Slinging.org Forum
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl
General >> Project Goliath - The History of The Sling >> Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341382005

Message started by bernardz on Jul 4th, 2012 at 2:06am

Title: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Jul 4th, 2012 at 2:06am
I have been reading many of the posts here about the casualty rates from sling men.

I would like to make some observations from reading them.

Armor in ancient and medieval times was very expensive, often soldiers did not have them. Furthermore, many of these armies had poor shield discipline. As such in these battles, a slinger would be much more effective then many give credit for here.

So what happens when a mass of poorly armored soldiers with bad shield discipline are met by 100 slingers firing every minute a 1000 shots straight into them.


A slinger is some ways is relatively cheap compared to other soldiers, as he does not need horses, armor or metal, which was expensive. He can often be recruited locally e.g. shepherds.

Even accepting that most here seem to assume that about 1% of the shots are effective. Assuming the slinger came with 100 shots into battle, he takes out one person. In comparison a pikeman overall has a 50/50 chance and takes out half a person.

It appears to me that a slinger has a high benefit/cost






Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by David Morningstar on Jul 4th, 2012 at 2:59am

Agreed. Singers are a cheap unit that drive up the cost of warfare for the other side. They cannot field a large army of unequipped untrained men because your slingers would rout them in a minute. They have to spend their money on properly equipped disciplined troops and so their army would be much smaller.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Jul 4th, 2012 at 3:10am

David Morningstar wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 2:59am:
Agreed. Singers are a cheap unit that drive up the cost of warfare for the other side. They cannot field a large army of unequipped untrained men because your slingers would rout them in a minute. They have to spend their money on properly equipped disciplined troops and so their army would be much smaller.


Another point that follows on is that even a properly equipped army with disciplined troops because it needs to move in formation would be slowed down and restricted by slingers (and/or archers) even if they did not take out too many of the opposition forces.



Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Mauro Fiorentini on Jul 4th, 2012 at 6:36am
Sorry Bernardz, but where have you read this?


Quote:
Armor in ancient and medieval times was very expensive, often soldiers did not have them. Furthermore, many of these armies had poor shield discipline
.

As always in history, ancient and middle age's armies were equipped with different kind of armors, according to everyone's possibility.
There were armors that were more expensive than others, but it was natural for every soldier to try to defend himself with some kind of armor.

And which army do you know that had poor shield discipline?
In ancient times, Greek and Roman phalanges where legendary; then we have Lombards, Normans and Viking's shield walls. The Italians created a new kind of soldier, the "palvesario", named after the "palvese", that was a huge shield: its role was to defend crossbowmen while they were reloading.
So which armies do you refer to?
Greetings,
Mauro.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:46am
Mauro Fiorentini


Quote:
As always in history, ancient and middle age's armies were equipped with different kind of armors, according to everyone's possibility.

There were armors that were more expensive than others, but it was natural for every soldier to try to defend himself with some kind of armor.


Armor is expensive; many armies could not afford it for all their troops. Often only notable people had them, for example, many of the troops in Anglo-Saxon England  had no armor for this reason another would be the Scottish army under William Wallace, which had very poor-quality  armor.

Interestingly sometimes it becomes almost a  badge of honor not to have armor for example, as Julius Caesar's records in his account of the Gallic War when the Gauls went into battle naked.

Another point is that armor slows you down. The Mongols as time got on could certainly afford it but limited their armor because they did not want to sacrifice speed and mobility.

Shield discipline would very much depend on training.  I suspect that many of the medieval levies were not well trained.





Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Mauro Fiorentini on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:59am
Your thinking is interesting, so let me tell you what I think:

the Romans, for example, used slingers and archers as auxiliary troops. They were light infantry, with little or no armor at all.
But they were, in fact, auxiliaries to the main army: a disciplined army of perfectly trained heavy infantrimen.
They had to face many slingers in their Empire, but do we have any information of great casualties due to their bullets?

This's just an example to say that I agree that a slinger can knock out his opponent, but only if he's as badly equipped as the slinger is.
Send cavalry to the slingers or the archers and they're wiped out, unless they have the advantage of number and location.

I told you to explain which armies are you referring to just because we try to give the best information here, and there've been so many armies in the past that it's a bit hazardous to affirm a definitive sentence about how they all could react to slingers.

