Prompted by an overheated discussion in another thread, I thought it might be useful to present the evidence again. I'm mostly interested in the "golden age of slinging", Classical Greek antiquity, though use evidence from other periods. I also assume that the point is critical use of sources-- i.e. thinking about them, but not rejecting them to rely on subjective impression and gut feeling. The below is a bit rough because I'm far from libraries.

Literary evidence
There are only two I know of. They are later than the period we're talking about.

1. Virgil, Aen. 9.558.
stridentem fundam positis Mezentius hastis
ipse ter adducta circum caput egit habena
et media aduersi liquefacto tempora plumbo
diffidit
Mezentius lays down his spears, and thrice around his head drives the buzzing sling
with taut thong, and with molten lead splits the forehead of his foe,
It describes 3 rotations above the head, slinging lead. Problem: it's in an epic poem, which describes lots of things, some quite exaggerated. . But precision and realism might be aimed for here, in contrast with the more outré fighting scenes


2.Vegetius 2.23
Adsuescendum est etiam, ut semel tantum funda circa caput rotetur, cum ex ea emittitur saxum.

The habit should be given, to spin the sling only once around the head, when it is used to throw a stone.

The same adverb, "around", being used in both passages, helo. or abbreviated helo. is being described here, since "three times" must describe multiple rotations, with a low rotor. This can be considered absolutely certain, on linguistic grounds.

These are the only two pieces of ancient evidence in texts. Their interpretation is not ambiguous. The problem is that they cannot be directly used to speak of how people might have slung in say 400 BCE.

Now for the visual evidence. A certain amount is gathered here:

http://dagr.univ-tlse2.fr/sdx/dagr/feuilleter.xsp?tome=2&partie=2&numPage=421&nomEntree=FUNDITOR&vue=image

and more here

http://slinging.org/index.php?mact=Album,m5,default,1&m5albumid=4&m5returnid=53&page=53

where the captions do not give dates.

The Makron cup (discussed elsewhere; here, row 9. image 3) provides a clear instance of helo style, because of the position of the right hand (pronate, palm upwards). The detail is strikingly realistic.

The very standard position in Greek and pre-Greek visual evidence also argues for helo style. This has the pouch held straight out with the left hand, and the right hand held high behind the head or at head level. See images 2-3 (row 2, image 3), from 1450 BCE, 5-3 = 6-2 (I'm not sure of the date of this, but think it's Anatolian and ca. 900 BCE), 1-2 (730 BCE, Paros), 11-2 (which must be ca. 520 BCE). The Aspendian tetradrachms can be added here.

On which, discussion here:

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396591565/0


This pose could be the starting point for what people here like to call Greek style, but more likely for rotations above and around the head-- helo style.

5-2 also makes sense as the starting point of a helo (or "Byz" with one rotation) style.

5.1 could be the start of a "vaquero" or fig-8 style. The Corinthian aryballos ca. 620 BCE, found on Delos, discussed by Rawlings, which I mentioned on this forum, could also represent such a position.

I do not know how to interpret the Assyrian images of slinging, with the right arm outstretched.

Comparative evidence.

In a post, Mr Harrop mentioned how in the modern middle-east, most people sling with multiple rotations. This also chimes with videos I've seen, of Palestinians or Afghans slinging. (I do not mention the Peruvians). The implication here might be that traditional Old-World slinging societies practice multiple rotations, helo or side-arm or behind the body, and that this is a natural style to suppose ancient (Greek, E. Mediterranean) slingers to have used.

Please correct the title of the thread to

How did the ancients sling ?

Thearos wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2014 at 7:10pm:

I do not know how to interpret the Assyrian images of slinging, with the right arm outstretched.

http://slinging.org/uploads/images/historical/preroman_files/asiria4.jpg

The Assyrians are clearly using an overhand style, not helicopter.  It's impossible to tell whether it's figure 8 or not.

Also, all of the images in the pre-Roman file can be argued to be showing overhand except the Egyptian one.

http://slinging.org/uploads/images/historical/preroman_files/slingfs.gif

I would like to point out that the slingers are behind the archers, possibly inferring that the slingers had more range than the archers.

I think helo *is* overhand, just with revolutions.

Note that what I am saying is that based on texts and visual conventions, I am pretty sure that ancient Greeks and Romans DID use helicopter, Old-World-style. They may have used other styles too; the evidence is too sketchy. . But when I sling helo, I am sure that I am using an ancient style. I want to do this, and improve in this particular style.

like today there would probably have been no fixed style.
The roman legionnaires would have been drilled in a given style, no doubt. But the average slinger wasn't a full time soldier so would most likely use whatever style they were most comfortable with.

And for battle formation, overhead is just not practical.
It takes up a lot of space, it's slow between shots, and it raises the chance of a missile going sideways, or behind. 

A fig 8 type style or balearic sidearm is far more practical, useful and less potentially lethal to your colleagues.

You can pack slingers doing fig 8 3-4 feet apart quite safely (all these things I've tested in the field - well up a hillfort anyway :-), length of sling is largely irrelevant.
So short sling with heavy rocks for close up or longer slings with lead bullets don't require more space per slinger.

10-12 shots a minute is easily achieved without rushing and can be kept up all day with out strain (tested that one in the rain, 20mph winds and sleet).
It's also far more easy to be accurate and powerful at the same time.   

I can't think of any positives for helicopter style in combat.

Helicopter is just not practical under battle conditions, unless there are very few of you spaced a long way apart.

But even then just about every other style is better for combat.

Our ancestors weren't primitives or idiots, and they were far more practical and skilled than any of us will ever be. The sling was an every day tool and you can bet every last silver owl in greece that their slinging style was efficient, effective and practical.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

I can't think of any positives for helicopter style in combat.

Sling LOOONG distances is what I'm thinking of. To outrange archers. Like the guy painted by Makron on that cup. Or indeed all of the guys standing in "Y" position (with the sling outstretched above the head)-- assuming that position has any basis in reality, it develops into helo. Or like the guys Thucydides describes slinging long distance into an enemy camp and getting hits on soldiers walking around (so that they have to walk around with armour on-- Thuc. 2.81).

Personally, I would visualise slingers in a fairly loosely strung line, rather than arrayed shoulder to shoulder. 

Fig-8: I wonder if it was used for incendiary projectiles, just like Spaniards used it for grenades.

helicopter is actually pretty useless for long distance slinging.
There's just no way to get the whole body behind the throw.

Byzantine, fig 8, balearic/sidearm - can all use the waist and rest of the body. helo is just shoulders and arms.
Even the helo(ish) style yurek uses , has the sling canted behind him at an angle to allow for usig the rest of the body to aid the throw.

And for both real and psychological impact on a body of men a denser cloud of missiles is always more effective than a loose random bombardment.

The starting pose - is most likely simply for artistic merit.
But it could also lead to a fig8 or straight overarm throw.

Or any bother throw that started with the pouch being dropped.

I think this is one of those historical aspects of life that was so common and widely known, that historians just didn't bother recording it.

So the best you can do is look at how slingers work today and assume that what works now worked then.

Yes, and that is why I think multi-rotations style was used for long-range battle slinging: vids of trad. slinging cultures doing it that way.

Helo, here, just stands for multi-rotational styles-- which, of course, are angled for optimal biomechanics and accuracy. ANything else is just semantics.

I.e., whenever you read helo, just think "the best helo I can imagine". For instance, balearic, side arm, helo, are all variants of multi-rotations.

Vegetius, 3.14
Funditores sunt qui fundis lino uel saetis factis - has enim dicunt esse meliores - contorto circa caput brachio dirigunt saxa.

Slingers are those who throw stones with slings made of linen or coarse hair (the latter are said to be the best) by turning / twisting their arm around the head.

(For me, this, again, is about revolutions around the head, i.e helo style).

yeah but again - it's slow, very inaccurate with power and just not a practical, all day slinging style.

fig 8 is short to medium range - say with lead bullets 250-300 metres maximum. But it can be kept up all day and the next day etc.
For distances up to 100 metres, it can be used with extreme accuracy and a very flat trajectory. Slingers can be packed together for maximum impact on approaching troops.

Helicopter - called so because you spin it around ABOVE YOUR head. has little practical usage.

You can't just mix up a bunch of different styles and claim they're the same - they aren't.

A balearic sidearm throw is quite different than a overhead helicopter throw. For one, in the belearic style the sling never lifts above shoulder level. Maximum power can be achieved as easily with NO rotations as with several.
Body position is totally different.
etc etc.

For long distance ie: over 300 metres, then yes multiple rotations were probably used - but referencing the furthest conventional sling throw on record where the missile was recovered. larry bray uses a non-rotational slinging style.

So do you go by what you want to be true or by what has been proved to be practical ?

In the absence of video footage of ancient greeks slinging - I'll go by what has been proved to be practical.

   

And I'll go by what is explicitly attested in texts and images, in addition to my own 30+ years of slinging obsession.

I also hold, based on my own experience, exactly the contrary to what you write: fig-8 is more demanding than helo, and hence for a day long bombardment, I would select a nice, slow helo. It would also allow me to keep the sling "cocked" while I chose targets or wait for firing signals.

I think you just like to argue Professor… ;D

Ancient texts and images mean little…we know what works now and nothing has changed. The ancient Greeks thought lambs grew out of the ground too…on a stalk from their navel.  ::)

All of your ancient texts colds also be describing the fig-8….the uninitiated might see it as one rotation, or it could also be described as three…the drop, behind the back and the throw…around the head.

Keep practicing that super-hurricane…and lets see a video. Until then… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNHM4AL7LdU

I think not, that's not what the Latin says. You could learn it, too. Takes a few years. Best start young.

Just to be sure: we do not know how the ancients slung-- fig-8, why not ? "Byz" ?

