Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
slinging.org has some data on there that indicates perhaps a skilled slinger could out range the bows of that day. There are so many variables that the question is hard to answer as asked.
"Can a pistol outrange a rifle?" Kind of depends on the pistol and the rifle, right? A .50 cal pistol can outrange a lightly loaded black powder rifle, etc.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 14
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
Well the argument was Cretan Archers against Baleric Slingers and they are trying to commit everything to range.
Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
The argument on slinging.org or an argument from outside these forums? "Cretan archers" are just archers from Crete. Some were no doubt better than others, and not all of them used the same draw weight of bow, and not all of them were of the same skill level. Same would apply to the slingers from the Baleric Islands, yes?
The reports I've read indicate that soldiers feared sling bullets more than arrows, because you could not see them, and because sometimes you might not even see the one slinging them. Just suddenly, a buzzing sound and then hundreds of lead bullets dropping into the ranks, causing injuries to the troops.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 14
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
Yeah, I get your point. At the moment we were talking about Rome Total War so I guess that the argument was about RTW baleric slingers and RTW cretan archers
Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
OK, I missed that we were not talking about real projectile troops...being in the Roman Military History & Archeology section. :!: :roll:
Neither Cretan archers nor Balearic slingers do well vs. Cataphracts or even heavy cavalry. Pitting one against the other, the archers seem to fare well in open formation, though light infantry don't do well against either. The slingers sometimes smack their own troops in the back of the head, I guess, and inflict casualties on their own troops.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 875
Threads: 58
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I know a sling bullet can be used with excellent precision, but what kind of range are we talking about wielding them accurately at a target? Naturally if they were used against the Romans who marched in a relatively tight formation accuracy would be less necessary than range.
Slingers like archers to me only seem effective when the enemy is at a distance, as it would take very disciplined ranged troops to stand their ground as the Romans closed in, peering over their scutum, gladius drawn...
Quintus Furius Collatinus
-Matt
Posts: 34
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
Quote:The reports I've read indicate that soldiers feared sling bullets more than arrows, because you could not see them
Abicio, This is exactly why I started this thread...could you point me in the direction of these reports please?
Cheers.
Adam Anders
Posts: 11
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
I've had a sling bullet landing 5 meters away, pretty scary. Even though the slinger was only 2 meters away (he fired straight up in the sky), so I knew it was coming. There was no way I could see the bullet.
Problem with archers (and slingers probably) is that the closer you get to them, the more accurate they get. Looking over your scutum at close range will probably mean you'll get an arrow in your eye!
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:Well the argument was Cretan Archers against Baleric Slingers and they are trying to commit everything to range.
No it wasn't, you made that up. This discussion started with a question about real missiles, any discussion about RTW and other games does NOT belong in this thread.
Posts: 875
Threads: 58
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Quote:Problem with archers (and slingers probably) is that the closer you get to them, the more accurate they get. Looking over your scutum at close range will probably mean you'll get an arrow in your eye!
Archers never fair well against heavy infantry in close combat, I imagine that unless the ranged troops had some sort of vanguard protecting them, they would flee as the heavy infantry closed in
Quintus Furius Collatinus
-Matt
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
That would depend on the formation and order of the missile troops. If they are arrayed in disperse order as psiloi, they would have no problem with an armored infantry line approaching. They would keep their distance. Actually, in order to more safely deal with such harassment, infantry lines would remain stationary and close their orders, marching allows for openings to be made, men are generally better targets. If one does not have adequate light infantry or cavalry as a countermeasure, then things could get really ugly as was the case in a number of battles (Sphacteria and Carrhae come to mind) If the missile troops are arrayed in line, then things would be as Xenophon describes in Cyropaedia. That is, the armored infantry closing in for the melee would have the upper hand. This issue is in length discussed in this work as to how Cyrus the Great faced and conquered the Lydians of Croesus.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Posts: 14
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
Yeah, I see your point. They could seriously disperse order in any army with low discipline. I don't think that you could make missiles invisible but you could get pretty close. Arrows would be more affective for being invisible but sling stones would be harder hitting and could do more damage to a soldier. But both could be "invisible" if the shooters are unseen and coming from many places.
Posts: 25
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
Forgive my memory on this one, I'm at work and would have to check my source for the specifics. I believe it was in an article in an ancient warfare periodical this spring that I read about a Spartan army in tight formation being thoroughly defeated by lightly armed slingers & archers. The Spartans were unable to close ranks with their open and loose attackers who picked them apart from a short distance and ran whenever the Spartans charged. It was one of the first major battles we, or at least I, know of that forced a shift from predominantly or entirely phalanx based tight rank tactics into a more balanced army composition. Later one could say that the Romans capitalized on these and other lessons of light skirmishers and favored speed & mobility, evident by their often and liberal use of velites and cavalry, the use of which I would assume many of us could agree was essential to their militaristic success.
Anyone else familiar with the article I can't seem to recall all the details of? The issue had an oil painting of some ancient Mediterranean sea raiders with bronze scale caps on the cover.
Max Little
|
