Greetings from Norway! I'm mostly an ancient history freak.
It's good to see people who don't shirk away from doing what interests them, as you have an interest in slinging. Very intriguing, I did not expect to find such a place..
You guys are pretty amazing, I love the videos you do..

I have some very specific questions regarding the best of the best in Ancient slinging.. of course, the best of the best being the ones from the Balearic isles. These most often belonged to the multi-ethnic Carthaginian mercenary warmachine.

Diodorus writes that mothers in the Balearic islands would place a piece of bread on top of a pole, and the young slinger was not allowed to eat it until he has knocked it off with his sling.




I am currently discussing and trying to persuade non-believers in the www.LegionTotalwar.com forum, who think that arrows had more kinetic energy than a lead bullet. You see, there's a realistic Strategygame called "Rome:Total War" coming this Fall. In that game, Balearic slingers (and other slingers) will be included as units. In this realistic game, you have morale, ammunition, weather (rain makes the bowstrings less efficient), and a plethora of other factors.
In this game, the battles are Epic (10`000++ soldiers) and realtime. The strategymap (with diplomacy etc) is turnbased.. 
The game is not released yet.. it won "Best PC Game" and "Best Strategy game" of E3 2004 from IGN and Firingsquad..  The Rome:TW engine was also used in a Tv-show on UK BBC2 called "Time Commanders", and another show using the RTW engine is starting in the US for History Channel, called "Decisive Battles." Starting the 17th of July..

Here's an in-game screenshot of the game:




The slingers I've seen in this game so far (on Time Commanders), have slung their bodies around, like some Olympic competition, isn't this a overly wasteful way to sling? Getting all dizzy.. etc..

Now, back on topic.

The difference between Rock and Lead ammunition seems to be very significant for the range, due to the assymetric and non-aerodynamic form of a rock. So we must probably make an effort to seperate the two.

According to Xenophon, the farthest they could fire is approximately 400 yards (approx 400 meters). Though, according to Xenophon, they were meant to be thrown at the range of 250 meters, because at 400 meters, the kinetic energy will dissipate. Still, 250 meters supercedes the practice-range Vegetius mentions on archers, which is 180 meters.

1st question: What is the longest range someone has been able to recreate with LEAD bullets?

2nd question: Is Xenophon and Diodorus exaggerating the range? Or could it in fact be possible, as the Balearic slingers have trained from infancy.. (it becomes like second nature)

3rd question: What is the exit velocity of a slingshot at maximum, compared to an arrow? And if the slingshot has a greater exit velocity, how quickly does this velocity dissipate due to air resistance?

4th question: What method of slinging did the ancient Balearics pursue? IS there anything at all that can lead you excellent people to make conclusions of this?

I've said in the LegionTotalwar forums that, even if the arrow is faster, that doesn't make up for the much heavier kinetic momentum of the lead bullet! I've read that a lead bullet creates an "impressive" impression on a concrete wall, while an arrow can hardly be expected to dent it. Surely, such kinetic force should be devestating for the person who gets hit in a mock battle? The shock on the nervous system is the issue here.

I've also read examples of text where the lead bullets are said to have penetrated the armoured helmets of the Romans. Now, if this is true, it is amazing, but then again, they weren't exactly using Toledo steel in those helmets... By the way, the period we are talking about (264-150 bc - The 3 Punic Wars), the Romans did not have Lorica Segmentata (segmented heavy armour), but they used Lorica Hamata, chainmail-technology "borrowed" from Gaul.

All in all, all historians from that period of history seem to point to the idea that Slingers were far deadlier than Bows.. As bows hadn't had time to develop yet. And furthermore, Slings might've died out because of "fashion" or laziness..   

