I'm not very knowledgeable about slings, but I'm trying to find out if there is a lot of difference (historically - most interested in the near east on this topic actually) in "standard" vs. "heavy" slings and sling motions.  I've been told that Xenophon mentioned "heavy slingers" (as opposed to standard ones) that he encountered among the Persians, but I don't have a citation.  Apparently they were more regularized soldiers and used heavier stones (as much as a pound?) that while they could not be hurled as far did more concussive damage to their targets instead of penetrative damage.  I've also been told they used an underhand motion instead of an overhand one. 

The person who supplied this information is sadly no longer able to be contacted (ah, the internet...), but I was hoping I might attain some enlightenment over here. 

Anyone know much about the differences here? Comparatively speaking, does anyone know what differences in distance, effectiveness, etc. might be?

In trying to summarize three different types of sling units to a large group of people working on a computer game modification, would these descriptions be fairly accurate then?  (Please let me know if anything seems quite out of the ordinary or what real sling aficionados would question):

1. Standard ("shepherds") Slingers: These are good all ranges. All purpose.  These use small rocks and clay/metal sling bullets and they penetrate well and cause penetration (as opposed to concussion) damage.  In a rock/paper/scissors sort of match, *if* they can get within range they would likely defeat both other types of slingers (heavy and staff) because of their accuracy and reloading quickness. (We have these represented currently quite well, but their stats might need to be tweaked just a little in relation to the others when they are created also.)

2. Heavy Slingers: In an ideal engine, they might be the same as the standard slingers, but we need to represent them with a different unit given the different results I will mention (they have a similar look overall, but with slings a bit longer and sturdier).  The stones they throw are up to a pound in weight, or "fist sized" according to ancient authors.  They don't have nearly as good range as good regular slingers (logically as the bullets are heavier), but they do pack a wallop.  Their impact and concussive force is where they cause the most damage. Xenophon definitely says the Persians have slingers of this type: "For the latter have only a short range because the stones that are used in them are as large as the hand can hold."  Certainly there were more standard slingers in eastern armies, but when Xenophon called the Rhodians up and they used smaller bullets they had a big advantage when it came to these two different types of units.  Though they might get eaten up in a match vs. other regular slingers (if similar numbers meet), they should do better against some types of armored units - when regular slingers can't penetrate a unit with armor and shields from the front, these guys could batter them up a good deal even from the front if they got in there.  Attacks to the rear of an armored unit like phalangites won't be as different, and the regular slingers might have an advantage actually since they reload more quickly and are more accurate.  These heavy slingers would probably have fewer stones also (less ammo) than the standard ones as their stones are heavier. Slightly longer reload times are necessary also (longer than regular slingers as the slings are longer and more prone to tangling: overall just generally not as quick and easy to reload as the regular ones).

3. Staff Slingers: This unit would have more range and definitely more power/velocity, but they are less much less accurate.  They also can have a high trajectory and are good in sieges for this reason, since the stones could go up and over walls and still come down on top of the defenders and cause damage. I've no idea if we have the ability to cause differences in the way this aspect of the missiles work, but I'm stating the basic info here anyway.  The velocity can reach a good deal higher than the others, but since it discharges the stone at a high arc, it can only be used at longer ranges though.  Up close these guys are pretty worthless ("might as well use their staffs" someone said on the slinging.org site).  Both the other two types could whip these guys if they got within range.  They might have similar ammo numbers as the heavy slingers, but they reload even slower.

On the heavy slingers, see my above post. I think these are just troops that had a sling that could throw larger rocks. Thier slings could also use the smaller ammunition of the smaller slings.

As a slinger who also uses the fustibulas (Staff-Sling) range is not increased, rate of fire is actually decreased with the only advantage being a much larger stone can be cast. Angle of fire seems to be lower than that of an underhand cast.

Now if ya wanna get real intresting try factoring in a unit using the cestopheone. Members of this board are definately still in the experimental stages with this particular weapon.

Marc Adkins

wilusa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2007 at 8:48pm:

why would you sling heavy stones that dont have good range? smaller stones go much faster, and have penetration (if not killed someone, always chance of inflammation..)

I can see defensive uses here, Like during a siege having the defenders using larger rocks as the attackers advanced towoards the defensive position. I have a couple of articles on Iron age sieges in britian at home. they are also mentioned in the textual resources on the homepage, I'll reread them when i get home tonight and post some of the more pertinant portions.

Marc Adkins

slingwizzy wrote on Feb 16^th, 2007 at 7:39am:

i think staff slings are more used in sieges and possible naval combats, than in field-combat. (i may be wrong)
give an option to heavy slingers to use smaller ammo too, and act like "shepherd" slingers in terms of range and damage.

i think lead glands could penetrate heavy armor, but wouldn't be usefull against shields, while fist sized rocks surely work against both, but at a shorter range.

if slingers have to do some melee demage, than give them knives or clubs. whipping out with a sling won't do much good, but hitting someone with a staffsling might.


staffslings have their projectile trajectory set in the different lenght of their cords, and can not be quickly adjusted, but with a normal sling you can allways choose when to release

ok, big stones deliver more impact, but why sling them, if you can throw them as far without sling/staffsling? big stones deliver great impact, but it comes with bigger surface where it lands... it may give a big "klonk" on the shield but thats all, i think.
---Winkleried said that they didnt had armor in the sling-time, but i think they at least would have had a wooden shield. even the vikings had them. though a simple wooden shield can stop big stones, then it would give you a broken arm or something like that. but the smaller ones go through it, mate! I have cracked big branches form a tree with my sling...---

for the staffsling, you can use it as quarterstaff...

on the other hand small stones can be thrown very fast and with good range. if the enemy is closer than 50m, why would you try to sling a stone of half a kilo? when the time you have good wind-up they are holding their axes high in the sky to let it splice your head.

but then you would say; "what if your in a castle?" well quite simple, you empty the pot of boiling oil. Fry those critters or (if you dont have oil, cause the lady made you some french fries yesterday) roll the stones from the tower or throw burning sticks

glueing pieces of wood as layers.... sounds like plywood. im sure someone have posted pictures of stones penetrating through plywood, I just cant find them. I am 100% sure there are.

but still, my opinion is that big stones dont do good in combat. they may do a lot of damage, even at shields. Small stones simply do have better range/damage-ratio.