EDIT: meanwhile, in a Middle Age Irish saga (whose title I can't remember but I'll look for it) we have a celebration of the slingers's power during battles: an evidence that - in THAT context - slingers could be very deadly.
But as I said, it was the Irish Middle Age, which was different from the Italian, German, French.... ones. Which were different from the Roman or Greek ages - which were different from the Italic and Hellenic contexts  ;)
As you can see, it's a huge discussion, which is better not to mortify talking about "ancient of Middle Ages armies".
Greetings,
Mauro.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by perpetualstudent on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:17am
It's true that discipline and armor varies widely over time. I remember reading that in the middle ages, when the mounted knight reigned supreme, that infantry were eschewed almost universally. I was reading an article about the longbow and Britain and the authors mentioned that in a couple of instances the French cavalry trampled their own men in their haste to get to the battle. That's how little esteem and training went into the infantry. The British, the authors argued, were the first to really "rediscover" infantry's value and that was largely because they had a smaller population. I think there's evidence of using the sling at that point, but mainly in the context of sieges.

I also like the point about lightly armored armies. But we tend to have better sources from the professional disciplined troops, which tend to have both better armor and better shield discipline.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by jlasud on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:39am
Shields were very common,most armies most of the time used them.Shield discipline? do you really have to be trained or given a command when the first hail of stones brakes your buddy's bones?Shields will save you from sling stones,or lead glandes.Unless it's some weak wicker shield..Stones are quite visible,and audible,and unless the targeted army is distracted,or caught in surprise,they'll raise their shields.If not,after the first volley,they'll surely do it. Lead glandes cannot be seen,fly fast,are small and quite the same color as the sky.So these can REALLY get the enemy ..

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Bill Skinner on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:59am
Conscripted peasants, like at Hastings, usually didn't have armor or weapons either, they used farming impliments such as hoes, scythes, bush axes and pruning hooks.  The Celts also didn't use much armor, there are several accounts of Roman slingers picking their formations to pieces before the heavy infantry moved in to finish them off.  Most real troops were either issued arms and armor of various types and qualities or required to have and maintain certain items of arms and armor.  

There were "ad hoc" armies where large groups of a local population would form war bands or battle groups or militias to defend or attack, the amount and quality of armor and training would vary wildly from man to man and example to example.  Greek Spartans are an example of the better armed and trained, the peasants at Hastings, whose main job seemed to be to stop arrows aimed at the housecarls are am example of the poorer.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by nemo on Jul 4th, 2012 at 4:08pm
It is worth noting that at Hastings, there were less of the fyrd and that Harolds army was a large proportion of professional soliders (be it Huscarls or town watches).


But importantly, missiles did very little to the Saxon line in Hastings. The Norman archers tried weakening them from eary in the morning and throughout the day, but really to no avail. The line also held up to heavy cavalry charges of the Norman knights. It was only the mock routing used by the Normans that broke the Saxon lines.
Later in the battle aswell, the Normans changed their archery techniques to have archers volley and crossbows (first time used in England) shoot at a flat trajectory. This apparently weakened the lines, but really in the end it seems the cavalry were the winning factor.

Mauro, is the Irish Saga you are thinking of 'The Ulster Cycle'? It includes tales of Cuchulainn who uses a sling to hold off and harass an entire army. It is an Iron Age saga, not quite Middle Age, so may be a different one you are thinking of?

Nemo

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Thearos on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm
This question was discussed by R. Gabriel in one of his books (I referred to them in this thread:

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1257730993/0

Gabriel's point was in fact that the lethality of slings and arrows is not that high. He gets that slingstones and arrows are high lethality weapons, but notes that in no ancient battle was the main line of heavies mowed down. So Gabriel's assumption is that missile effectiveness is reduced by armour and shields-- probably considerably so. As confirmation of this, we might turn to Xenophon, who in his Anabasis provides an eyewitness account of what it's like to fight against slingers:

[3.3.6] After this they took breakfast, crossed the Zapatas1 river, and set out on the march in the formation decided upon,2 with the baggage animals and the camp followers in the middle of the square. They had not proceeded far when Mithradates appeared again, accompanied by about two hundred horsemen and by bowmen and slingers--exceedingly active and nimble troops--to the number of four hundred. [3.3.7] He approached the Greeks as if he were a friend, but when his party had got close at hand, on a sudden some of them, horse and foot alike, began shooting with their bows and others with slings, and they inflicted wounds.

-- wounds, and not fatal casualties. I also would mention Thucydides 2.81.8, describing a campaign in W. Greece in 429:


But when the barbarians in their flight broke in upon them, they took them in and uniting their two divisions kept quiet there during the day, the Stratians not coming to close quarters with them, because the rest of the Acarnanians had not yet come to their support, but using their slings against them from a distance and distressing them; for it as not possible for them to stir without armour; and indeed the Acarnanians are famous for their excellence in the use of the sling.