But I have laid out evidence (4 Latin passages, 1 image, and the implication of the Y position) that makes it certain that the ancient DID sling helo-- the universal old-world style. So when I sling that way, I'm sure I'm slinging like some ancients did-- probably most. (In addition, I do think it's a better way).

Mind that Virgil is a poet, and Vegetius a military writer in late Roman times. Still, they seem to reflect a general idea of rotations above the head. BUT of course, this might just be a widespread mistake (just like people probably had hazy notions of e.g. sailing or rowing).

All the same, I'm reminded of another profs vs enthusiasts debate: Greek vases often show people using spears overarm in close combat, reenactors insist this is too difficult. I would stick to the axiom historical martial arts guys developed: if there is clear evidence for something, suspend judgment before rejecting it based on your own "experience of what works".

I know you are hung up on the helicopter…thats OK.

I can tell you though, many martial arts are just that…art. Like paintings on a vase, engravings or cave art.

We used to invite martial arts "masters" to our unit to demonstrate their supposedly lethal techniques, then put them to the test in the real world. The "death touch", one inch punch, firing chi-balls at opponents…we tried them all. It's not hard to flush out the B.S. from effective technique, all it takes is some experimentation.

The ancients would have used different styles depending on a lot of variables. How they were trained, how well they could throw, what other techniques they had been exposed to, the tactical situation, what type of ammo, the formation they were in…
To imply that all Greeks used one style all the time, based on the translations of a few observers or a painting on a vase is a little short-sighted.
I know how soldiers think and I know how they train. Not much has changed.
Also, who did they get to pose for these vase paintings? Even in the modern military when the Public affairs people show up to take pictures of training, they often get "staged" pictures. You can't use these as an accurate representation…because often, the "experts" are off actually training and have no time for that nonsense…so they grab a clerk and say "hold this gun like you are in combat".
I suspect it was probably similar in the old days…"here Clerkaclese, hold this sling like you are in combat and stand still for an hour.
Renactors don't train to kill each other either. Its a social cosplay event with a historical theme. If they were out to kill each other you would see a change in tactics. I like what they do and enjoy watching them but you shouldn't use them as a historically accurate source of TTPs.
I feel pretty confident that no combat slingers were lobbing, they were slinging hard with deadly force. Since humans, either standing or mounted on horses present a target that is more vertical than horizontal, it would have been important to maximise you accuracy in the vertical plane, hard and fast.
The harder you try and sling sidearm, the wider your spread will be horizontally. You have a much greater chance of getting a hit on a vertically biased target slinging hard with a 3/4 overhand release. This is why trebuches use a vertical release, it makes them easy to aim…just line up the arm with the target.
You can't fight logic and demonstrated proof to fit a painting on a vase. None of those ancient writers or poets had any personal experience with the sling, and the scrolls of Heroslinaclese have yet to be unearthed.

The ancient evidence is pretty clear. The cup by Makron shows a very precise detail about the orientation of the hand: it is cocked with thumb down and closed palm up. An experienced slinger immediately knows that this can only evolve into a helo or multi-rotational style. The other poses  shown in vase painting are also helo-optimized. Note that there are other styles possibly represented, too: a possible fig-8, a likely Byz. The textual evidence is also unequivocal: Virgil's didactic and epic, which likes to get details right, and Vegetius (twice), a technical writer. Yes, these sources need care.

Historical Martial Arts: I am referring to the historians and scholars who try to reconstruct fighting arts from the past, using visual and textual evidence, and archaeology. They are very close to experimental archaeology, and think about this stuff a lot. One thing that is clear is how good visual evidence often is (at least in the Middle Ages)-- once you have naturalistic art, you ignore it at your peril.

Note that I am comparing Mr Harrop to a reenactor: the guys with spears and shields who say "but it CAN'T work ! The grip is too weak !" when the profs say "spears were used overhand, here is the evidence".

So when faced with clear historical evidence, what do you do ?

1. You follow it uncritically.
2. You use it critically
3. You reject it based on your common sense of "what must work".

1. is not good, but not a reason to go for 3. 2 is the hardest, and the best. The point here is that I work on the sources (and have constantly updated the forum with info), and I have enough slinging experience not to be browbeaten.

My recent attempt to sling "Palestinian" style brought home to me the importance of slinging "heavy" in war. Not short sling and light (that's good for hunting birds), but long and heavy-- you're trying to take out people who have body armour shields and head protection. So some kind of lobbing is likely, especially at the sort of distance that protect slingers from archers and from infantry rushes (>100m ?)

Shorter--

1. There is clear evidence for the ancient Greeks and Romans using helo (and a bit for fig-8 and Byz).

2. Is there any reason for rejecting this evidence ? No.

3. Does helo work ? Yes.

Historians and scholars make the absolute worst re-creators of  "martial arts"…TV and Youtube is rife with their ham-fisted attempts to demonstrate the "proper" technique of something they clearly don't understand or don't have the athletic ability to employ effectively.

All of my efforts with the sling have been geared toward using it as a weapon. I see throwing large stones as a step back from the ultimate evolution of the sling, using lead bullets. I sling rocks or tennis balls simply because I can't sling lead all the time. If it were up to me, I would have an unlimited supply of lead and sling nothing else.

Judging by the historical accounts, one might think slinging lead was a rare occurrence…but the sheer number of lead sling bullets that have been found around the world tells a different story…and the sheer lack of any accurate descriptions of how it was done tells another.

I am critical of any account written by someone who was an observer and not a doer.

Even today, with modern military field manuals, movies and youtube videos, you do not get the entire picture of what transpires on the modern battlefield and what TTPs actually work in the real world…or how much training it takes to make a cohesive and effective fighting force.

…and this whole "style" thing. Every "style" works…some work better than others for a given situation, like slinging from massed formations, or downward from high on a wall, or from behind a tree.

You have spent a great deal of effort promoting your views. I'm not concerned with old cups, vases or paintings. They are just static attempts to capture something dynamic that the artist didn't really understand. Translations are great but have to be viewed in the right context…and weighed against other translations to determine their accuracy. If a historian gets simple things like lead melting in flight wrong, we must assume they got other important facts wrong as well.

I'm not a historian or academic…just a "master at arms" who likes to sling…and push the boundaries of what we think we know. I try never to get saddled by someone else's dogma, thats how skills become stagnant.

Being critical of sources is good (the historical martial arts people are pretty good at that). But taking sources into account is also good. Being intolerant of discussion of sources is just sad, and school-masterish. In other words, I am not hung-up on helo, but on getting at historical truth, through analysing the evidence (rather than bluster and common-sense, though bio-mechanics and experience do help-- which is why I sling).

Lead bullets: perhaps they were very common; literary sources do in fact mention them from time to time. They're not found all over the place, but in odd clusters in the record-- for instance Cerigo-Antikythera, Numantia, Rhodes (Kameiros) Perugia. These are usually linked to specific events. Of course, this could just mean that these are particular moments of retrievability for very widespread artefacts; my own interpretation is they were mass produced for specific events (usually sieges). (Otherwise, sling bullets are in fact quite rare in the archaeological record-- I think: I'm willing to be shown wrong, if you have lots of references; but I've gone through a lot of the archaeological literature).

For instance, a bit batch of them found in Attica can be related to specifically a camp of Ptolemaic soldiers sent as aid int he 260s. Does this show rarity and link with big war, or that lead was very common but just appears in the record when conditions are favourable ?

I also noted how very carefully made lead bullets were-- and how markings on them are probably linked to "big logistics"-- i.e. big war.

The above is not dogma, it is my reading of the evidentiary record. I.e. it is reporting the shape of the evidence, as seen  in published evidence. I am giving my interpretation, and also laying out the reason for my interpretation.

The "lead melting in flight" thing was a widespread belief in antiquity-- probably from observing that lead bullets, when recovered, were squished and hot.

Anyway, to continue our free seminar series-- the question is really how to interpret sources. We can start with visual evidence. What reason do we have to trust or distrust ? The cup by Makron shows very precise detail of the hands. On the other hand, other vases show e.g. people with spears held over-hand and passing behind the head, so not as to obscure the face.

I am holding that the Makron cup is realistic, or readable in terms of Realien, but that the "spear-behind-the-head" representation has to be corrected in terms of artistic conventions. This is criticism. Mr Harrop's position, "all of this is just untrustworthy images" is oddly exactly those of post-modern trendies ("it's all discourse").

A very similar problem is that of warriors represented with realistic equipment (as we can tell from archaeology), but naked. Did the Greeks fight naked ? Unlikely. So does this mean that everything is fantasy ? If so, why is the STUFF represented so accurately ?

It's not hard.

1. If you're interested in the past, you're a historian; if you want to find out about the past through carefully looking at the evidence, you're a scholar; if disagreement with arguments makes you bluster and rage, you're a schoolmaster.

2. Greek vases were produced for, and probably by, people who had combat experience, seeing how widespread the latter was in citizen states which were often at war. I.e. painter and client had seen the elephant, and probably seen slingers (though not slinging elephants).

3. If you want to sling like a Greek slinger: look at the Makron vase (hands and body weight), then sling helicopter. It works, it's the traditional Medit. way, and it's based on ancient evidence.

Voilà !

Just a quick point about red vase paintings…and why they shouldn't be used as a tutorial on ancient slinging technique.

Did the Greeks ride roosters?
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1981.11.10.jpg

Ummm…what technique is this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Colmar_Painter_-_Running_Warrior_-_Walters_481920_-_Detail(1).jpg

Maybe this guy is about to sling his own feces?
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Late-Archaic-kylix-Ambrosius-Painter-510–500-B.C..jpg

Odd technique this… http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Amazone_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_8953.jpg

Don't think I would want to fight this guy though…
http://www.theoi.com/image/T60.5Satyros.jpg

Yes, one has to analyse the images carefully. The "Centaur" argument is just plain silly. Iconography 101 !

