+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: sling vs bow (/showthread.php?tid=10860)
Pages:
1
2
sling vs bow - Aryaman2 - 11-03-2007
Hi
I have read sometimes that slingers in Ancient Times outranged and outpowered archers, could anyone please provide any reference in Ancient writers about the subject?
Re: sling vs bow - geala - 11-05-2007
At least one source for the range is Xenophon in Kyrou Anabasis:
3.3.7: the Cretan archers had less range than Persian archers;
3.3.15: the Cretans had seemingly less reach than the Persian slingers (with stones)
3.3.16: the Rhodians could sling farther than the Persian slingers, using lead projectiles, reportedly they had the double reach of the Persians (this is highly unlikely, because this would mean a just ludricously low reach for the Cretans)
3.4.16 the Persians could do no longer harm to the Greeks as the Rhodian slingers shot farther than they, "even farther than the archers"
A bit confusing but a first hand report, written long after the events (which are often not that correct :roll: ).
The power of the sling bullets could not have been much greater than that of arrows. Both missiles traveled roughly at the same speed and had comparable weights.
Ranges (when shot at ideal angles):
Sling bullets in modern tests were sometimes slung to ranges over 500 metres (with special bullets). 200 to 300 metres must have been the norm although I doubt the performance of the low energy bullets at this range. I don't know much about bow performance. A reconstruction of a "Sassanid" bow (as used in the late Roman army) for the M. Junkelmann group with about 80 lbs draw weight shot a heavy arrow up to 188 metres, light arrows to over 200 metres, of course without any performance against shields or armour at these ranges. In the 18th c. AD a competition in the Ottoman empire in bow shooting ended with a winner who shot an arrow to a distance of about 870 metres. Reportedly in modern times once more than 1000 metres were reached with a special bow.
To compare: a modern medium rifle bullet (e.g. .308 Win.) touches the ground in a distance of about 500 metres if shot vertically. It reaches 3 to 4 km if shot at an angle of about 35 degree, quite capable to kill people at the end of its trajectory.
Re: sling vs bow - Aryaman2 - 11-05-2007
Thanks for the references, I think there is another one by Vegetius saying that slingers made more damage than archers, but I can´t find it
Re: sling vs bow - Sardaukar - 11-06-2007
If I recall correctly, one of the advantages of slingshot was (apart from apparent range advantage) that one could not see it in flight. Arrows one could spot and prepare to block but slingshots were relatively "stealthy".
Re: sling vs bow - D B Campbell - 11-06-2007
Quote:I think there is another one by Vegetius saying that slingers made more damage than archers, but I can´t find itAre you maybe thinking of Onasander?
At Strategikos 19.3, he says: "the sling is the most deadly weapon that is used by the psiloi, because the lead is the same colour as the air and is invisible, so that it falls unexpectedly on the unprotected bodies of the enemy ..." (exactly the point Mika was making).
(This is the famous quote where he says that the bullets become heated -- unlikely -- and they penetrate flesh, which closes over them -- probably correct.)
Re: sling vs bow - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-06-2007
They probably thought it burnt due to the pain, which is similar to a burning feeling, :evil:
slins v Bows - Paullus Scipio - 11-09-2007
It should be remembered that bows, like other weapons, improved and evolved over time…for example the Huns success in driving Sarmatians and others westward is often put down to superior bows, and the Sarmatians success against Scythians for similar reasons.
As an example, here is some technical information regarding Persian and Scythian bows at the time of the Persian wars:-
Initial energy; 35-40 joules (c.f. modern bow, 50 joules and more)
Range; around 200 metres max.
Arrows are light, with reed shafts.
As can be seen at http://slinging.org ranges for a sling are also of this order of magnitude( max 200 m), with much depending on the ammunition type used.
This makes Xenophon’s statements all the more credible, given that the Rhodian slingers were all professionals coming from a long slinging tradition, unlike modern amateurs…….
Re: sling vs bow - M. Demetrius - 11-09-2007
Quote:...and they penetrate flesh, which closes over them -- probably correct.1 Samuel 17:49 "...and David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine [Goliath] in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehaed; and he fell upon his face to the earth."
Doesn't say anything about the flesh closing up, though, but in softer tissue, that makes perfect sense. The sling bullet would force its way through, more like a knife than a modern bullet (which actually can vaporize tissue). The entry wound most likely would be pretty small, probably smaller than the sling bullet, owing to skin stretch.
