meters per second, so that produces only 48 joules. In terms of momentum? The sling delivers 2.4 kilograms/meter*second, and the bow delivers 1.8.

So this indicates that the sling delivers, at most, about 25% more blunt force trauma (assuming zero penetration), but that's pretty idealized because the arrow is more aerodynamic and so will continue to deliver it at range and because the arrowhead is much harder than the lead from the slingstone. The arrow will also impart this trauma over a much smaller area, and so unless the armor is pretty rigid the damage is going to be comparable (and of course rigid armor isn't going to let either one do much damage except at absolute point blank range, where the arrow is much more likely to penetrate). Frankly, that's pretty unimpressive. Neither seems likely to cause much damage through blunt force trauma against an armored target that can distribute the force of the strike over any reasonable area.

There's something to the claim, too, that the deformation allows the slingstone to impart force on a slightly broader range of angles of impact than the arrow but... at that point... who cares?

It's also notable that the ancient writers like Xenophon who... you know... actually had first-hand experience with slings talked about how they should be used to target the face as opposed to armored helmets. Again, this is perfectly sensible, but inconsistent with the theory that they can kill people through armor, as Vegetius claims (and as you appear to rely upon).

Consider this:
Vegetius wrote:
Often, against soldiers armoured with helmets, scale coats and mail shirts, smooth stones shot from a sling or staff sling are more dangerous than arrows, since while leaving the limbs intact they inflict a lethal wound, and the enemy dies from the blow of the stone without the loss of any blood’ (I.16).

I notice from the same page:

Vegetius [...] had presumably never cast a sling in his life.

I don't understand why he's considered some expert on the use of slings and their effects in combat.

Also from that page, regarding projectiles with far-from-ideal density and shape:
Quote:
Korfmann observed Turkish shepherds sling ordinary pebbles, ‘in 5 out of 11 trials the pebbles reached 200 m, and the three best casts were between 230 and 240 m (1973), while Dohrenwend has himself thrown beach pebbles over 200 yds (1994: 86).

But the same page reveals experimental data giving only 150 meters as the maximum range. Irregardless, 200m is approximately the range at which ancient bows were effective. There's no great advantage either way, here (and, according to a certain rather unreliable source, archers were practicing against bales of hay at 180 meters whereas it's reasonably clear that neither of these casts were going for accuracy at these distances).

[Winston Blake]

Consider this:
Vegetius wrote:
Often, against soldiers armoured with helmets, scale coats and mail shirts, smooth stones shot from a sling or staff sling are more dangerous than arrows, since while leaving the limbs intact they inflict a lethal wound, and the enemy dies from the blow of the stone without the loss of any blood’ (I.16).

I notice from the same page:

Vegetius [...] had presumably never cast a sling in his life.

I don't understand why he's considered some expert on the use of slings and their effects in combat.

It's a fair point, but considering the scarcity of evidence, we have to ask 'what reason do we have to assume he was bullshitting'? We have to make do with what we've got. There are many people on this very board who know loads about various military and non-military technologies they've never personally used, and yet they can give useful evidence on topics about those technologies. 'Expertise', perhaps not, but evidence? Yes.

Consider that the author of the page did not personally observe the entire life of Vegetius, yet you take his word that he 'presumably' never used a sling, without giving Vegetius the same benefit of the doubt regarding his writings.

Also from that page, regarding projectiles with far-from-ideal density and shape:
Quote:
Korfmann observed Turkish shepherds sling ordinary pebbles, ‘in 5 out of 11 trials the pebbles reached 200 m, and the three best casts were between 230 and 240 m (1973), while Dohrenwend has himself thrown beach pebbles over 200 yds (1994: 86).

But the same page reveals experimental data giving only 150 meters as the maximum range. Irregardless, 200m is approximately the range at which ancient bows were effective. There's no great advantage either way, here (and, according to a certain rather unreliable source, archers were practicing against bales of hay at 180 meters whereas it's reasonably clear that neither of these casts were going for accuracy at these distances).

Those were the author's personal tests, not the same shepherds and researchers mentioned above: "My range tests indicate a much shorter range than has been previously asserted. This may because I have not learned to sling within a sling-using culture, or because I am inept at it. Alternately, claims for the range of the sling may have been exaggerated." How many people exist today who can really use an ancient bow? That is, really use it well? It requires both strength and technique. The Balearic slingers Thanas mentions were trained from early childhood (based on the pool of available evidence).

The inhabitants of the Balearic Islands are said to be the first to discover the use of slings, and to have practised with such expertise that their mothers did not let their small sons touch any food unless they had hit it with a sling stone.