People here may be thankful to Mr Harrop-- they're getting free seminars. I'm thankful for the occasion to try out arguments. Mr Harrop… it's not so clear what he gets out of it.

In the Makron cup, notice the gesture: tensing the cords and seating the stone. Any slinger recognises this. It's not a photograph, but realistic.

(I could, of course, give lots of pictures of things on r-f vases that are realistically shown, with parallels from archaeology and real life, but that would waste bandwidth. I also should admit that I have not watched any vids of Mr Harrop slinging, but from Jaegoor's critique, it sounds like the familiar "boom-boom" whanging of the recreational slinger, overstressed shots, uncontrolled body-weight, and overworked joints).

In the aryballos from Delos (posted elsewhere), the starting position is wrist down. I.e. quite possibly a fig-8 style.

Thearos wrote:
In the Makron cup, notice the gesture: tensing the cords and seating the stone. Any slinger recognises this. It's not a photograph, but realistic.

(I could, of course, give lots of pictures of things on r-f vases that are realistically shown, with parallels from archaeology and real life, but that would waste bandwidth. I also should admit that I have not watched any vids of Mr Harrop slinging, but from Jaegoor's critique, it sounds like the familiar "boom-boom" whanging of the recreational slinger, overstressed shots, uncontrolled body-weight, and overworked joints).

I'll take on Jaegoor, or any other champion you have in mind.

;D

You and that Makron cup. Get some new material, I think just about everyone is tired of hearing about it.
Yes, we've seen it…but there is no Makron video, and slinging hasn't changed.
What is your point Professor?

To keep repeating the same thing over and over again until…

until what?

You see Professor, I know what you want.

I deal with people like you every day.

They sit in the back of the class, roll their eyes, whisper…

They, and you, want to be engaged.

You like trying to push people's buttons, to see if you can annoy people into action.

Kids do it in the car with, Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

You want me to go kinetic on you. To unload…

So you can push your glasses up, twist the end of your moustache, and say "see, he's an uncouth brute and I am the composed intellectual"

I know your type…well.

The fact that you have yet to mount an effective argument also leads me to believe that you are not what you claim. In this little battle of wits we have engaged in, you appear to be unarmed.

Nice try, now go back and keep studying that Makron cup, you might find another detail that supports your hypothesis, whatever the hell that is.

;D

Not really, no. I don't like to be shouted down, especially when I have arguments and evidence. And I don't like ad hominem arguments.

Anyone interested in how ancient Greeks and Romans slung may look at the material gathered in the earlier posts.

So on the Makron cup, I already drew attention to two features: the small pouch or bag, with big stones, on the left arm, with a tactical load (hence the need for reloads somewhere behind the firing line); and the padded armour the slinger wears-- the armhole shows its construction (basically lots of layers of cloth: so quilted armour).

Another feature worth noticing is the position of his feet. He is standing sideways on to his target. The same position appears on the Balearic photograph from 1962 which I posted in my original discussion of the cup by Makron. There was some discussion, a few years back, of the general issue of feet and body positioning (again, by David Morningstar).

Note to moderators: this thread gathers some known evidence, adds some new evidence, and offers some analysis, on a topic which sometimes comes up. I would suggest making it a sticky, or sticking it in Mauro's register of threads about the history of slinging.

OK, you win…

Artistic rendering and poetic accounts of derring-do should be used as technically accurate accounts of how soldiers employed the sling in a plethora of tactical situations.

Greeks all used helo….got it.

Lets examine the proper technique for riding combat roosters into battle next.

::)

That would be more fun than this, and just as technically accurate.

Anyway, I was thinking about the Makron cup some more-- about the feet. The slinger is standing with left foot pointing perpendicular to the target, and right foot pointing away from the target. The result is that he stands with his back at 45 degrees to the target. Why ? Assuming the representation is realistic, there might be a reason for this-- namely to have a very long path-to-release and body torsion.

So here is how I interpret the slinging sequence involved here:

1. Look at the target, but with left foot pointing perpendicular to the target, and right foot pointing away from the target (your feet look like an inverted L). So you're looking at the target, but your body is turned away at 45 degrees (more than just sideways on, your left shoulder blade points at the target). Body weight on right foot.

2. Launch into your usual helo throw.

3. To shoot, use your whole body to unwind and and get the most out of the long path-to-release.

4. Your feet also rotate: on the HEEL of the right foot and the BALL of the left foot. You end up with both feet pointing forward, and with a weight distribution similar to a baseball pitch (with the right foot digging in).

I propose to call this style "real-Greek", or "Makron" style. My natural modesty would preclude calling this "Thearos" style.

More seriously, if correct, this would show that Gk vase painters try to represent dynamic body actions. I know of another vase where the slinger seems to run away from the direction she's shooting in (it's an Amazon) and suspect that this body torsion is what's going on.

Thanks to all for discussion of this. My work here is done, I know how to sling like a Greek. The feet and body were the last missing piece.

Thearos wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2014 at 1:48pm:

Anyway, I was thinking about the Makron cup some more-- about the feet. The slinger is standing with left foot pointing perpendicular to the target, and right foot pointing away from the target. The result is that he stands at 45 degrees to the target. Why ? Assuming the representation is realistic, there might be a reason for this-- namely to have a very long path-to-release and body torsion. So here is how I interpret the slinging sequence involved here: 1. Look at the target, but with left foot pointing perpendicular to the target, and right foot pointing away from the target (your feet look like an inverted L). So you're looking at the target, but your body is turned away at 45 degrees (more than just sideways on). Body weight on right foot. 2. Launch into your usual helo throw. 3. To shoot, use your whole body to unwind and and get the most out of the long path-to-release. 4. Your feet also rotate: on the HEEL of the right foot and the BALL of the left foot. You end up with both feet pointing forward, and with a weight distribution similar to a baseball pitch (with the right foot digging in). I propose to call this style "real-Greek", or "Makron" style. My natural modesty would preclude calling this "Thearos" style. More seriously, if correct, this would show that Gk vase painters try to represent dynamic body actions. I know of another vase where the slinger seems to run away from the direction she's shooting in (it's an Amazon) and suspect that this body torsion is what's going on. Thanks to all for discussion of this. My work here is done, I know how to sling like a Greek. The feet and body were the last missing piece.

And this picture?  What does it tell us about how the Greeks fought?

https://philbrook.org/sites/default/files/styles/fullscreen_object_horizontal/public/object/featured_images/SC200872_web.jpg

It tells us that Ancient Greeks were obviously genetically superior to modern humans.  Just look at the feet.  He has his head turned 180 degrees from where his feet are walking.  Obviously, all Greek warriors walked like this all the time since a painter once put it on a vase.  It explains why the Greek Phalanx was so effective.  People thought they were running away, and then they got stabbed by their spears.

---

Then there's this gem which will teach future amateur anthropologists everything they need to know about how amputees fought after losing a limb.

http://cinefagos.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/planet-terror-rose-mcgowan.jpg

This is called the "passive-agressive, I will keep repeating the same thing until I declare victory when everyone is finally exasperated with my jackassery" technique. (or otherwise known as trolling)

He also rides a giant rooster into battle alongside his warrior satyr buddy.

Yeah Professor, your work is done…  ::)  Maybe you have some of the people here fooled, but I'm not buying any of your B.S.

You are a wanna-be academic with no credentials who can't sling.

Prove me wrong. Your reply will be "I don't have to prove anything to you"…(the last refuge of a fraud)

Blowhards like you are the reason there is so much misinformation floating around the internet.

Go practice your "real-Geek" style…

::)

(sorry, I don't do passive-agressive well)

Mr Harrop: sorry you took it this way. Every post I make, I try to bring something new: new argument, new way of looking at things, new data. In this case, the cup by the painter Makron seems to try to show something precise: the position of the wrist and the siting of the stone in the pouch suggest as much. I thought it was worth repeating, not so much for you, as for people perhaps joining the debate mid-stream.

The point about feet occurred to me lately: I always remembered them pointing towards the target, like a fencer-- in fact they work the other way around. I think this is a new finding-- hence my proposal to call this "Makron" style. It's a small adjustment in posture but it works very well once you get used to it.

[Edit: swapped place of this post with the one below, to answer Mr Harrop's post more directly]

I just tried slinging "Makron" style. It works, and pretty well, too. It produces good power and accuracy. Shots slightly whangy for my taste.

Notes:
1. Sight picture: left eye peripheral, dominant eye, or full sight picture with both eyes ?
2. If the last, note that you risk a twist in the neck
3. The position looks a bit like the "Posta di Donna" (for snowcelt, who practises Fiore-style sword fighting).
4. This may be illustrated by I think a statue of David by Bernini.

Full version: see above
Shorter version: the "Makron" style involves turning your back slightly to the target, to get longer twist of the body when pitching. It may work with fig-8.

Perhaps everyone knew this here, but I just found this out-- by looking closely at a vase.

Whatever man…fake apologies and the passive aggressive routine. Yawn…. ::)

Using a Greek vase painter with a fascination for erotica and a picture on a party cup as a basis for a "slinging style" is absolutely ludicrous.

You've been studying that Makron cup for how long? I see posts going back 5 years on the topic…you haven't brought anything new, just more of the same nonsense.

Lets sees a video of this Makron style… ;D

Oh yeah, you don't do video.

Convenient…

You didn't sling anything today except b.s.

Sorry bro, prove me wrong and I'll gladly apologise…and maybe add Makron style to my repertoire…

Unfortunately I violated internet rule#1…don't feed the trolls.

The man in the stripy red top in picture no. 1 (Palestinian slingers) shows the twist to the back, to allow maximum unwinding.