Re: sling vs bow - Materfamillias - 11-09-2007
Could the heat of a sling bullet be due to the lead bullet being used straight from the mold? would it retain heat for long?
kind thoughts
Materfamillias
Re: sling vs bow - M. Demetrius - 11-09-2007
Quote:Could the heat of a sling bullet be due to the lead bullet being used straight from the moldI thought about that, but then I thought, "How would a guy pick the thing up, and since slingers were mobile, how would you keep coming back to the mold, and wouldn't the hot metal damage the sling (which was basically made out of dry grass or equal)?" So if the bullet actually picked up heat, and that's not just an ancient urban legend, it would have to be from air friction.
Re: sling vs bow - geala - 11-10-2007
It is impossible for a stone without sharp edges to penetrate human skin and flesh so deep at velocities which can be achieved with a sling. Laceration may be possible but no penetration. Lead missiles like glandes on the other hand should be able to penetrate the skin with the edges deep enough that the skin/flesh closes about. However such a wound would normally be not very terrible or decisive, but a remarkable incident for the ancients worth to be reported.
If the story of David and Goliath is true (which is highly doubtful; but the effect of the sling is certainly true) the effect was achieved from the energy transfer from stone to human tissue (parts of the brain with a concussion) which led to temporary unconsciousness, blindness or even death. Goliath should have better brought his shield into play.
Re: sling vs bow - M. Demetrius - 11-10-2007
Interestingly, we slingers always wonder how to carry stones around, and many illustrators show the slinger making a temporary pouch from a fold of the sagum or cloak, but David is said to use a pouch. If you're carrying many bullets from place to place, a fold in the cloak seems less practical than a pouch, at least to me.
I'm making a pouch, barring someone clearly showing evidence that there were no pouches.
Re: sling vs bow - D B Campbell - 11-10-2007
Quote:Could the heat of a sling bullet be due to the lead bullet being used straight from the mold?The one that puzzles me is Caesar's report of heated clay bullets.
At BGall 5.43, he says that the Nervii, besieging Q. Cicero in his camp, "began to throw red-hot bullets of molten clay from slings and heated (i.e. burning) javelins onto the huts which were roofed in Gallic fashion with straw."
The question is: how do you "melt" clay so that it is hot enough to set fire to a thatched roof?! And how do you sling a red-hot bullet, anyway?
(Rice Holmes suggested a metal-lined sling pouch. I suppose that might work.)
Re: sling vs bow - M. Demetrius - 11-10-2007
Molten clay? I don't think so, as that would be (potters, please chime in) many times hotter than any organic sling could handle, let alone human hands. In theory, one could pick up molten clay with some kind of tongs/scoop, but it would quickly burn out the sling, probably quicker than a throw could be accomplished.
Clay fires (i. e. the silica in the clay melts and becomes "glassish" ceramic instead of dry mud) at something above 1200 degrees F, depending on the sort of clay. Paper burns at 451 F. (According to the famous book). I simply can't imagine a way to get it into a sling, and downrange. IF YOU COULD, it would instantly ignite thatched roofs, though. I have firsthand experience with welding torch sparks causing a sawdust pile to flame up mighty fast. And yet another use for the slack bucket!
Wouldn't it make as much sense to throw something that was wrapped around the sling bullet, and was set on fire? I dunno. I don't want any part of trying to sling something that hot.
Re: sling vs bow - Matthew - 11-10-2007
Quote:Maybe what is being described are clay projectiles [i.e. pots] filled with some sort of burning substance.Materfamillias:1txt9kto Wrote:Could the heat of a sling bullet be due to the lead bullet being used straight from the mold?The one that puzzles me is Caesar's report of heated clay bullets.
At BGall 5.43, he says that the Nervii, besieging Q. Cicero in his camp, "began to throw red-hot bullets of molten clay from slings and heated (i.e. burning) javelins onto the huts which were roofed in Gallic fashion with straw."
The question is: how do you "melt" clay so that it is hot enough to set fire to a thatched roof?! And how do you sling a red-hot bullet, anyway?
(Rice Holmes suggested a metal-lined sling pouch. I suppose that might work.)
Matthew James Stanham