That's true. Almost all the stones I've ever slung have been Finnish granite. I've only ever broken two stones. One was at the International, so much lighter softer stone, and one that wasn't granite I found over here. It was already cracked and some sort of slate like material. The granite ones just don't break.

Found this passage that Slingbadger shared a few years ago.
Diodoros of Sicily, writing in the 1st cent. BC gives an account of the missiles at the Battle pf Ekonomos.
Book XIX-- "but when Hamilcar saw that his men were being overpowered. he brought up the slingers, who came from the Balearic islands, and numbered at least 1000. By hurling a shower of stones, they wounded men and even killed not a few who they were attacking, and shattered the defensive armor of most of them. For the men were accustomed to sling stones weighing a mina (1.25 lbs) contribute a great deal to victory in battle"

Morphy wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 1:26am:

I guess I don't know how karma works.

I've actually got an idea of something I can try with a big rock.  As of now they're predicting a pretty nice weekend.  I'll see if I can do a couple experiments.
Even if it doesn't make much of a video, smashing stuff with a big rock should be good for venting frustration if I'm not able to hit a playing card out of a hourglass. 

joe_meadmaker wrote on Mar 17^th, 2021 at 3:48pm:


Dont worry this is good karma!

joe_meadmaker wrote on Mar 9^th, 2021 at 12:15pm:


Luckily I think Channing beat me to the whole egg against egg shot. Maybe I can just try Greek. Also want to try smashing things with my large sling as well. For me if a 1.5 pound stone was possible I think a 10-12 oz stone should have some good zip and still hit quite hard. Looking forward to the video bro.

Hirtius wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 5:50pm:


What Todd is showing in that video is not particularly representative of a gambeson IMHO.

It is, however, very representative of a "Padded Jack", a Standalone armour that was largely designed to be worn by itself. The telling detail is when Todd mentions 32 layers of linen. That is too thick to be viably worn with other armour (Unless perhaps you were using very thin linen). Not only that, I have a vague suspicion I know what his source is.

The subject of medieval textile armours is a difficult one... but I'll roughly try to break things down. When it comes to the High/Late Medieval period in Western Europe... there were largely 'Four' types of textile armours. Three of them emerged at about the 1100's. The fourth and final emerged at about the middle of the 14th century... and can barely be considered armour. I'll explain the first three.

From the literary sources of the period, 'Gambesons' started being worn around the 1100's and into later periods, but they were originally not worn under armour, but over an armour, particularly over hauberks, and were generally made either from as much as ~15 layers of linen/nettle/hemp etc, though it wouldn't surprise me if wool batting was used as well. Often these gambesons were made without sleeves (Such as is described in the Kings Mirror of Norway)

As this over-armour gambeson was coming about, There was also a lighter version of armour that was beginning to emerge as well, known as the Aketon. This is much slimmer than the gambeson, perhaps only made from 4-7 layers of linen, or a mix of linen + batting (Which gives a hint as to how the name of the garment in question emerged)... These aketon's could be worn over a Tunic and below a hauberk.

Then you have Padded Jacks. Also likely originating in the same period as Gambesons, they would have very likely been made similar to how Todd describes them.

As you enter deeper into the 1300's, Aketons and Gambesons are largely being replaced over time by Arming doublets and the Coat-of-Plates respectively (An armour that itself originated from a Surcoat of plates... Surcotes being decorative garments worn over gambesons or hauberks).

This means that the further Into the 1300's, Padded Jacks were also colloquially referred to as "Gambesons"... even though the 'Gambesons' as an over-armour garment were well and truly dead (Except perhaps in the case of Jupons... I'm not going to explain that one.) also... which makes the subject very, very confusing.

So all in all, I don't really think that what Todd has shown is thin. In fact, Jacks were generally made to be about one finger thick. That is roughly in the 1cm territory... and it is very thick if one were to compare it to gambesons or aketons. Those were thinner than Jacks. Arming doublets were exceptionally thin. They would all perform very differently. I have the feeling Gambesons or Aketons would perform very badly...

But here's the kicker... You can potentially combine aketons and gambesons together and essentially end up with a similar configuration as a padded jack.

"And such persons are to be properly armed with two pieces; namely, with haketon and gambeson, or else with haketon and corset, or with haketon and plates."

Source: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/memorials-london-life/pp33-36#p16

And perhaps this is why the sources tend to state that Aketons should have sleeves but not for gambesons... It all becomes very, veeeeery interesting, because it would be impossible to combine the two if they both had sleeves.