I have a belief about the events leading up weapons becoming obsolete. I believe that it is humanity's laziness that leads to these developments. For every "improvement" in weaponry, the weapon seems to get easier and easier to -learn- , but not necessarily deadlier.
In ancient times, the sling may have been the best, but it's easier to learn the technique of archery. Then, they moved from archery to crossbows (china developed Crossbows in 400 BC, but it was a fad).. Crossbows required almost no strength, and allowed you to use more effort on aiming.
Then, we move from bows to muskets/arquebusiers.
Indeed, Longbows were undoubtedly much deadlier than the petty earliest muskets, but the muskets were FAR easier to learn to use for a totally green unit.. shortening the time it takes to train a functioning unit.. perhaps a strategic advantage?

BTW.. It would be awesome if any of you could make a video where you use the real stuff - lead-bullets - and try to penetrate somewhat historically correct armour..

Hehe.. thanks for the replies.

430 Meters!

Let it be known, I am only discussing the ancient period. Any reference I make to bow or arrow, does not include the longbow or any subsequential medieval/dark ages compound bows..

Quote:


Indeed, the advantage of arrows were that they got stuck in their bodies, without killing them, especially with hooked arrowheads. Then they would fall down and squeam for their mother.. and this of course affects the whole morale and cohesion of the force. So the arrow was a severely disintegrating factor to the army cohesion..

While lead bullets just outright knocked people unconscious or dead. I am interested in challenging the notion that the arrow penetrated so well..

Here's a question: How did the arrow fare when trying to penetrate Lorica Hamata? (chainmail)

I know for a certainty that the lead bullet will have an adverse effect on ANY body clad in chainmail. Any flexible armour that is closely fitted. Leather-armour as wel.. When the leadbullet hits the chainmail, the kinetic energy is easily transferred to the chainmail, which immediately is again transferred to the body. A sort of "chain reaction."

Regarding Time Commanders, and the lack of emphasis on slingers. It really depends on which battle you saw, and in most Northern-European battles, it was the bow which was the primary weapon. In the battle of Marathon for example, you will see they use greek slingers. The same is true with Gaugamela.

I know there were many other slingers around in the world at that time, but I still place the Balearic slingers in a special booth. Purely out of the social context.. just as I place Spartiates of Lakedaimonia in a special booth for being superior hoplites. Again, from the social context of their upbringing and so on. I can think of no other culture that spent so much time on purely cultivating the art of slinging.
The sentence about the bread written by Diodorus says it all, the slinging isn't just something "extra" in Balearic communities, it's their very essence. It permeates everything in their culture. Though we may never know for sure, I think they had excellent range as well as accuracy. They had 3 different lengths of slingers with them at all times.

As for the Assyrians, they're well out of the timeperiod here..  ca 800 bc. And I am not sure if they had yet mastered the art of slinging at that point in history.

The text I read about the penetration of a Roman helmet was another 3rd party account, on TWC forum. So we have nothing but hearsay to work from here.
But it said that the Roman helmet was found with an entry-hole and exit-hole.. I don't know more than what he said. And yes I'm still looking for proof of that. I am actually under the impression that kinetic energy is MORE important with armour-piercing than the sharpness. As such, I have NO problems believing that the lead bullet could penetrate a helmet better than an arrow. But it would be nicer if I could substantiate that belief.

Indeed, the lead bullets were often hammered to a perfectly symmetrical (hence aerodynamic) and sharp shape, and the lead would be more densely compacted..

According to Celsius, Romans even had tools to drag these bullets out of the flesh.. so there was no problem in penetrating the human skin. Still, it is very impressive, considering if you throw such a rock with your bare hands, you're only likely to create a bruise. But the increased energy from the sling-movement is a fairly massive increase.

In this day and age, almost nobody uses slinging any more, so it's hard for most people living today to concieve of this weapon being as powerful as it indeed was. There's a lot of misconceptions and hasty assumptions people make.

Now, for another crucial question (asked at TWC):


(only ancient period from 300 BC to 14 AD)

Hello and Welcome John!

We have talked about this "Sling vs. Bow" subject now and then.

Have you read the account of a Greek general noting that his hired slingers were able to outdistance the Persian archers in a battle?. Either the writer or the general's name started with an "X" Anyway, I believe I read it on the Roman Army web site.

