"why is the sling looked at as an inferior weapon?" Topic

In a good 90% of wargames, the sling has either shorter range or less killing potential (or both!) Than a bow.

But my personal research (and that of others) has concluded that the sling, although harder to use, can have a much larger killing potential and range than bows.

My personal sling, 3ft, can hurtle a rock about 150-180m if I give it a hefty whirl(Balearic style). My 50# draw bow can launch an arrow 130-150m Max at full draw.
This is skewed a little, because comparatively bows in the ancient world were double the poundage of my personal bow. People were also much stronger and much more skilled with these weapons.

We will say it is a 2x modified (give or take)
so approx distance on the bows of the time will be about 300m on an average volley.

This means that the sling will average about 310m (in skilled hands) so it is atleast on par with the bow!

How deadly are they? About equal, looking at killing potential.

The Balearic islanders were a feared opponent, much like 100yw English long bowmen.

My sling kills rabbits at about 15m. No heroic feat, given that a bow can drop a deer at up to 40m.

But look at stories (legends?) The most famous being the biblical tale of David killing a much larger Goliath with a simple shepards sling.
King tut was buried with a sling.
this shows atleast some reverence for the weapon, if a Pharaoh wanted his sling in the afterlife, you know he liked it very much.

A slingstone travels at about 40mph on average (65kmph)
An arrow usually travels about the same.

Therefore the two weapons should ATLEAST be on par with eachother.

I got all my extra info at slinging.org

I hope you enjoyed my rant, get back with me.
Thanks

I am Really (REALLY) good with a recurve bow. I used to shoot competitively and my Draw preference is in the 65-70lb range.

I can put 8 arrows in a dinner plate sized target at 80m every time with no pin sights and cross wind less than 10mph.

At less than 30m I can put an aluminum arrow through a brick wall with a target point.

With a Broadhead arrow I can kill a Deer with a hit to any area over about 60-70% of the body.

With a Sling I would need to hit in a Bony area in all probability. you don't get the cutting and bleeding effects of a hunting tip.

With a bodkin tip I can penetrate any personal armor. A Sling Stone vs a plate Cuirass will make a fancy dent.

I like Slings, they are accurate in the hands of a really trained individual but they have narrower utility against armored soldiers and larger prey animals.

Maybe its lessened range indicates greater difficulty in having more than a handful of troops skills in its use?

When we talk about a "slingstone," aren't many used in war actually lead shot?

Damon.

Yes that is correct in most military contexts.

Also, with archers you can have a denser front and depth than slingers giving you a greater weight of fire.

Plus bows can be fired horseback (with the right bows and training). faster reload and rate of fire too.

Wouldn't part of it depend on the size of the shot? I saw a biblical sling shot display in a museum and the stones were damn near the size of tennis balls.

How many tennis ball sized stones can you lug around the battlefield?
These are best in sieges.

Re David & Goliath:
Knocked out by stone (it surprised him – nothing like that had ever entered his head before)
But he was killed when David beheaded him with his own sword

How many arrows can you lug around the field? I supposed that like most ancient weapons we need a History Channel extravaganza and have them show us the killing power of the sling versus the bows of the time. There is a reason people moved to bows and away from slings and staff slings.

The reason of the "move from " from sling to bow has to do with training. What it takes to get good with a sling in several weeks can be learned with a bow in several days, given adequate training. Same with gonnes. From the weeks it took with bows, it took only hours with the hand gonne (cannon)
But the 2 weapons were ideally the same.
Lead shot could clank through armour no problem. I throw river stones through aluminum panel covered chip board at 30m. So I'm certain a lead shot the size of a boulder marble could pierce thin iron at 40-60 m.
Also those tennis ball sized stones would crush anyone they fell on.
most stones from around the world, excluding lead shot, were American football shaped bullets, that easily crack skulls, and break skin.

So far so good.

I got all my extra info at slinging.org

It is indeed a very good site. Here are a few more:
link
link

And of course there is Xenophon:

"For the rest of the day the one army continued its march and the other its pursuit. And the barbarians were no longer able to do any harm by their skirmishing at long range; for the Rhodian slingers carried farther with their missiles than the Persians, farther even than the Persian bowmen." ~ Xenophon, Anabasis 3.4.16

Translation of Anabasis Book 3, Chapter 4, with several interesting passages:
link

In my Ancients wargaming, I give slingers and archers the same shooting range. For me, it keeps things both simple and reasonably historical.

Cheers,
Scott

Scott- you are the singular most useful person I know. You have links for everything and a vast knowledge of…..Damn near everything… I am grateful to have you as a cyber-source.
You always add to the conversation, and take a very neutral stance in arguements. If all cyberspace followed your example, the cyber world would be a much cleaner place.

Thanks to everyone for throwing their 2¢

This is far from over.

Now some explaination for this topic: I have been slinging off and on for 5 years, and have just finally gotten good(Ish) at it. I can hit a 4x4 plate from 35m about 30% of the time.