---

Ultimately we have a pool of evidence (albeit with considerable uncertainty, like much ancient history) which claims slings to be superior to bows at extreme range and in certain injury cases, and a collection of effects based on physics and modern weapons which supports the idea that slings were superior in the case of long range, massed fire against area targets. I accept that actual proof is impossible without considerable effort in real-life testing, or creation of detailed computer simulations. However, if this was Mythbusters, I would feel comfortable giving the above conclusion a solid 'MYTH PLAUSIBLE'.

[Thanas]

Balearic slingers were recruited as auxillary units and/or mercenaries extensively during the Roman Republic. One further example of slingers having good standing is shown in the Notitita dignitatum, where in the command of the Magister Militum per Orientum a slinger unit is attached to the field army. They were also apparently important enough to be shown on several Roman Army depictions, like in the column of Trajan.

Is this honestly what you consider to be evidence that slingers were viewed as elite? None of this indicates that they were of higher status than archers. Indeed, your claim that because they were shown on the Trajan column they must have been "important" is laughable. Fucking mules were shown on the Trajan column, as were ditch-diggers and chefs.

You are an idiot if you think you can dismiss this so easily. Explain why slingers were attached to elite units then (like those who perished at Kalkriese) and why roman authors were very impressed with their training practices, like Livius. Even more, the fact that this slinger unit of the late Roman Army was considered important enough to be elevated to field unit status from the normal units.

Nevertheless, it shows than the majority of the competent slingers were at the very least as good as the specialist archers of their time.

It does nothing of the sort. They're describing the maximum range; not the effectiveness. I don't understand how you consistently misconstrue "they have long range" to "they are equally effective to bows."

This is laughable - if they were not effective on that range then there would have been no reason to use them at such ranges.

Because Vegetius never used a sling, and is clearly talking about his view of ancient warfare from ancient sources. It's not a first-hand description, and doesn't describe contemporary developments in ranged weaponry or tactics. You've been trying to pass Vegetius off as the key source who describes the sling as being used in late antiquity, but that's evidently not true: he was describing its use in ancient battles (even in his day) and projecting those as the pinnacle of technology--a very common trait among ancient writers but not good scholarships.

Any yet he also recommends the training of soldiers in this, which is consistent with the strategikon of Maurikios which stresses the same importance.

Yeah. In context of ancient texts. Observe:

Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumberance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city."

Bull. You take one sentence and then apply it to the rest of the sentences. In fact, I even wonder how you can think that seeing that there is a switch between past and present tense. This is quite a stretch on your part, especially as we know the Romans used slings to defend against besiegers even in late antiquity. See Ammianus Marcellinus for that.

and also, Maurikios further says that troops should be instructed in the use of the slings as well.

Passage? Ideally in context, because you apparently cannot be entrusted to provide it sua sponte.

Can you read ancient greek? Because there is no translation online available.

Really, you are trying to dismiss Vegetius when there is little reason to do so. Clearly the effects of slingshots due to the bruises and internal injuries were considered strong enough to warrant training a substantial amount of soldiers in the use of the sling.

By... Vegetius, who apparently thought that the ancient sources were sufficient to support such training.

You still think he only talks about the ancients despite him saying no such thing. He does not say the sling is not effective in his day. In fact, he quite says the opposite.

I understand it, I just cannot imagine that this is a crucial factor in selecting a weapon given that the sling is vastly less lethal and less effective.

When your main enemies are using a lot of armor, this is very important. Also, if necessary, slings can find easy replacement ammunition in stones.

Let's actually do some math to get some additional insight into this issue:

An ancient arrow should weigh something on the order of 30 grams. Deadliest Warrior's test of the Comanche bow (a self bow, mind you) fired arrows at roughly 60 meters per second (180-200 feet/second). So let's that's 54 joules of KE. The sling delivers a ~60 gram projectile at 90 miles per hour=40 meters per second, so that produces only 48 joules. In terms of momentum? The sling delivers 2.4 kilograms/meter*second, and the bow delivers 1.8.

So this indicates that the sling delivers, at most, about 25% more blunt force trauma (assuming zero penetration), but that's pretty idealized because the arrow is more aerodynamic and so will continue to deliver it at range

No. Arrows lose control to air resistance and after a given range, will just flatter to the ground without doing much damage. With a slingshot, depending on the angle of the fall, this is not the case. Even further, slingstones can achieve a much better arcing trajectory, which is especially important if you want to hit the top of a helmet.