You have motivated me to make a video of what projectiles can do to different materials. I will try to sling some lead and concrete projectiles at things like plywood, oak boards, thin sheets of metal... I am not sure if we will be able to post them for a while though.

If you register as a member, you can look through all the topics. I think there is one with the title "Slings vs bows" or something like that. It gives some facts about the two weapons.

Hi shigawire (JohnHorn)!

It's Siblesz from legiontotalwar.com

It's great to see so many people that are interested in the art and prowess of the sling. It is definately a weapon to be reckoned with....

Now, on to the archers vs. slingers debate. Just the fact that slingers are way cheaper to maintain than archers is a major factor to consider in terms of the effectiveness of these beasts... To maintain a slinger, he would need only two things:
a.) a sturdy leather home-made sling
b.) rock ammunition

While the leather sling would take a while to make in order to meet perfection in the eyes of the ecperienced slinger, the ammunition could be found anywhere and everywhere the slinger wanted it to be found. All that a slinger needed to do to gather ammunition is to look for a good rock, and stock it in a bag.

Now let's compare that with an archer. An archer needed two things as well. These two things were:
a.) the bow
b.) the arrow

A bow is very easily made... it takes about the same skill that it would take to make a leather sling. But the arrows are a different story. First, one could only carry a limited amount of arrows, and second, arrows were really expensive to be made on a large scale. One need an iron tip to be installed as well as an arrow that could actually reach a long distance.

Now let's just see how an army of slingers would perfom against enemy infantry:

Imagine that there is an Roman army of 1,000 triarii marching towards a Carthaginian army. As the triarii gets closer, 1,000 balearic slingers begin aiming and throwing at the trarii from 300 meters away. Now, a slinger at the time would be able to throw about 6 rounds a minute of rocks... archers would probably be able to do the same but with little accuracy and an archer would empty his ammunition pretty quickly if he was to fire 6 arrows a minute. But the slinger could easily do that without risking a loss to ammunition or accuracy. Now, imagine that these 1,000 slingers begin throwing 6,000 rocks A MINUTE against the coming trarii.... it would be an incredible sight to witness... 6,000 projectiles coming at your men every minute. The streangth and impact of these rock projectiles that would reach speeds of 300 miles an hour would injure some soldiers while hitting the shields of others with tremendous shock. I for one would run for my life at such a sight. Now, with 30,000 projectiles of rocks falling on this army every 5 minutes, the Roman army would have probably been devastated by these rocks within 10 minutes and would  be frightened to death by the sounds of these rocks clashing into their shields and smashing into their feet and helmets.

An army of 1,000 archers could not compete with that firepower. They would be able to shoot around 10,000 arrows every 5 minutes, and most arrows would deflect by the wind to another direction.


P.S.- To admin: I can link this site to our main page if you all want. http://www.legiontotalwar.com

Well even more information to my case for the sling's superiority over the bow.

Arrows are much more cumbersome to carry around.  Slingers might be able to carry hundreds of projectiles.  Most of the roman projectiles were only an inch or two long and less than an inch wide.  You could hold maybe 10 in each hand. These are solid lead, unlike arrows.  Their volume to weight ratio is much greater. 

I think a good slinger could also fire once every 5 seconds, or 12 a minute.  Their potential range would have been greater too. 

Slings also are cheaper to produce, maintain, and transport.  Some infantry started off with slings and then switched to melee weapons (Vikings, who would put the slings in their belts). 

Chris

I need to dispel the notion that ancient bows were inferior to the ones made in the 10th-15th centuries. A composite bow is the same no matter the century. Horn belly, wood core and sinew back. Although the bows profile may vary, they can launch an arrow around 600 yards. Some skeletons recovered in the Crimea show Skythian arrowheads buried deeply in the skull. Parthians could shoot through Roman shields and armour. A recording of an archer from the classical period shot an arrow 55o yards. And yes, most slingers could outshoot that range!
But the bow was still powerful and deadly.
Johnny