You have touched on an interesting point. You say that as a Philistine you would have been enraged by David's 'dirty trick' victory and have attacked the Israelites in a rage of vengeance. Actually according to the pre-fight deal the losers were supposed to submit to the victors without a fight but neither your vengeful attack or a submission took place. The Philistines lost heart and ran pursued by the Israelites who slaughtered many of them. Evidently the loss of their invicible champion was too much for the Philistines. I expect Goliath's armour bearer was leading the pack. Seeing his master go down right next to him would have been quite a shock.
 
However the really interesting thing that puzzled me for years is the comparative ease with which Goliath allowed himself to be defeated. Perhaps the notion that the sling was universally used and understood is incorrect, or at least its use as a close-in accurate weapon.  
 
In lots of re-enactments David is shown as telling Saul how he will defeat Goliath with his sling. In fact the Bible records no such conversation. David speaks of killing a lion and a bear with his staff not a sling. In fact the first reference to the the sling is when David selects the smooth river stones prior to the battle. Goliath berates David for coming armed with a stick, a reference to the staff, not the sling at all. Could he not see tht David had a sling in his hand? Or did he merely discount it as of no consequence?
 
The Philistines were not a shepherding people as I understand. They may never have seen the sling used in such close combat, only as 'long distance artillery' where slingers shot only at a body of troops not at individual targets.
 
There is now speculation that David hit Goliath on the knee not on the forehead. Perhaps so. Whichever is the case it is clear that the disabling shot was close-range and accurate, something that Goliath did not expect.

This thread took a while to catch up with, and all for nothing I guess.
 
Anyway,
I would imagine David and Goliath was exaggerated, David was probably a regular sized person, and he would have denied the armor because it would have limited his mobility, or it just didn't fit. Maybe Goliath was a larger person, or maybe he was a regular sized person, and he was exaggerated too. For all we know, they were two regular sized people and to make the story more gripping, they wrote it the way it is written. Maybe Goliath was a giant, and David was in the Israeli army at the time, maybe he took down Goliath with one shot into the crowd and struck fear into the enemy, to make the story more gripping, maybe they said it was one-on-one.
 
The bible is mostly exaggerated in my opinion. I'm agnostic, and my personal belief is that the old testament is false, and the new testament was a mix of lies, and coincidences that were said to be God's work. I hope my opinions don't offend anyone, I'm just sharing what I believe, and some of my theories about David and Goliath.

Quote from Aussie on Jun 23^rd, 2011, 11:56pm:

 
Possible, but I don't buy it.  These were experienced warriors in a culture that used the sling.  
 
I would like to know more about what armor would be common at that time.  
 
I'd like to point out that this was a duel, not combat.  In combat the only rule is survival, but duels require that both parties honor some set of rules.  ("seconds" keep both parties from cheating)  One could argue that David in effect brought a gun to a sword fight, which would be quite an ethical violation and may have horrified some present, even on his side.  Could that also have contributed to Goliath's apparent contempt and overconfidence?

Timothy42b, you make some good points, to me the story is interesting because it is probably one of the better late Bronze/early Iron Age stories that survived to this day.  The problem is seperating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and trying to tell what actually happened.  One problem moderns have is a lack of understanding.  We don't understand the mind set, the weapons, the tactics, or any of the personal baggage that makes somone fight to the death or run away in panic, back then.  One way is to get a very diverese group to discuss it, hopefully without coming to blows, you must give everones' ideas equal merit, even though you disagree wildly with them.  Bill

Quote from Knaight on Jun 15^th, 2011, 4:15am:

 
this iswhat i think. more importantly it also points out to potential invaders that EVERY sheperd, andfarmer, is a potentially lethal enemy. meaning they will be constantly harrassed. arguably the israelites were the bronze age viet cong.  
 
actually this reminds meof a line attributd to the swiss  
Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
several times the interview/ article arges that any nazi attack on switzerland wold encounter 'a sniper behind every tree and every rock
 
back to david and golioth,. remember also that david uttered a curse of sorts towards golioth as well
 
David said "This day the LORD will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel",  so it would also look to the philistine army sanding back and watching that he struck golioth down with a curse.

So, if slings were so effective, why was everybody laughing at David?  Bill

Quote from Bill Skinner on Sep 2^nd, 2011, 6:54pm:

The typical situation people would have seen them used in is army scale skirmishing and volley fire. That doesn't translate to sniping ability, particularly when the number of shots you can expect to get is extremely low.