The assumption seems to be that if you wear armour, you're actually somewhat safe from sling sniping. My own view is that the battle winning, ground-occupying, assault infantry which closes with the enemy and kills him or drives him off are, by nature, pretty heavily armoured (this also comes from reading stuff in another forum, fioredeiliberi.org); light infantry often runs off. (Caesar doesn't, I think, describe naked chaps in battle; that's Polybios in book 2, about Telamon. Caesar's opponents are pretty heavily armoured, if the archaeology is indicative).

So: body armour (of any type: plate, or flexible— mail, linen, padded), helmet, and shield, are sufficient to greatly neutralize missiles of any type (slingstones, hand thrown stones, arrows); as Morningstar often observes on this forum, the real killer is the javelin, which has enough mass and punch to give even the armoured chaps problems. I'd add that the other way of neutralizing missile troops is another line of missile troops, which produce the characteristic pre-battle skirmishing between lights-- described by Thucydides in Sicily, or by Polybios at Cannae-- inconclusive.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Thearos on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:19pm
BTW, the "ill trained levies" are likely to be wielding the sling in the first place.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Thearos on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:41pm
Sorry for the third post: in the thread i quote above, I mentioned the battle of Sphakteria (425 BC), where 10,000 men (including a good deal of highly specialized missile troops) pelted 400 Spartans over several hours, and killed 100 + of them (and admittedly wounded most of them-- but by the end of the day they were still combat capable).

You can calculate the various ratios; but if the figures are accurate, it might be a case of 50,000 projectiles killing about 120 men, so perhaps 400 projectiles for every KIA. The calculations may be off, but give an idea-- and this is in pretty optimal conditions (flanking fire, no competing line of skirmishers), and over hours. And, by the way, the Spartans were a garrison, and not wearing heavy kit-- no body armour, floppy "bush hats" rather than helmets, just their shield.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Mauro Fiorentini on Jul 5th, 2012 at 6:12am
Nemo, thanks for the suggestion, but I really can't remember which saga was it.
I have to look into my database and I'll tell you  :)
Greetings,
Mauro.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Bazookabot on Jul 8th, 2012 at 7:06pm
Although many soldiers in ancient and early medieval armies would have lacked armour, by the late middle ages few soldiers in Europe would have lacked armour completely (or proper weapons), which probably had something to do with the slings disappearance from the European battlefield.
At the battle of Najera in 1367, a huge Franco-Spanish army that included 4,000 Spanish slingers was routed by a much smaller English force, and suffered dismal losses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%A1jera
As far as I know, Najera was one of the last times that mass numbers of slingers were deployed in a European battle.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Jul 9th, 2012 at 10:17pm
Infantry troops with shields up would make something like a wall that could protect the soldiers behind. I am sure a highly disciplined army would make a better shield wall then a disorganized horde.

Furthermore I remember reading an account in a novel of archers in ancient Greece. The writer's claim which has a ring of truth to it, was that the main damage done by archer against Greek infantry was during the battle when the heavy infantry was locked into its opponent. The archers weaved around the battlefield got shots at soldiers who had their shields down because they were distracted by the fighting. I suspect that a slinger would be in a similar position.








Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Bill Skinner on Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:39am
As for armor, look at the clothing of the time, the leather was not split or shaved as it is today, so a leather vest or coat would would be much thicker and provide some pretty good protection, as would a leather hat.  The linen, felt, and wool clothing was much thicker than what is worn today, it also provided good protection.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:05pm

Bill Skinner wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:39am:
As for armor, look at the clothing of the time, the leather was not split or shaved as it is today, so a leather vest or coat would would be much thicker and provide some pretty good protection, as would a leather hat.  The linen, felt, and wool clothing was much thicker than what is worn today, it also provided good protection.


I could see such armor being useful against bows and arrows but much less against a sling shot.



Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by David Morningstar on Jul 11th, 2012 at 3:16am
Vegetius mentions that flexible armour is no protection against sling stones.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by Bill Skinner on Jul 11th, 2012 at 9:40am
That is why they wore hauberks under maile.  Most Roman soldigers  wore mail over a red wool tunic.  Unsplit leather from the chest and buttocks of a bull is 1/2 inch (12mm-14mm) thick, and unless oiled, fairly stiff and won't fold up around a stone.  OTOH, if the leather is over a bone and the rock is large, it will transmit most of the force right on through.  I don't know if it will stop a lead gland, I suspect it probably will stop or at least slow down most.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by jlasud on Jul 16th, 2012 at 4:31am
I'm quite sure that 12mm leather would stop,ricochet,contain a 30-40g lead gland.It would probably still make a bruise under,unless a good subarmalis is worn underneath it.If a 105g lead bullet with DEXAI written on it is in the equation...then the wearer is having a bad day.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by bernardz on Aug 8th, 2012 at 2:11am

jlasud wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 4:31am:
I'm quite sure that 12mm leather would stop,ricochet,contain a 30-40g lead gland.It would probably still make a bruise under,unless a good subarmalis is worn underneath it.If a 105g lead bullet with DEXAI written on it is in the equation...then the wearer is having a bad day.