Even more, you are pretty much being disingenious here. Slign bullets range from 22-120g, so the kinetic energy varies wildly, as does the range link.

There's something to the claim, too, that the deformation allows the slingstone to impart force on a slightly broader range of angles of impact than the arrow but... at that point... who cares?

Evidence the Comanche bow is the same as the ancient bow? Also, lead stones are much harder to extract from a wound than any arrow (with the exception of barbed arrows).

Vegetius [...] had presumably never cast a sling in his life.

That is an assumption without evidence.

But the same page reveals experimental data giving only 150 meters as the maximum range. Irregardless, 200m is approximately the range at which ancient bows were effective. There's no great advantage either way, here (and, according to a certain rather unreliable source, archers were practicing against bales of hay at 180 meters whereas it's reasonably clear that neither of these casts were going for accuracy at these distances).

And yet you claim the bow was more effective? But why would it be any more effective against cataphracts or other well-armored enemies than the sling?

Even more, the sling has a lot of advantages the bow does not have:
- the sling is more easy to produce than the bow and if necessary ammunition can be found everywhere.
- Arrows can be seen in flight. Sling stones often can not.
- easy to transport and can be used one handed.

[Master of Ossus]

It's a fair point, but considering the scarcity of evidence, we have to ask 'what reason do we have to assume he was bullshitting'? We have to make do with what we've got. There are many people on this very board who know loads about various military and non-military technologies they've never personally used, and yet they can give useful evidence on topics about those technologies. 'Expertise', perhaps not, but evidence? Yes.

Those people actually have a demonstrable basis of knowledge for their understanding of such technologies. Vegetius is different: he doesn't.

Consider that the author of the page did not personally observe the entire life of Vegetius, yet you take his word that he 'presumably' never used a sling, without giving Vegetius the same benefit of the doubt regarding his writings.

He doesn't give Vegetius the benefit of the doubt because Vegetius' technique of firing a sling doesn't match any modern experimental uses of the sling.

Further, Vegetius himself tells us that he's just compiling ancient sources. Even apart from the fact that he immediately follows his description of slings by explaining that the ancients used them, he prefaces the book thusly:

One advantage, however, I derive from the nature of this work, as it requires no elegance of expression, or extraordinary share of genius, but only great care and fidelity in collecting and explaining, for public use, the instructions and observations of our old historians of military affairs, or those who wrote expressly concerning them.

Emphasis added.

Vegetius is describing technology which he himself has never used, nor presumably has ever seen used.

Those were the author's personal tests, not the same shepherds and researchers mentioned above: "My range tests indicate a much shorter range than has been previously asserted. This may because I have not learned to sling within a sling-using culture, or because I am inept at it. Alternately, claims for the range of the sling may have been exaggerated." How many people exist today who can really use an ancient bow? That is, really use it well? It requires both strength and technique. The Balearic slingers Thanas mentions were trained from early childhood (based on the pool of available evidence).

Yet even modern reenactors can demonstrably penetrate various types of armor using warbows which match ancient patterns.

Ultimately we have a pool of evidence (albeit with considerable uncertainty, like much ancient history) which claims slings to be superior to bows at extreme range and in certain injury cases, and a collection of effects based on physics and modern weapons which supports the idea that slings were superior in the case of long range, massed fire against area targets.

What evidence is that? I showed that, at most, against primitive bows, slings can produce ~25% more blunt force trauma. That seems pretty piddling (particularly since arrows found in other ancient contexts are much more massive than the ones that I used--in fact comparable to the sling stones which are fired much slower).

I accept that actual proof is impossible without considerable effort in real-life testing, or creation of detailed computer simulations. However, if this was Mythbusters, I would feel comfortable giving the above conclusion a solid 'MYTH PLAUSIBLE'.

It might be plausible except for the fact that repeated experimentation using slings as weapons have shown them to be less effective than arrows. Mythbusters wouldn't label a myth "plausible" if their tests demonstrated that the sling is demonstrably less effective than the bow, and all of the Deadliest Warrior tests do just this: the sling is fired more slowly, less accurately, and is less lethal than a bow and arrow at the same range. Can it cause injuries? Sure. Can it cause fatalities? Yeah, sometimes. Is it comparable to the bow in terms of its ability to kill people? Not remotely.

