what type of bow isn't a longbow or recurve?

anyway, archers would definitely win. As great as slings are, you can shoot faster and with less effort with a bow. i know it's arguable but arrows can be more lethal than stones.

if the terrain didn't favor either side, there would be massive casualties on  both sides.

yes true, in no way do i question the power of the sling (. Slingers would definitely have a better shot at longer range. rocks or lead will crush up your bones and mess around with organs, arrows will slice through the organs directly. i suppose that if they're both lightly armored slingers are going to do more dammage.

it all depends on the power of the bow, the armour, and the buckler; can an arrow cut through the armour? how effectively can a glande crush it?

if they were both "highly skilled", archers are probably going to get off more shots (assuming that slingers are using powerful, long, slings which are nescesary for maintaining their immense power, so a slinger couldn't use a rapid fire technique as easily).

Also, you could make yourself a smaller target while shooting the bow (depending on the bow) by getting lower to the ground. This would be very difficult do to while slinging without sacrificing a lot of power.

i think that if both groups were in formation slingers would have the advantage. if the soldiers were scattered and moving quickly, archers would probably be able to get more accurate shots.

what about the enviornment, in thick vegetation it will be easier to draw a bow than too sling.

of course slingers would have the advantage too in many if not most scenarios but i'm just making a case for archers


By the Way, How much do those lead sinkers cost? How much more effective are they than rocks?

average archers would beat average slingers but things get interesting when they're both "highly skilled". I'd assume that  highly skilled archers would be using very nice bows though, which would at least even the ground, so to speak.

If there was wind or rain, the slingers would win. If the battle was in a forest or area with alot of groundcover, the archers would win.

I remember reading somewhere that slingers and archers were thrown in together in the middle ages, and that many individuals used both slings and arrows depending on the circumstances of the battle.

Thats one hard question to resolve and has come up a lot in this forum.  But if slingers ran out of ammo they could just pick up rocks off the ground.  But then again a bow needs less space to shoot and it's easyer to hit with an arrow but then again i'm not 'highly skilled' with a sling nor a bow.  But you need to look at it from both sides.

But we could all meet up some where and settle this once and for all by spiting up into two groups, archers and slingers.  The archers could use blunts whilst the slingers could use boucey balls or something.

I for one would be willing to Reneact this mythical event
I with out saying want to be a slinger. What say tennis ball arrows aganst weighted tennis balls Yes long bows are allowed  combattents dip your tennis balls in brite orange paint lets go to war. All interrested combantants contact me though here. Remember I now reside In Syracuse New york

At the battle of Najera Spain, the English archers wreaked havoc among the Spanish slingers. The sling in the middle ages  had been surpassed by the Yew longbow and the crossbow(which took less time to learn than the Yew bow). At least in North/Western Europe.....
Johnny