The Spanish soldiers facing American Indians, stated that a sling could go though steel armor.

The Wikipedia states this: "While Spanish armour was very effective against most of the Andean weapons, it was not impenetrable to maces, clubs, or slings." and quotes two references
^ Jay O. Sanders. "The Great Inca Rebellion"
^ Jane Penrose (2005). Slings in the Iron Age



Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by jlasud on Aug 8th, 2012 at 2:45pm
maces,clubs and slings deal blunt damage,rather than piercing. A huge hit from a blunt weapon can transfer shock,concussion through armor,which can cause wounds or be even lethal,if the spanish guy gets a big hit on the helmet.Armor will just bend ,but still can cause a bad bruise,broken rib,cracked skull,K.O. etc.
No penetration involved,with stones and ceramics,and lead bullets were usually too small weight and lead too soft to penetrate.Andeans probably didn't used lead projectiles,at least i know.
The nobels might had used gold bullets,as i read from Masika's post if i remember correctly,but not sure bout that one though. Even tempered armour piercing arrowheads have a hard time piercing plate armor,shot from a warbow.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by alex knapp on Aug 16th, 2012 at 3:57pm
i must say you are well spoken, Jlasud. however, in mine backyard, i have observed 500g steel bulletheaded nails go right into thick 1/4 steel. however, they only severely dent or puncture. i have never had a nail go into a propane tank(i shoot at empty propane tanks that have been decommissioned after years of service to factories) i am always able to pull them out. i make the nails from 5/8 steel rods, and grind the points. they are around 7-8 inches long. they typically penetrate around 1-1 1/2 inches on impact at point blank range.

Title: Re: Ancient and Medieval casualty rates to slings
Post by SchlrFtrRkMystc on May 31st, 2013 at 2:59am
There has been much said here about missile weapons and armor... which is an important discussion... but one that seems a bit off.

Archery and it's arrows perform abysmally against the vast majority of armor forms... whether discussing thick felt armor, hard leather or linnen, lamellar, chain, bronze or steel plate, or even the humble layered cloth of a jacked coat. While it is true special arrows were developed to be more effective against specific armor forms... even these only incrementally increased effectiveness as such issues as range and armor quality became relevant. Of course, archery's superior accuracy and rate of fire still make it useful anyway, even against armored opponents... however it is also important to note that most historical armies are rather lacking in armor... though rarely lacking in shields which are also grand at shutting down archery.

In stark contrast the sling is noted for being much more effective against armored opponents than archery. Vegetius is a famous example of this as are the reports form the Spaniards in MesoAmerica (vs Plate no less). While yes, a good helmet does tend to shut down that sweet instakill, how long your helmet lasts and can continue that function depends greatly on the helm. But much more importantly warfare isn't about instakilling... it's about taking folks out of a fight and about making them lose the will to fight. And while helms may shut down instakills, slings will still break the bones of the face, body, and limbs... especially the joints... through most armor far more often than most other weapons. Which is more ideal anyway... what good are the dead? A wounded soldier can be put to work, sold into slavery, or ransomed back home, incorporated into your army, sacrificed (see Aztecs), made examples of, interrogated for info, on and on ... far more productive than a disease ridden rotting dead body. And yes, shields are great for blocking missile weapons... but therein is another sling advantage... quantity of ammunition (mwahaha)... every arrow is expensive... and you are quite limited in your amount of them... not so with slings... sure they are likely to block if they are paying attention... but thats just the thing: "likely." With a sling, you have far more chances  :) (despite the superior rate of fire potential of the bow). And it has also been mentioned that a slung lead bullet is by far the most difficult missile to block in terms of it's speed and near invisibility in flight... that is HUGE.

As for javelins and other thrown spears... they have the shortest range, the slowest flight speed, the easiest to see coming, the greatest expense, the most encumberance. So shields are MOST effective against these. And while their mass gives them an advantage over arrows in terms of vs armor... armor still works rather well against them, for many of the same reasons it does against arrows... so better against armor than arrows... not as good as slings against armor.

Now of course, all of these weapons of war have their place. The most effective armies employ all of them (and more)... diversity equals stability and the well employed mixed armies are the best (see Alexander and the Roman empire). But I will say that of all of these the sling has the most overall awesome and versatility... and we have the facts and logic to back that up.

Slinging.org Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.