I've found the cup showing a slinging Amazon. Note that she's left handed, but I think it represents the same thing: a backwards turn, away from the direction of slinging.

---

Siinging Amazon (note to moderators: I think this pic is new on the forum, might get added to the pics section ?)

---

So much for the Makron cup, and the body twist (full instructions and AAR above; short version: point your BACK at the target !).

Just to tie up loose ends, from another thread I add to this one, Virgil in the Georgics

stuppea torquentem Balearis verbera fundae

The verb to describe slinging is "torqui", to turn, revolve, twist, turn around. Here, as with the Vegetius passage I quoted earlier, the description is "slinging = rotation(s)".

I'll post more literary evidence if and when I find it, though I suspect the texts have pretty well been mined (the problem is that the usual search engines used to look up all the words for "sling" etc in Greek and Latin will not catch periphrases like the Virgil one above). 

Bro, from what I've read, you beat this horse to death years ago…and twisting is what you do with every throwing movement…sooooooooo

Now, about those giant combat roosters…

PLease, please, please post of video of how to use these esoteric techniques!

I'm just not getting it.

I just can't point my feet backwards. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I thought "torqui" would be nice for Fundibularius, if he still visits this forum-- he knew Latin pretty well (discussing "tela" in Caesar's Gallic Wars, and why the tactical account almost certainly implied slings.

(Mr Harrop: one foot, the right one, not both. Weight on the right leg, slightly bent. Store energy in the body twist. It probably improves fig-8, too).

Can you please demonstrate it properly?

(separate thread on Makron-Bernini style in general section).

Now its Makron-Bernini?

Wow….

Just wow.

I have nothing….

Time to ride off on my giant combat rooster.

But first, since I am also an artist (that stuff on the wall in my apartment are my latest) let me just clue you in on something. See how most of those figures are made to fit into a circle?

Oh, forget it….  ::)

One thing that changed my attitude to images (rather than the art-historical "It's all convention") is the set of writings by the historical martial artist Roland Warzecha: he's also a professional illustrator and was increasingly struck by the way medieval images TRIED very hard to show realistic things (e.g. sword grips, or stuff). Naturalist art tries; and those Classica Greeks-- they really knew how to draw.

You think Classical Greeks really knew how to draw? They hadn't even figured out perspective! Or shading! Or……


Keep takin' the piss man….


and I'm sure Roland is a swell guy. I'm not much into paying $150 to play sword-fight in the park, but we all have to make a living I guess and I'm sure clanging swords against each other must be fun.


…and from what I saw of his illustrations, looks like a lot of photoshopped pictures. Best way to get accuracy if you can't freehand it, too bad he wasn't around in the middle ages.

Any videos yet? I still want to see the "esoteric styles" properly demonstrated.

Yes, but the Classical Greeks were pretty good draughtsmen; and later, it's likely that their high quality painting was excellent (judging by tomb paintings). The fifth-century stuff: it's pretty accurate in a lot of things (clothes, weapons, and bodies).

Of course, there's variation. But the visual evidence for slinging forms small enough a body that it's worth gathering and looking at closely.

Here's another picture from a Greek vase. BM E285. Ca. 450 BCE. The slinger has the familiar two spears stuck in the ground next to him; he wears a helmet. Note that the thing hanging behind his back is not the sling, but the dropping end of his helmet crest. He is grasping the pouch in the left hand (held well low), and the cords in the right hand. It's hard to tell because of the angle of the painting, but he seems to have the palm upwards and outwards. His feet are also oriented in different directions (the position some historical martial arts guys call the "scales", because it allows for quick shifts of weight).


http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=460781&partId=1&searchText=E285&page=1

---

Here's another picture, from a white figure lekythos in the Metropolitan Museum (on view in gallery 171, too !). Ca. 440 BCE. Metropolitan Museum, 10.210.11


http://www.metmuseum.org/search-results?ft=+10.210.11&x=-953&y=-58

It's a slinging Amazon. The position, turning away from the direction of shot, and the two javelins, are matched in other sources. A bow, too, for good measure. Not too sure about the right hand, though.

---

Here's another picture-- rather earlier than the previous two. It's a black-figure Attic cup, dated ca. 525 BCE. Kept in Munich Antikensammlungen, 2104. It shows a heavy infantryman (naked-- realistic detail, as some believe, or heroizing ?) running at a slinger. The slinger wears a Skythian or Thracian hat. He's readying his shot, in the "pouch-before-the-eyes", "aiming" position known from other images. And he has a basket or pouch on his elbow ! The second image, in a Greek source, of a slinger, with the "stone bag" on the left arm (after the cup attributed to Makron, dating a century later).

http://data.clarosnet.org/doc/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beazley.ox.ac.uk%2FVases%2FSPIFF%2FImages200%2FGER57%2FCVA.GER57.2832.10%2Fcc001001.jpe

---

For the heck of it, I show the other side of the cup (an archer fighting against a hoplite-- the latter wearing a bronze corslet).

Note to moderators-- perhaps these images, new to the forum, could be added to the library of images.

---

Picture (well known) of slinger, from C5th amphora. The slinger wears a soft cap (of the type worn by peasants), and an animal hide as a sort of makeshift shield. His tunic is undone over his right shoulder, to leave the slinging arm free. The position of the hand isn't very realistic, but note the sling itself: the pouch is represented with some form of hatching: either woven pouch, or a netted pouch. Body position, with weight on right legt and slight turn away from target, paralleled in other images.

(Frohner, Collection Camille Lecuyer, no. 379. Sold off in 1883-- current location unknown !)

---

I also post the other side of the amphora, showing whom the slinger is fighting against-- a hoplite with the full works-- "Thracian" helmet (long cheekpieces, open face), shield, spear, sword (nice representation of the tassels at the point where the baldric joins the scabbard), greaves (with ankle tassels) and three layers of armour (woollen "jerkin", perhaps only an apron, with zigzag and dots, some kind of cuirass or corslet, and a sort of tabard or cloth covering-- perhaps his tunic ?-- belted on top of the armour). The shield has an anti-missile curtain pinned to the bottom, with apotropaic eyes and heavy fringes-- just the ticket to keep away arrows and sling shot (including ricochets) from the legs.

From style of armour, perhaps 450-440 BCE ?

---

That slinger's right leg is on backwards!

The left leg is the one to our left, yes ? The one he's standing on tiptoe ? And the chap has his back to us.

His feet and legs are 180 degrees opposed.  Other than that, it looks like a good start of a Fig 8 throw.

His sling is slightly longer than his arm, too.

How is the hoplite holding his shield?

Yes, I saw some "free-start" fig-8 throws in David Morningstar vids, and this pic could be construed as evidence for this sort of throw in antiquity !

Hoplite shield-- representation is tricky, but basically the arm stretches across the shield with a band (porpax) in the centre. The arm goes horizontally across the shield. When you stretch out your arm, the whole shield rotates.

Thearos wrote on Sep 4^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

The left leg is the one to our left, yes ? The one he's standing on tiptoe ? And the chap has his back to us.

To me it looks like a left handed slinger facing us, with his right leg drawn on backwards, actually a left leg from another figure study. Look at the breast muscle and other foot. It is impossible to stand like he is.

Or a right-handed slinger, with the left leg outstretched and foot slightly off the ground; what you see on your right is not a breast muscle, but a right shoulder blade; he is standing with his back towards us ?

I.e. start with the left leg, and visualize it as a left leg. The rest follows.

How is that Lecuyer slinger with the animal skin even going to use that sling?

This is why you shouldn't use these pictures as technical how-to's…

Artists go with what "looks" best, not what works best.

Maybe a better title for this thread would be "how did ancient artists depict slingers"

At one level, yes. But one uses the evidence he or she has. I for one have been more and more impressed with the level of naturalism and the eye for detail involved in the representation of slingers. For instance, the detail about the right foot pointing away from the target, and the right leg bearing weight, appears on a number of pictures (above)-- and just happens to match exactly advice given to my 4 years ago by David Morningstar (who obviously was not stuyding Greek vases, but developed this advice based on experience and teaching).

Naturalism works on the assumption that what looks best is what looks most like real life. This applies for e.g. imaginary scenes (heroes, etc) and idealized scenes (an Amazon, a god)-- and even more for realistic scenes-- like a slinger, drawn from real life. This degree of naturalism made me look at other scenes (for instance of metai-working or craftsmanship), in the light of e.g. what Bill Skinner writes on casting.

This is a picture of a craftsman making a Corinthian helmet, probably filework, after the hammering out of the bowl out of a single sheet of bronze. Anyone with metal working experience care to tell me about the tools hanging on the wall ?

---

The Lecuyer amphora guy can go helo, Byzantine (which I prefer), or even fig-8 if he twists his wrist right. He just has to launch into his throw and let his weight flow back onto his left leg while untwisting his body. The animal skin is to swat away things other people are throwing at him.

Even though he has the sling looped over 4 fingers and is not holding any kind of release? He's not slinging anything.

A more likely hypothesis is that every artist had a different idea of what slinging looked like, probably based on a second-hand account from someone who may have seen a slinger once.

…or maybe they really did have Amazonian slinger models.

If I were a gambling man, I'd go for option one.

The hands are difficult to get right-- some people do them very well, other less so. THe body weight and body orientation are the things that most impressed me because of consistency of representation and the way representation actually agrees with my own experience and experiments.

If you're drawing Robin Hood, you don't need to have Robin Hood pose for you, especially since he probably didn't exist. BUT you probably are going to want to represent him naturalistically, to the extent of your powers-- to wit, he will look like a man, and you will try to represent his longbow and grip and posture as realistically as you can.

