mossdog427 wrote on Jul 1
st, 2011 at 11:42am:
the real answer is both. archers would be ideal for infantry support and slingers would be a perfect skirmish unit. a unit that never runs out of ammo and never lets you close the gap. that would be nightmarish. there's also the factor of economics which is obviously in favor of the sling. for the same money one could arm 5000 slingers that they could arm 200 archers. it's kind of like asking which is better a back hoe or a bull dozer. it depends on the situation and the better answer is both.
If I were the commanding general of an ancient army this is the answer I would go with both. Both weapons have their advantages and limitations. Along with all of my other usual units I would have my battalion of slingers and my battalion of archers. However, in that they're small, cheap and easy to make, and easy to carry, every single soldier in my army, whether heavy infantry, cavalry, cook, doctor, or horn blower, would have at least one sling in his possession and he'd know how to use it. There's no reason not to and lots of circumstances where it could come in very handy.
Mayan, welcome to slinging.org. You may be underestimating the power of the sling. I think that depending on the hit, a glancing blow can do considerable damage. Even if you didn't kill your opponent you could certainly take him out of the battle for the day. Also, lead glandes can certainly penetrate the human body and some of the more inferior ancient armor. Though it's true that a sling projectile looses much of it's power after one hundred feet there's still plenty of power left at the end of a very long shot to do some serious damage.