The sling relies upon placement into the cranium or extremely unlikely hits to specific areas of the chest in order to be lethal. The bow and arrow merely has to hit and penetrate into a vital organ (in addition to having an advantage in accuracy), so virtually any hit to the torso that isn't completely glancing will be fatal. The bow and arrow deal a comparable amount of blunt force trauma if the two weapons are both incapable of penetrating the target's armor, can bypass armor by slipping through joints and gaps in the armor more easily than the sling, and is much better at forcing penetration into soft tissues, through muscle, and through vital organs or even bone.

You are an idiot if you think you can dismiss this so easily. Explain why slingers were attached to elite units then (like those who perished at Kalkriese) and why roman authors were very impressed with their training practices, like Livius. Even more, the fact that this slinger unit of the late Roman Army was considered important enough to be elevated to field unit status from the normal units.

I'm not familiar with Livius' account. Please provide it.

As for the argument that those who perished at Kalkriese were an elite group, that's just bullshit. Teotoberg included three full legions including their auxilia and camp followers. Remains of jewelry and hairpins also suggest that women were present there. Further, I'm actually unfamiliar with finds of sling bullets at Kalkriese, but even if they were present, arrows were also found in and around the area, as well.

This is laughable - if they were not effective on that range then there would have been no reason to use them at such ranges.

You're arbitrarily changing the definition of "effectiveness," though. Can you provide evidence that they can strike man-sized targets at such ranges, or are effective against armor at such ranges?

And beyond that, according to Winston, the passage that you are citing doesn't even refer to slings, but rather to another weapon entirely.

Any yet he also recommends the training of soldiers in this, which is consistent with the strategikon of Maurikios which stresses the same importance.

1. Passage from Maurikios?
2. Again, this is like saying that Homer recommended helmets made from boar's tusks. It's the same trap that other ancient writers fell into (See Lendon: Soldiers and Ghosts): when the ancients thought that they saw a problem, they frequently looked into the past for solutions and so they cited to various heroic texts. He expressly introduces his book as a compilation of ancient wisdom, as opposed to experience from his own observations and campaigns.

Bull. You take one sentence and then apply it to the rest of the sentences. In fact, I even wonder how you can think that seeing that there is a switch between past and present tense. This is quite a stretch on your part, especially as we know the Romans used slings to defend against besiegers even in late antiquity. See Ammianus Marcellinus for that.

7. And while we were pressed on all sides with the vast masses of arms, and works, and beasts, still our scorpions were kept at work with their iron slings, hurling huge round stones from the battlements, by which the towers of the enemy were crushed and the balistae and those who worked them were dashed to the ground, so that many were desperately injured, and many crushed by the weight of the falling structures. And the elephants were driven back with violence, and surrounded by the flames which we poured forth against them, the moment that they were wounded retired, and could not be restrained by their riders. The works were all burnt, but still there was no cessation from the conflict.

The original Latin is:

7. cumque omni ex latere armorum et operum beluarumque molibus urgeremur, per scorpionum ferreas fundas e propugnaculis subinde rotundi lapides acti dissolutis turrium coagmentis ballistas earumque tortores ita fudere praecipites, ut quidam citra vulnerum noxas, alii obtriti magnitudine ponderum interirent, elephantis vi magna propulsis, quos flammis coniectis undique circumnexos iam corporibus tactis gradientesque retrorsus retinere magistri non poterant, postque exustis operibus nulla quies certaminibus data.

He's not actually describing a sling, but a warmachine. (I think later he also describes a torsion catapult as a type of sling, but I can't find that passage atm).

Even if these passages do refer to slings, though, it makes perfect sense that you would use a sling during siege combat since the defenders are desperate and since both sides are looking for something effective for their non-archers to do while they’re settling in with each other. It’s not a statement that slings are somehow more effective than bows, but rather that they’re more available during a siege and they have effectiveness greater than zero.

Can you read ancient greek? Because there is no translation online available.

I have a hard copy of an English version of the Strategikon. If you tell me where to look and what I’m looking for, I can post the translated passage.

You still think he only talks about the ancients despite him saying no such thing. He does not say the sling is not effective in his day. In fact, he quite says the opposite.

I think he only talks about the ancients because he says that his work is a mere compilation of ancient sources. Observe the preface, which I posted earlier. The fact that he also followed his description of slings by immediately describing how they were used in ancient conflicts also makes me skeptical that he's talking about some personal experience with a strong basis of knowledge for himself concluding that slings were so effective.

When your main enemies are using a lot of armor, this is very important. Also, if necessary, slings can find easy replacement ammunition in stones.