It's not as if slingers were a rarity. As I wrote once, in the Greek city states (and probably in the Italian cities which consumed this sort of artifact voraciously), military service was a given for citizen men (who would use these drinking vessels). The craftsmen might themselves have served as slingers (the rowers on the Athenian ships at Sphakteria, in 424, pull out slings to throw things at Spartan infantry when fighting on land). And finally, seeing a shepherd with a sling was not rare-- you didn't have to travel far, just leave the city walls, I would have thought.

You don't need Amazons or giant roosters either…

Just a good imagination. Something most artists are known for…

As far as actually seeing a shepherd, then seeing a shepherd sling a rock, or using that as a basis for a picture of a military slinger…


Thats a stretch

In a ancient city, pre-industrial, agricultural society, with lots of sheep (and people owning sheep), why is that a stretch ? In a society where young men go out to hunt hares with throwing clubs and slings, why would people not know how to sling ? In a society where you might have to defend your walls by throwing things at people trying to storm them, why would you not know how to sling ? (as well as shoot a bow or throw a javelin). In a society where a lot of shepherds might end up as military slingers or stone throwers, why would a shepherd not help you imagine what the same guy, on a battlefield, might look like, with his goatskin cloak and his boonie hat ?

One way I'd put it like this. If we wanted a drawing of the Lone Ranger, we could imagine two solutions

--as an artist, if I could draw, I would represent him with realistic equipment (e.g. a Colt 1873 Peacemaker); as a viewer, I would really prefer seeing a realistic representation of his gun-- it would make me believe in what I'm seeing.

-- or I could just draw him fancifully.

I would prefer solution 1, and I think that's how most of these Greek vases work.

OK, lets take Makron for example. He was an artist, from a family of artists, who lived in Athens around  480 b.c.
Athens was a pretty modern city, even then. Most of the people who lived in the city (artisans, craftsmen, philosophers etc) probably spent their whole lives there. If they ever witnessed war, it was probably as the city was being sacked (even then, they probably wouldn't join in). The battle of Marathon took place 26 miles north of Athens. Soldiers wouldn't have trained in the city, and shepherds would have tended their flocks in the hills outside of the city. I've seen shepherds all over the world, from South America to Afghanistan and I've never seen one use a sling on the job, but that doesn't mean they don't. Its generally not something they do when people are around…

Look, if you want to make up a new slinging style for every old painting, thats fine. I've tried to tell you, from a soldier's and  artist's standpoint, why using those pictures as a "slingers guide" isn't a good idea, but you seem determined.

Have at it…

What does a militia army entail ? It's worth thinking the details through. The below is quite well known.

Let's take Makron. He was a potter, perhaps a citizen, perhaps not. City-states in Greece fought with ciizen soldiers: heavy infantry owning their own weapons (militiamen), and probably clouds of citizen poor throwing stones by hand and by sling. It's also likely that citizen hoplites packed slings. Non-citizens also fought as hoplites. (Note that Sokrates, the philosopher, saw action at least twice, once in a protracted overseas siege and once in a huge pitched battle; he was famously tough and level-headed as a soldier, as well as a loafer, busy-body, and, by the way, a trained artist by craft, apparently a sculptor).

In 480, when Makron is painting, Athens has seen the following wars:

506 BC, fight against Boiotians and Chalkidians. Big invasion, fought off by massive citizen army in the field, followed by invasion of Chalkis, and followed by Boiotian counter attack.

following years: war against Aigina, involving Athenian expedition to Aigina (with pitched battle against volunteers from Argos) and constant low-intensity fight against Aiginetan plunderers.

499 BCE-- expedition to Asia Minor, burns Sardeis, defeated by Persians.

490-- defeat of Persian invasion of Attica at Marathon, by force of hoplites-- all citizen militiamen, who marched out and back to the city (they were preceded by the runner who brought back the news of the victory).

480 sea battles at Artemision and Salamis (subject of the unfortunate "300: Birth of an empire"). NB all ships full of citizen rowers and with citizen marines. NB island of Psytaleia capture by citizen hoplites (who go in after pelting the Persians with hand-thrown stones).


479 Massive land battle at Plataia (hoplites, archers; Athenians perform notably well against cavalry, Athenian citizen soldier kills the Persian cavalry commander), big Athenian participation. Also Athenian fleet at Mykale, big sea and land battle.

Following decades: continual warfare down to 460s and 450s, with overseas expeditions (for instance, in 459, theatres of operations in Central Greece, Byzantion, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Egypt-- all involving citizen soldiers of all social classes, as well as allies)

All these battles are fought by citizen soldiers, called up, often massively. When they finish, they go home to their jobs as farmers and artisans (or as gentlemen of leisure)

This is a city-state culture, of citizen soldiers. Farmers fight. Craftsmen fight (and row boats). Young men fight. Old men fight. Lots of people have military-grade weapons at home (hanging above the hearth to avoid rust). There are very few professionals before the fourth century.

So seeing weapons in action is part of life-- just like using a musket is part of say Colonial American life. Makron very probably had military experience. His customers certainly did. Sokrates knew how to fight. All these guys almost certainly saw light-armed troops in action, and were perhaps pelted with stones and javelins. They probably saw slingers, and very likely would know what to do with a sling. Why would they not have wanted to show, and look at, pictures of a familial reality which were drawn as accurately as possible ?

Added: it's also the consistency of portrayal that is impressive-- a convention, but a naturalistic one, which is instructive as to how ancient Greeks slung.

Further reading on citizen soldiers in city-states

M. Finley, Politics in the Ancient World
V. D. Hanson, The Western Way of War.

Just to be clear I know diddly squat about slinging. I've made two. Took bloody ages and is useless in woodland. Give me a longbow any day  ;D


Mark-Harrop wrote on Aug 13^th, 2014 at 4:21am:

None of those ancient writers or poets had any personal experience with the sling, and the scrolls of Heroslinaclese have yet to be unearthed.

That is an assumption you can not make.


Thearos wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 9:34am:

At one uses the evidence he or she has. I for one have been more and more impressed with the level of naturalism and the eye for detail involved in the representation of slingers. For instance, the detail about the right foot pointing away from the target, and the right leg bearing weight, appears on a number of pictures (above)-- and just happens to match exactly advice given to my 4 years ago by David Morningstar (who obviously was not stuyding Greek vases, but developed this advice based on experience and teaching).

Then you need to take into account the styles employed to this day. Also, written texts and ancient paintings are not reliable evidence for anything other than the whims of the intended audience / viewer.

Reading Roman literature and later Christian texts you would have the impression that no organised or advanced civilizations existed in Europe prior to the Romans arrival. Only now have archaeologists and historians started to collect the evidence that shows that a distinct Atlantic cultural existed from the south of Iberia up to the frozen lands in the North, and challenging the perceived "historic" view.


Thearos wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 5:00pm:

There are very few professionals before the fourth century.

Again a statement that cannot be made.

You asked what Mr Harrop gets out of this, well after reading through the entire thread I see two things clearly. Mr Harrop making the same statement as me. You can't use a number of idealized images and some ancient texts as evidence of some unknown slinging style. If, as you speculate, it ever existed, traces would be fund in the slinging world today.

Second, that you have a great desire to be right, yet forget the eye often sees what it wants to see.

What does he get out of it? I'd suggest the joy of being right. Lets face it, soldiers aren't known for their intelligence. Maybe he enjoys besting an academic. Maybe that's important to him. I don't know. Just a hypothesis. No offence  Mr Harrop  ;)

But David Morningstar independently gave me advice which exactly matches images of slinging on 5 or 6 vases ! (turn the foot away from the target). And helo exists all over the place.

(of course, there is good evidence for mercs before C4th, just not as mainstays or important complements for city-state fighting contingents).

(and historians use archaeological evidence, not just texts.)

In the treatise on Mechanics attributed to Aristotle (but certainly not by him), the question is raised-- why do projectiles fly further from the sling than when thrown by hand ?

One of the explanations is
ὅτι ἐν μὲν τῇ σφενδόνῃ κινούμενον τὸ
βέλος ῥίπτει ὁ βάλλων (περιαγαγὼν γὰρ κύκλῳ πολλά-
κις ἀφίησιν), ἐκ δὲ τῆς χειρὸς ἀπὸ τῆς ἠρεμίας ἡ ἀρχή·

(852A)

"because the thrower throws with the sling a projectile in motion (for he looses it having led it round in a circle many times), but by hand from an immobile starting point"

Perhaps Archytas of Tarentum, late C5th BCE (Thomas Winter); perhaps much later, e.g. C3rd BCE. Anyway, the earliest description of the movement of a sling, by a natural philosopher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_(Aristotle)

(Added: that's the fifth piece of literary evidence in this thread for the ancient Greeks and Romans using multi-rotational styles).

From the lexicon of Pollux (Roman era work on Classical Greek usage). 1.175

ἐρεῖς δὲ τὰς σφενδόνας πληρώσασθαι, τὰς σφενδόνας στρέψαι, (5)
τὰς σφενδόνας ἐναγκυλίσασθαι

You can also say  "fill your slings", "twist / spin/ turn your slings", and "fit your slings to their thongs / 'thong' your slings'.

No idea what the third one means. It reads like military orders.

I would say Aristotle was inaccurate in his description…

Archimedes would probably have described it more accurately.

Anyway, using 1 revolution or 100 doesn't mater.

You can speculate about ancient slinging all you like, it probably looked EXACTLY like it does today.

Thearos wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 9:34am:

This is a picture of a craftsman making a Corinthian helmet, probably filework, after the hammering out of the bowl out of a single sheet of bronze. Anyone with metal working experience care to tell me about the tools hanging on the wall ?