Well whilst slinging the other day, I got really inspired to do an ancient Spanish army, and make a Balearic style sling. And while I was digging through my rules (impetus, hail Caesar, dba, dbm, wrg6,wrg5, and a photocopied chainmail) I realized that in most of these games that identify with weapons specifically, slings have about 40% less range than bows. (Hail Caesar did an okay job with slings)
so I did all my testing and research… and now I want you folks to answer me!
Thanks

I suspect the answer to the question as you've phrased it is that it is an inexpensive weapon used by people low on the social totem pole.

Grelber

indeed, its the low status of the people who use it that renders it a low status weapon

slings are for tiny islanders (cheap and with little other use militarily except as rowers), and shepherd boys.

they are the sort of thing you send out to cover the flank or screen the front while the men prepare themselves for battle.

I suspect that slingers and bowmen are essentially the same thing in terms of use, status and tactical effectiveness.

Slingers come from places where there are rocks, bowmen come from places where there are woods.

I love the sling, and will paint miniatures of them anytime I can. I made a DBA army primarily made up of slingers. Does not do well in games, but I love them.

Thank you for the very kind words, Austin. I am happy to offer whatever assistance I can.

Cheers,
Scott

i suspect not, jack.

others have already shown that tactcally you can have formations of massed bowmen which you cannot with slingers.

bows can be wielded from elite users platforms – chariots, horseback, which slingers can not.

slings require no economic status
- even a half decent self bow will require man-hours to make and maintain, along with fletched arrows – most bows are more crafted than that, but anyone can make a sling from the scraps which the women do not need from a hide.

and the basic training for archery requires time off work where you can recover the arrows, sling practice is part of shepherding – keeping predators off the flock.

in short, the sling is a poor man and a boys weapon.

great kings celebrate archery in monument- Egyptians, for example.

only one slinger is celebrated, and that for a tale of the underdog beating a big bully, not for prowess with the chosen weapon of the elites.

not too many woods in egypt either, yet the egyptians built giant monuments to archers and stampped them on coins.

I am afraid the bow = sling in range therefore slinger = bowmen argument is mistaking our notions of technology equating to value with those of ancients, who really did not think that way about things.

" I can hit a 4x4 plate from 35m about 30% of the time"

4 x 4 cm, inches, feet or metres?

I think my accuracy with a bow at 35m would likely get me the same if at a 4" target and I certainly didn't spend 5 years practicing. An archer using an unsighted longbow on a York round would be shooting at 100 yards. The target would be a standard large boss but ought to be getting about your level of accuracy at 3 times the range.

in short, the sling is a poor man and a boys weapon.

I have a problem with this statement. If this is true, then why on earth did the Romans create aerodynamically designed and mass-produced lead sling-bullets from molds?

The Herculoids used slings mounted!

I think Xenophon (and other ancient sources) also mentions that Persian sling stones cracked helmets! It seems like a poor man's weapon but if you know how to use it, then they are quite effective. Some would claim that bows are a poor man's weapon!

My understanding of battlefield archery is that is was most commonly an area effect weapon – at least the most famous of the battlefield archers, English longbowmen, were employed in that fashion.

Also that they were fired at ranges that necessitated a fairly high trajectory – something necessary if multiple ranks are to be effective. The question then becomes how effectively slings would function in those circumstances. With presumably a larger area needed per slinger, getting the same weight of fire per unit could be more difficult and the unit itself would take up more space.

Another question is how quickly a unit of slingers could correct for target movement on an open field versus how quickly archers can react. As noted several ancient cultures used slings extensively in sieges, so there seems to be a preference for them in static warfare.

So we need to get aapch45 and Only Warlock together for a fair set of comparative trials and a few friendly wagers.

4 ft to answer the question. Sorry! I am no expert slinger, and will not state that I am. But I can hit rabbits, and small boards on occasion.

Range is what I can do. ;)

Look at Balearic slingers on youtube sometime.
They knock around 5" circles at 40-70m easy.

Our sources tell us they cracked helmets, and had superior range to most weapons of the time.

Maybe didn't always get the punch…. but stones bounce.
So even if it hits John's shield, it might still bounce and hit Fred in the face….

I now see slings as a weapon that would break up a unit. Not the most lethal…. but still incredibly deadly in proper hands.

I would imagine that if a phalanx or some such formation was moving forward in a large dense body another large group of men hurling lage stones at them from a distance could be quite effective and there would be no need for them to hit a dinner size plate?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Well, when he can bring down a Bighorn Sheep at 60m with a single stone I'll tip my hat(lol). To date that's the biggest animal(192.5 lbs)I've brought down with a single arrow.

Slingstones have brought down 200lb men…. ;)

Not mine…. that'd be murder.

It would be cruel to try to kill an animal that large with a sling.

Impressive bowmanship though. Bravo! :)

Out slinging today. Hit a 3" thick pole from 25m! Very proud of myself

as stated above, slings would work very well against latge bodies of men in formed ranks ie phalanx.
they would also work in single combat, or guerrilla style attacks, for picking off individuals.

I want to cast some lead glandes for my sling.