Only if blunt force trauma from a sling is actually effective in penetrating armor--I'm very skeptical of that--in ideal circumstances, sling stones seem to do ~25% more blunt force trauma than an arrow, which seems a pretty miniscule advantage (and one which surely would be reduced further given that the arrow is likely more massive and the slingstone less massive and traveling more slowly than the ones I used for my calculations, and because the slingstone will surely deform and perform work on itself rather than a hard armor target).

No. Arrows lose control to air resistance and after a given range, will just flatter to the ground without doing much damage.

What the flying fuck? I have never seen an arrow "flutter to the ground" at any range. Arrows are tip-heavy because of the arrowhead and so they bury themselves in the ground even at the bow's maximum range (probably at something approaching the terminal velocity for an arrow).

With a slingshot, depending on the angle of the fall, this is not the case. Even further, slingstones can achieve a much better arcing trajectory, which is especially important if you want to hit the top of a helmet.

How do you figure that? Arrows work just fine at high trajectories--it's totally reasonable to use plunging fire with bows and arrows--indeed it's been argued that this was the primary use of longbows at (e.g.) Agincourt and Hastings.

Even more, you are pretty much being disingenious here. Slign bullets range from 22-120g, so the kinetic energy varies wildly, as does the range link.

We're talking about the standardized ancient Roman lead slingstones, remember? The ones that you claimed were vastly superior to stones? Find one of those that's 120g, please, and we'll use that to calculate momentum and KE.

Evidence the Comanche bow is the same as the ancient bow?

http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/ar ... lica1.html

Ancient Egyptian bows were firing arrows at over 70 miles per hour. Tartar composite bows could fire at 115 miles per hour. Note also the Holmegaard bow—a self bow from the Mesolithic era—which fired arrows faster than modern composite bows and at speeds higher than the Comanche bow. The Comanche bow’s performance, compared to other ancient bows, was pretty ho-hum.

Also, lead stones are much harder to extract from a wound than any arrow (with the exception of barbed arrows).

Is the point of these weapons to kill people or to make it slightly more difficult for a doctor to treat them when you injure them?

Furthermore, can you actually provide evidence to support this claim? How are you going to remove an arrow which has slipped between two ribs? Coupled with the arrow’s vastly greater penetration and ability to go through bone as well as soft tissue, they can easily be more difficult to extract.

Vegetius [...] had presumably never cast a sling in his life.

That is an assumption without evidence.

That’s from slinging.org’s description, since I assume that they understand the proper techniques for using slings and appear to dispute the utility of Vegetius' advocated techniqe.

And yet you claim the bow was more effective? But why would it be any more effective against cataphracts or other well-armored enemies than the sling?

Because it’s more accurate, more lethal when it strikes between pieces of armor (and roughly equivalently lethal when it hits armor, even ignoring its ability to penetrate armor), and delivers much more firepower per area, since archers can stand in smaller formations than slingers.

Even more, the sling has a lot of advantages the bow does not have:
- the sling is more easy to produce than the bow and if necessary ammunition can be found everywhere.

We’re talking about effectiveness of the weapon; not logistical considerations surrounding it. Even then, outside of sieges, armies rarely had difficulty supplying themselves with arrows.

- Arrows can be seen in flight. Sling stones often can not.

This is a de minimis advantage, at best, during combat. No one can effectively track any of the arrows in massed flight, anyway, and good luck catching or responding to them while they’re in flight (they are still traveling ~100 miles per hour, remember?). And ask Harold Godwinson how good an idea it is to be looking up at an arrow swarm during warfare.

- easy to transport and can be used one handed.

How are bows difficult to transport? Moreover, the second isn’t an advantage at all unless you’re planning to field a bunch of one-handed soldiers in combat. Maybe Miguel de Cervantes would appreciate this, but short of that, who cares?

[ComradeClaus]

I was thinking about the William vs Joan thing for a few days & remembered an old book on middle age combat I read a LONG time ago. I specifically recall the section on Normans saying they carried maces as part of their load, they generally had the mace hang from the left side of the saddle. (can be seen in the "crossroads" scene in Willow w/ the galdorn soldiers)

Maces are effective against plate armor right?

One thing I hate about the new season is that the number of weapons available for the testing is less.

It didn't matter if willie's sword can't piece plate since he could just scramble Joanie's brains w/ shots to the head from his mace. (His vastly greater strength in this would help too.Plus a mace is more effective against a shield than a sword. & the Norman 'kite-shield' was larger than the types in Joan's time, right? Another advantage.)

[spaceviking]

I am willing to accept William's loss. While Joan should be no match for William in close combat she did have superior range weapon technology. Also the battle was five on five so that lessens Joan's individual physical inferiority.