Hallo Thearos, from left to right the first and fourth tools were most probably used to pierce the bronze sheet (which was already made thinner where the pierces were going to be made), while I suspect the second and the third tools were used to carve the wax model. I have no clue for the fifth but maybe it was a piercing tool as well.
All this in my bronze-casting experience :)
Greetings,
Mauro.

Good point, Mauro-- I'd never thought that the bronze metal sheet would need punching through for shaping. I suppose that you do this before shaping (cold hammering) the bronze metal sheet over a post, as in a bronze statuette

http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/254480

then followed by file work ?

All modern replicas of this type of helmet are either cast or assembled from two halves (as indeed some medieval /barbute/ from Italy). Yet in ancient Greece, this rather difficult operation is the standard way for making helmets.

(In this context of this thread, the point is that RF painters represent technical processes naturalistically, realistically, and precisely; I maintain that this attention also appears in the careful portrayal of slinging--body weight, hands--, a very technical pursuit; this can be confirmed experimentally).

Thearos wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

(Added: that's the fifth piece of literary evidence in this thread for the ancient Greeks and Romans using multi-rotational styles).

…but a skilled slinger uses one rotation (who said that?).

Fig-8 is a multi-rotational style as well and lends itself to short slings and lead bullets. Probably as widely used by skilled slingers then as it is today. I think it should be called "Roman style" or "combat style".

As far as how helmets were made, cold-working bronze is difficult. That depiction is probably the final stage of decoration.

@Thearos

In this context of this thread, the point is that RF painters represent technical processes naturalistically, realistically, and precisely; I maintain that this attention also appears in the careful portrayal of slinging--body weight, hands--, a very technical pursuit; this can be confirmed experimentally

Again, you repeatedly claim that some vase paintings and ancient texts provide proof of some ancient slinging knowledge. Its hogwash.

History survives in actual cultural. In place names, practices and other living modern media. Historic texts and paintings are not scientific representations of practices. They are art. Art produced for an audience. An audience that has foregone conclusions as to what they expect to see.

Academic study of the past in blinded by the rules of scientific study. Conclusive proof must be shown or things can not be known. Its rubbish.

Archeologists do not know why our hunter gather ancesters crawled, sometimes 100's of meters, into cave systems to paint. Yet anyone with a modicum of knowledge and understanding of pre-Christian tribal belief systems will know. And lets just say, it's got nothing to do with saying "this is how to hunt" to future generations.

I have never worked bronze, but I have made some of the copper ornaments and gorgets on display at Moundville, Al.  (Google South Eastern Ceremonial Complex and copper)  I made them with stone, bone and copper tools. 

I see no forge in the picture.  You must have a source of heat to heat copper and bronze up to red hot  on a regular basis while hammering.  If you do not, the metal will crack as you keep hammering, it work hardens and gets brittle.

The same for punching holes in the metal, you can play with alloys but basically, your tools are not much harder than the metal you are working.  If, however, your tools are work hardened from use and you heat the metal you are working up to red hot and then cool it in water, it is much softer and your work hardened tool will now cut it.

Just a guess, but the reason the Greeks made their helmets out of a sheet of hammered bronze is because it work hardened and would be tougher than a cast helmet, unless the cast helmet was much thicker and therefore heavier.  They would have heated, hammered, heated and hammered, heated and pierced, then hammered to work harden it.  The file work would be to remove the hammer marks.  And, while it shows the anvil, there is no hammer in the picture, either.

And second, if you have copper filings on bare skin, it is very irritating, especially in joints in the arms and legs, neck and especially on the stomach and groin.  He would have had on at least some sort of apron to prevent that.  Plus, he's in a forge of some type, lots of really hot surfaces.  He would have on clothes for protection, at the minimum, some type of shoes. 


My point is, you cannot trust a painting to get all the details correct.  So, you cannot look at a painting and say that this is the way it was done.  You can say that the painting is based on reality but the question is "How much" and how much is artistic expression.

Jag: yes, I think the representations of slinging are realistic enough because 1. RF vases follow conventions but also try to show things realistically and 2. the details happen to chime with what I know of slinging. If it really didn't look like what I know of slinging, that would be very interesting too, but that's not what I'm finding right now. It's true that some conventions (peering along the outstretched sling, starting while squatting) are less easy to imagine or match with reality, and might well be artistic license.

What I think is wrong is the unthinking rejection of artistic evidence based on /a priori/ stances and "common sense": especially in terms of warfare, RF vases (and generally C6th-5th art), produced for audiences of citizen men with high familiarity with war, are very precise, as concerns things and equipment (helmets, shields, swords, armour, bows, ships-- why not slings). N. Sekunda (whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, and who has some military experience), J. A. Anderson, P. Connolly are guides here: their methods and results are admirable. 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nicholas+sekunda

Thanks, Bill. The high thing at the right of the picture is probably (part of) a forge or furnance of some sort, no ? (the vessel on top is not so clear to me). Note also that the helmet is bronze, but the tools might be iron. Hence your two queries about the realism of the picture might be answered already.

I agree with what you say on the need to look carefully at reality and art-- as a slinger, I have some ideas of slinging, and hence look at representations of slinging with particular interest. The Makron cup is nice, because it shows a guy seating the stone, with the hand clearly pinching the release cord and upturned to launch into a helo (as Jaegoor pointed out to me), and with body-weight and feet exactly in the position that David Morningstar sent me as advice. For me, that counts as realism. Which is why the detail of the pouch with a tactical load of big round stones on the left arm seems to me worthy of consideration (see separate thread on the Makron cup).

The upside down "T" is the wooden stump that he used as an anvil to hammer the helmet out on.

And even iron tools would cut a lot easier if you heated the metal up first.  Copper and bronze are very malleable, the helmet would have caved in if you just tried to hammer a tool through it.  And if you left it very work hardened, it would have cracked when you punched a hole in it.

Useful to know, thanks.

Rereading Jag's post, there may be a misunderstanding. The point is not to find out "What were these Greek vase paintings for ?"-- That's a question of cultural history, and a lot of thought has gone into the answer. They were used for consumption of alcohol in the symposion, the men's banquet. The art is meaningful for the consumers: it shows heroic or positive images (often fighting), gods, youths, but also images of "others"-- satyrs or Maenads, or Persians, or, indeed, "other warriors" like slingers or archers; or images of disorder and loss of control. All these themes are related to the action of drinking in a group. These images are often balanced, for instance on both sides of the vase or the cup. THis is the "Paris school" type of interpretations of Greek vase painting (F. Lissarrague is a leading figure of this school).

The Makron cup shows cavorting youths (like the people drinking ?)-- but starting to lose control; the central image shows a slinger in the battle, an older man, a man belonging to the despised category of the light infantry-- but showing control and calm. The combination of the two images produces the artistic and meditative effect of the whole cup.

So I've never said that the art was produced "to show how to sling".

However, for the purpose of finding out about slinging, because the basic mode of RF vases is naturalistic, and because RF vase painters paint for an audience which really knows about warfare, stuff gets shown realistically-- for instance if we (as modern interested people) want to know how to carry a Greek shield, we can look at a Greek vase (which showed shields to an audience which knew about shields and, presumably, liked to see hoplites bearing well represented shields). It matches well with the archaeology.

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/hoplite_kmkg.JPG

If we want to know how Greek archers shot, look at a Greek vase. Same for e.g. olive picking, metal working, piling grain in a mortar, drinking games-- and slinging.

It's a documentary reading, not centred on intent or reception; it enabled by the skill and realism of RF vase painting; it's a simple, antiquarian, positivist reading-- with precautions. Likewise, if you want to find out about what Roman legionaries wore, you look at their tombstones or at official art, as well as archaeology-- they often agree, they sometimes don't; you discuss the difference.

Why not use these visual sources, since they're there ? Students of Medieval military arts use such sources all the time; in the case of slinging, it would be madness not to study the two dozen or so visual sources from the Greek sources, and indeed the half dozen or so literary sources from Greek and Roman literature.

Which are all in this thread. I highly recommend looking at sme of the pictures I gathered on page 4 of this thread (I can tell they have not been seen)-- quite interesting, starting with the amphora in the BM. A lot of the evidence is directly useful if you're historically interested; some is less so; some is actually quite interesting for modern recreational slingers (the "Makron style")

Another reference, Silius Italicus 1.314ff

hic crebram fundit Baliari uerbere glandem
terque leui ducta circum caput altus habena            315
permissum uentis a<b>scondit in aera telum,

One hurled volleys of bullets with Balearic sling: standing erect, he brandished the light thong thrice round his head, and launched his missile in the air, for the winds to carry

It's a poet, writing about Hannibal in the first century CE. Like Virgil, he believes that three rotations around the head is the way to go.

Balearic people still teach the youth to rotate thrice.

In boxing, we call this "telegraphing" your punch…

Its a very old concept that describes revealing your intentions to your opponent.

Not a good combat tactic though…as anyone with a lick of common sense will surely admit.

I'm sure the average, workaday citizen of the ancient world had about as much knowledge of the sling as people today. Hand anyone a sling and they will twirl it around….seems intuitive…only there is a lot more to it, as we all know so well.

Who was it that said a skilled slinger needs only one rotation?

I'm not convinced that contemporary "Balearic style" is the same as the warrior Balearic style of yore.

Poems and art do not a slinger make...

Vegetius recommends one spin.

3 spins for beginners, one for skilled slingers I believe…

He probably understood telegraphing….

I
Quote:

t's a poet, writing about Hannibal in the first century CE. Like Virgil, he believes that three rotations around the head is the way to go.

Doesn't mean he's right.

No, it's just another source that assumes that rotation(s) "around the head" is the normal way to sling. I have listed six such sources, which is pretty good going as far as the ancient world is concerned. At the very least, on a sub-forum about ths history of slinging, it is of interest to collect such sources.

It would also be worth putting some of the pictures I've gathered on the library of images of slingers (with references if possible)--I know of 15-16 pictures on r.f. vases, of which I've given the better ones.

Incidentally, I saw a reference to a sling with thongs represented "as if they were small chains". I assume this is a representation of a braided or plaited sling. But when I checked the reference, I could not find it in the catalogue, which means that the reference is wrong, and that I'd have to read the old catalogue cover to cover.

If anyone knows of descriptions of slinging in Irish epic poetry or Scandinavian sagas, it would be interesting to collect these, too.

Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

If anyone knows of descriptions of slinging in Irish epic poetry or Scandinavian sagas, it would be interesting to collect these, too.

I don't want to sound dismissive but I think you may be reading to much into this.

However as I find your obsession amusing


Quote:

Búi Andríðsson never carried a weapon other than his sling, which he tied around himself. He used the sling with lethal results on many occasions. Búi was ambushed by Helgi and Vakr and ten other men on the hill called Orrustuhóll, as described in chapter 11 of the Kjalnesinga saga. By the time Búi's supply of stones ran out, he had killed four of his ambushers.

Quote:

An exception is the throwing strings (snærisspjót) used to launch spears, described in the article on spears. Additionally, Eiríks saga rauða (chapter 11) says that the skrælingjar, the native Americans in Vínland, used valslöngur to unleash a barrage of unspecified missiles on the Greenlanders. The word is often translated as "catapult", but more likely refers to a hand-sling, a weapon known from other sources to have been used by native Americans.

In short the Norse weren't big on slings.


Quote:

Handstone.—Among the missive weapons of the ancient Irish was the handstone, which was kept ready for use in the hollow of the shield, and flung from the hand when the occasion came for using it. Handstones were specially made, and were believed to possess some sort of malign mystical quality, which rendered them very dangerous to the enemy. The handstone was called by various names, such as cloch, lia, lec, &c. Sling and Sling-stones.—A much more effective instrument for stone-throwing was the sling, which is constantly mentioned in the Tales of the Táin, as well as in Cormac's Glossary and other authorities, in such a way as to show that it formed an important item in the offensive arms of a warrior. The accounts, in the old writings, of the dexterity and fatal precision with which Cuculainn and other heroes flung their sling-stones, remind us of the Scriptural record of the 700 chosen warriors of Gibeah who could fight with left and right hand alike, and who flung their sling-stones with such aim that they could hit even a hair, and not miss by the stone's going on either side (Judges xx. 16). The Irish used two kinds of sling. One, which was called by two names teilm and taball [tellim taval] consisted of two thongs attached to a piece of leather at bottom to hold the stone or other missile: a form of sling which was common all over the world, and which continues to be used by boys to this day. The other was called crann-tabaill, i.e. 'wood-sling' or 'staff-sling,' from crann, 'a tree, a staff, a piece of wood of any kind'; which indicates that the sling so designated was formed of a long staff of wood with one or two thongs—like the slings we read of as used by many other ancient nations. David killed Goliath with a staff-sling. Those who carried a sling kept a supply of round stones, sometimes artificially formed. Numerous sling-stones have been found from time to time—many perfectly round—in raths and crannoges, some the size of a small plum, some as large as an orange, of which many specimens are preserved in museums.

The Irish more so. What must be remembered when reading these translations of texts, often written down by Christians, is that they are viewed from the perspective of the outsider observing an alien culture. As such they apply their interpretation to what they see. An authorized and accepted version of the original spoken tales. After all, pre-christian Europe was full of cavemen. A violent, uneducated, patriarchal society don't you know. http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/7/70/Boxer.gif

But could you quote actual Icelandic sagas or Irish epic ? I.e. primary sources. What you're mentioning is people describing or paraphrasing them, found by a quick Google (one, I see, from a book of 1906), i.e. secondary sources. I would like to read actual ancient sources instead (comparable to the actual Greek and Roman sources I have quoted, with references). After that, we can worry about the details of transmission and recording.

So-- if any one knows of direct quotations from Irish or Scandinavian sources (for instance), or indeed any other textual sources. that describe the gestures involved in slinging, please post. 

For instance, a quick check seems to show that the Tain Bo Cuailnge mentions slings often (Cu Cuchulainn's slinging exploits or threats or boasts), but never describes *how* you sling (unlike the few mentions in Latin epic, or indeed in texts).

The Skraeling sling is discussed, with references, here

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407394566

You can find the text here
http://sagadb.org/eiriks_saga_rauda.en
(chapter 12)


The search function in the Icelandic saga database reveals no other mention (let alone description) of slinging.

(ANd of course, the C13th century Norwegian King's Mirror mentions slinging, as discussed on this forum)

(Another pleasant and useful diversion is to practice
throwing with a sling both for distance and for accuracy,
and with a staff sling as well as with a hand sling, and
to practice throwing stone missiles. Formerly the cus-
tom was for all who wished to become expert in such
arts and thoroughly proficient in war and chivalry to /
train both hands alike to the use of weapons. Strive
after the same skill, if you find yourself gifted for it, /
inasmuch as those who are trained in that way are the /
most perfect in these activities and the most dangerous /
to their enemies. )

But no description of slinging. I'm looking more generally for descriptions of slinging techniques, gestures, etc, in written sources.

No mention of slinging in Norse sagas here

http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/sagas.htm

(a king called Ring-slinger does not count).

But this takes us away from the topic of the thread, which is the evidence for slinging technique in the ancient world.

Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

But could you quote actual Icelandic sagas or Irish epic ? I.e. primary sources. What you're mentioning is people describing or paraphrasing them, found by a quick Google (one, I see, from a book of 1906), i.e. secondary sources. I would like to read actual ancient sources instead (comparable to the actual Greek and Roman sources I have quoted, with references). After that, we can worry about the details of transmission and recording. So-- if any one knows of direct quotations from Irish or Scandinavian sources (for instance), or indeed any other textual sources. that describe the gestures involved in slinging, please post.

You really are a patronising %&$#

If you'd bothered to do a google search you'd have found the names of two Icelandic sagas, and some Irish legends. However as it was clear you couldn't be bothered I did that for you. Glad to see you took those bits of information I gleaned for you. No need to thank me. A simple patronising insult will do.

Now on the subject of secondary sources, as I said in my original, they all are. There are no primary written sources. They where spoken fables. Later written down by either Christian monks or christianised people. As such they are highly inaccurate and reek of patriarchy. References to women are down played or aligned with "evil" spirits. Strange how Odin is the prime deity, but his wife gets to choose the good souls first. Strange how the original Sabbath was named after her in English Friday (Frigg's Day or Freya's Day), yet the prime deity is given a day in the middle of the week.

Further, in a similar fashion most of your "primary" Roman and Greek sources, as numerous people have been trying politely to tell you, where written decades if not centuries after the events, by piecing togeather various handed down spoken versions. A produced by the tainted hand of biased views.

As for your painted flower pots. They are art. Not an accurate scientific instruction on how to use a sling, forge metal, fight naked or have mass orgies with bold fat ugly blokes with big noses.

Clear?

Twice you've patronized me in a reply. It will not happen again. My politeness prevents me from telling you from where to remove your head, nor what size painted Greek spitoon to replace it with.

You don't know the difference between a primary and a secondary source. The information you gathered has absolutely no worth. Check the separate thread on slinging in Old Irish literature, where 10 minutes' searching got me 10 pages of primary references, and you might be able to start to understand the difference.

Let me spell it out for you. These are actual old Irish poems and chronicles, just as the Greek and Roman sources are actual historical sources-- which a historian knows how to treat critically (of course they may be later-- but some are technical treatises, and some are poems that claim realism in similes). In contrast, your googling got a couple of pages of modern secondary treatment, i.e. modern guys talking about original texts. That's a basic distinction.

How else are you going to find out how people slung in the past, if not by looking at sources and evidence ? Weird paganist convictions are going to cut the mustard. How else did the modern guys you quote find out about the past, if not by reading actual sources ? On this sub-forum, let us cut  out the middlemen, and think about historical evidence.

No need to get anxious and aggressive if you don't know the historical sources. The internet is a great leveller-- you just have to go to the sources and look at them directly. That's how the people who are interested in historical swordsmanship go about it: they look stuff up and think about it.

In any case, I posted my question ("what about Irish sources ?"), in the hope that someone actually knew about them, for instance Snowcelt who used to frequent this forum.

And don't talk to me that way. Play the ball, not the man. Your contributions are mere clutter. So stay polite, stay civill and keep off subjects you don't know anything about, nor how to treat.

Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

You don't know the difference between a primary and a secondary source. The information you gathered has absolutely no worth. Check the separate thread on slinging in Old Irish literature, where 10 minutes' searching got me 10 pages of primary references, and you might be able to start to understand the difference.

The information I googled because you couldn't be bothered gave you the name of two Icelandic sagas containing references to slings.

The rest is just the views of author of the source containing the information you desired. If that is worthless to you because the same information didn't come from the head of some over educated public school ponce, quoting a book he memorized from the classics of antiquity section of Eton library, well I guess thats your problem. 


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Let me spell it out for you. These are actual old Irish poems and chronicles, just as the Greek and Roman

So tell me Sir, when did the pre-Christian Irish and Norse start to write? Or where these "original" documents written by a Christian observing the society he was once born into. Or was he writing his version of the tales once told him as a child, as he sat in his cold dank cell in Vatican City practicing his Latin? Or was he a fortunate waif taken in by a kindly Christian king, who taught him to write and asked him to record the "ancient ways" of his pagan breatheren?


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

sources are actual historical sources-- which a historian knows how to treat critically (of course they may be later-- but some are technical treatises, and some are poems that claim realism in similes).

Oh sorry. You're a propa istorian guv'na. What evers was I be finking. Me a lowely gobby cow and all. I begs your pardons sir... 

Unless they are written by the hand of the poems author, at the time, they are not "primary sources". The Icelandic sagas where not written down by the people of that culture. They where spoken. As with the Irish tales and poems. All early textual versions of these fables are secondary sources.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

In contrast, your googling got a couple of pages of modern secondary treatment, i.e. modern guys talking about original texts. That's a basic distinction.

No. THAT is pompous academic snobbery. My googling gave me the names of two sagas that contained references to slinging. That was the information you asked for. The rest of the views expressed are of no importance, except of course that they are views of descendents living in the same environment, in the same society, writing their opinion of their cultural history.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

How else are you going to find out how people slung in the past, if not by looking at sources and evidence ?

Very true. I suggest you Google the two sagas I told you about.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Weird paganist convictions are going to cut the mustard.

Interesting choice of words. Another example of living history contained in the phrase "cut the mustard". I digress because obviously that's just my weird paganist convictions again. Anyway,

So Friday isn't named after Freya/Frigg Odins wife?
Nor was Friday the original Sabbath day in many of the pre-Christian patriarchal religions of the Mediterranean, as it still is in Islam and Judaism?
And these living breathing aspects of our history that survive to today are just "Weird paganist convictions"? Not valid because they are not the written views of a Christian monk writing about a society he does not understand?

Let me ask you this oh wise sage of time. Are the 16th and 17th accounts of the peoples of the America accurate "primary" sources?

No sir. They are in general the biased and misguided views of highly religious people who believed their way of life superior.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

How else did the modern guys you quote find out about the past, if not by reading actual sources ? On this sub-forum, let us cut  out the middlemen, and think about historical evidence.

I gave you the names of two sagas and poems for you to research. Of course your views as posted here will just be a modern guys view and will therefore be worthless. Isn't that what you are saying?

Your view is that of a "real" historian expressing his views on "actual" historic sources.

Their views have[sic] absolutely no worth because they are modern guys talking about original texts.

And my views are worthless just weird paganist convictions for quoting their work..

It surprises me that you ever manage to drag yourself away from that mirror every morning. I believe there's an ancient Greek myth about that sort of thing somewhere. I'll have to look it up.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

No need to get anxious and aggressive if you don't know the historical sources. The internet is a great leveller-- you just have to go to the sources and look at them directly. That's how the people who are interested in historical swordsmanship go about it: they look stuff up and think about it.

If I was interested in reading about slinging in Irish or Norse mythology I might. However I'm not, so I don't.

I gave you the names of two sagas and some Irish poems to do your own research. I didn't realise I had to hold your hand and read you bedtime stories too.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

In any case, I posted my question ("what about Irish sources ?"), in the hope that someone actually knew about them, for instance Snowcelt who used to frequent this forum.

Well I know a fair amount on pre-Christian northern European culture. Of course to you its all Weird paganist convictions
 so you won't be interested.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

And don't talk to me that way. Play the ball, not the man.

Show me the man? I've just answered a question posted online only to recieve a patronising reposte. Again. I'm starting to see a pattern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDwDtUGDgTU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Your contributions are mere clutter. So stay polite, stay civill and keep off subjects you don't know anything about, nor how to treat.

Oup, there you go again. So my views are mere clutter. Stay off a topic I know nothing about. Don't answer insult with indignation. These are your rules huh.

Here's a good "Celtic" response to that;

We don't condone that kind of language
CA

Passing strange, and irrelevant, from the point of view of a man who openly admitted he knows nothing about slinging. Another rule: if you know soemthing about a theme, share it (high quality info and chapter and verse); if you don't know anything, find out about (with high quality research), or ask about it. Before that, just keep quiet.

Anyway, the point here is that the Greek and Roman material gives you some direct description of slinging technqiue, which is not present in Norse or Irish poetry.

(Slinging is mentioned about 500 times in Greek literature-- easy to check with online search engines. I've extracted a couple of references for this thread. This thread is more complete than most of the references you will get in published literature.

I'll see what a systematic review of Latin gives, if I have time.

Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

Passing strange, and irrelevant, from the point of view of a man who openly admitted he knows nothing about slinging.

First rule: Read all available information. Your blind assumptions lead to evermore rediculous statements. Check my gender marker Narcissus.


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

Another rule: if you know soemthing about a theme, share it (high quality info and chapter and verse); if you don't know anything, find out about (with high quality research), or ask about it. Before that, just keep quiet.

Well now Narcissus, how about the name of the saga and chapter? Oh wait, I gave you that. And the name of the principal character, a brief translation of the fable, and made the point that the Norse were not big on slings.

Irish a little more so.


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

Anyway, the point here is that the Greek and Roman material gives you some direct description of slinging technqiue, which is not present in Norse or Irish poetry.

Really Narcissus? You don't say.


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

(Slinging is mentioned about 500 times in Greek literature-- easy to check with online search engines.

You have got to be kidding me. So you slag me off for using Google then suggest using "online search engines". You're a few leaves short of a salad aren't you dumpling?


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

I've extracted a couple of references for this thread. This thread is more complete than most of the references you will get in published literature.

Wow that's a claim to fame. So this is the principle research source for information on ancient slinging techniques. Tell me Narcissus, who started this thread and who is the main contributor?


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

I'll see what a systematic review of Latin gives, if I have time.

You do that.

PS Just call me Nemesis


Quote:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was the son of a river god named Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope.[1] He was exceptionally proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.

Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Let me spell it out for you. These are actual old Irish poems and chronicles, just as the Greek and Roman sources are actual historical sources-- which a historian knows how to treat critically (of course they may be later-- but some are technical treatises, and some are poems that claim realism in similes). In contrast, your googling got a couple of pages of modern secondary treatment, i.e. modern guys talking about original texts. That's a basic distinction.

You've found actual technical treatises of slinging?  Well go ahead and post them already!  Please use the QUOTE or MARK & QUOTE buttons so we know that you're not just posting more useless poems and artwork.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

How else are you going to find out how people slung in the past, if not by looking at sources and evidence ? Weird paganist convictions are going to cut the mustard. How else did the modern guys you quote find out about the past, if not by reading actual sources ? On this sub-forum, let us cut  out the middlemen, and think about historical evidence.

Because most of us aren't able to read classical Latin or Greek.  Duh.


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

No need to get anxious and aggressive if you don't know the historical sources. The internet is a great leveller-- you just have to go to the sources and look at them directly. That's how the people who are interested in historical swordsmanship go about it: they look stuff up and think about it.

Yes, except that there are actual Treaties for how to use swords.  We don't rely on poetry or artwork to try to suss out how swords were used because instruction manuals are much better sources.

This is why we mock you for trying to use art as a primary source. 


Thearos wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

And don't talk to me that way. Play the ball, not the man. Your contributions are mere clutter. So stay polite, stay civill and keep off subjects you don't know anything about, nor how to treat.

(Chokes on drink)

(wipes away tears)

Okay, I can breathe again.   ;D  Thearos, you insulting someone for 'clutter'ing the forums is just too funny.  Since you know neither how to use the MODIFY button or the QUOTE button, you have far more posts than are truly necessary to make your point and the rest of us are never quite sure if your replying to us or ignoring us to make new points as your replies almost never have anything to do with our post and never quote those you might be answering.

---

Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

Passing strange, and irrelevant, from the point of view of a man who openly admitted he knows nothing about slinging. Another rule: if you know soemthing about a theme, share it (high quality info and chapter and verse); if you don't know anything, find out about (with high quality research), or ask about it. Before that, just keep quiet.

Ignoring the fact that you couldn't tell that JAG is female, you have no idea how much the rest of us want you to take your own advice there.


Thearos wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 3:18am:

Anyway, the point here is that the Greek and Roman material gives you some direct description of slinging technqiue, which is not present in Norse or Irish poetry. (Slinging is mentioned about 500 times in Greek literature-- easy to check with online search engines. I've extracted a couple of references for this thread. This thread is more complete than most of the references you will get in published literature.

"Being mentioned" is not the same as being a quality source.  Swords are mentioned thousands upon thousands of times in medieval literature.  Even more if you count artwork.  However, the surviving treatises are few.  But those are the quality sources. 

If you want to know how swords looked, sure you can use medieval art, but that isn't going to show you how they were actually used.  And insisting that you have found a new style of swordsmanship based on medieval art will get you laughed out of any decent HEMA school.

JAG wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 4:35am:

You do that. PS Just call me Nemesis Quote: In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was the son of a river god named Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope.[1] He was exceptionally proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.

Ooo!!  Can I be Nimrod then?

Those of you who (like me) grew up on Bugs Bunny cartoons, probably think Nimrod means "Baffoon".  However, Bugs was being ironic when he called Yosemite Sam Nimrod in the episode 'Rabbit Every Monday' ("I couldn't do that to the little Nimrod").

Nimrod actually means "Great Hunter".

Oxnate wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

JAG wrote on Sep 20th, 2014 at 4:35am: You do that. PS Just call me Nemesis Quote: In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was the son of a river god named Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope.[1] He was exceptionally proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself. Ooo!!  Can I be Nimrod then? Those of you who (like me) grew up on Bugs Bunny cartoons, probably think Nimrod means "Baffoon".  However, Bugs was being ironic when he called Yosemite Sam Nimrod in the episode 'Rabbit Every Monday' ("I couldn't do that to the little Nimrod"). Nimrod actually means "Great Hunter".

http://youtu.be/RBIG4jHhpHI

The opening theme of Loony Toons always takes me back to my childhood….  ;D

Sometimes I suspect you never left  :-*

Gentlemen, this is certainly a lousy way to clutter a forum with a lot of crap.  I am locking this flame fight.    In the future please do your bickering via PMs.