The Sling: king of the missile weapons

[Mick Hession]

Shields were not simply passive obstacles to heavy javelins - they could also be used actively to parry, as at Mons Graupius:

   The Britons with equal steadiness and skill used their huge swords and small shields to avoid or to parry the missiles of our soldiers, 

The Irish poem Tain Bo Cuailgne describes the "shield-edge feat", which seems to have meant a similar parrying move.

Cheers
Mick 

[Erpingham]

In the mediaeval period arrows seem to have been heavier (at least decent longbow ones were) and to have struck with greater impact than their classical counterparts.  My impression is that mediaeval shields were also less robust and not so good at providing protection against missiles.  Hence for this era we might validly discard ordinary shield protection against missiles, although it seems worth retaining for the Crusades and perhaps for infantry kite-shield users generally.

This is a complicated one because shields changed quite a bit during the middle ages.  In the early middle ages, we are talking shields held at arms length with a handle behind the boss.  Pretty effective against an arrow or slingshot that hits if you hold it away from the body ( and you can move it around) .  But from the middle of the period, shields were strapped to the arm - this is presumably when an arrow goes through a shield into the arm.  Shields become smaller as time goes on and eventually disappear.  However, as ordinary shields get smaller we get the development of pavises and other big types.  There are several accounts of how good these were against missiles. 

[Andreas Johansson]

However, as ordinary shields get smaller we get the development of pavises and other big types.  There are several accounts of how good these were against missiles.

There are 15C claims that Bohemian pavises were proof against cannon. Unless pure hyperbole, one assumes the cannon concerned were of the lightest types.

[Nick Harbud]

Shields were not simply passive obstacles to heavy javelins - they could also be used actively to parry, as at Mons Graupius:

   The Britons with equal steadiness and skill used their huge swords and small shields to avoid or to parry the missiles of our soldiers, 

The Irish poem Tain Bo Cuailgne describes the "shield-edge feat", which seems to have meant a similar parrying move.

Cheers
Mick

Quite so!  I am more than taken by a Youtube video I watched of some Dark Age (Viking?) re-enactors using the shield, held quite loosely behind the boss, for blocking their opponent from using his own weapon whilst they went in with their own.  They had even determined such details as the optimum shield diameter to facilitate such use!

This, combined with the relatively low proportion of hits gained by any missile weapon, is leading me to the conclusion that most shields should be considered in wargames terms as a factor for melee, but not in protection against missiles.

Even where small/light shields are used against missiles, the technique appears to be deflection rather than absorption.

[Patrick Waterson]

This, combined with the relatively low proportion of hits gained by any missile weapon, is leading me to the conclusion that most shields should be considered in wargames terms as a factor for melee, but not in protection against missiles.

Even where small/light shields are used against missiles, the technique appears to be deflection rather than absorption.

Is our good Mr Harbud saying that the shield counts against missile hits, but as a means of reducing the number of hits rather than their effect?

[Nick Harbud]

Is our good Mr Harbud saying that the shield counts against missile hits, but as a means of reducing the number of hits rather than their effect?

No.  I am saying that, unless it is of the heavy pavise type, the target's shield should not be a factor when assessing the effect of missile fire on the unit's subsequent behaviour or performance.

[Erpingham]

Is our good Mr Harbud saying that the shield counts against missile hits, but as a means of reducing the number of hits rather than their effect?

No.  I am saying that, unless it is of the heavy pavise type, the target's shield should not be a factor when assessing the effect of missile fire on the unit's subsequent behaviour or performance.

Not sure I agree there.  For lots of troops, the only thing standing between them and a missile weapon is a sturdy shield.  If it didn't offer additional protection why lug it around?  If you look at a hoplite, for example, most of the body is behind the shield and hoplites (certainly in my view) didn't wave their shields around to deflect stuff - they were busy tucking in behind the shield of the guy on their right.

[aligern]

I am duly astonished. Shields are very good against most missiles. A shielded man is almost invulnerable to slings, arrows and javelins. Specially designed weapons such as pila are dangerous, but the evidence is that a pilum or angon unshields a man by leaving a long weapon hanging from the shield . Against arrows Caesar's one of  centurions at Dyrrachium had 100? arrows in his shield.
Longbows at close range or crossbow might make a difference, but the arrow still has to pierce the body armour. Also shields can be held at an angle which gives a sloped armour effect.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Against arrows Caesar's one of  centurions at Dyrrachium had 100? arrows in his shield.

Civil War III.53 - the centurion Scaeva had 120 arrow-marks in his shield: inventa sunt in eo foramina CXX, there were found 120 penetrations/marks/gashes in his shield.  All the men in that particular fort were wounded; 20 died.  Four centurions each lost an eye to an arrow.  A total of 30,000 arrows were collected from the fort, giving us a rare opportunity to quantify the effect of archery against men behind defences with shields up most of the time.

Had Scaeva not possessed a shield, how many of the 120 arrows would have ended up in him?  Quite a few, I am thinking.

[Nick Harbud]

Nothing above changes my view on the effectiveness or otherwise of shields.  I note the difference between lots of marks on the shields versus lots of arrows, etc, sticking into them.  The former supports my point that an arrow hitting at anything more than 20-40 degrees from perpendicular will be deflected.  This might apply to all bow fire directed from, say, more than 100m distance.

I thought I had made clear that I am not so much interested in casualties as effect on morale, etc, - particularly the ability of the target unit to carry through on an attack or hold its ground in the face of enemy missile fire.  In this respect, the shield is a minor factor compared to the ability of the shooters to hit their target or the opportunities they have to do so.  Research by modern archers indicates that a bowman might get off 3 shots at a charging cavalryman and up to 5 at a foot target, but the chances of a hit at the longer distances is minimal.  Pretty much all the effect comes from the closest shot, which as the Blenheim example earlier in this thread indicates, might only hit 20% of the time.  That sort of casualty rate did not discourage the attack at Blenheim and therefore, irrespective of whether one has a shield or not, it would probably not do so in antiquity.

[Erpingham]

This should really break off into another thread, as it is not really about slings anymore.  I will attempt to summarise and start said discussion.

[Dave Beatty]

Hi,

Just my two cents worth.  I hunted rabbits in Colorado with a sling made from the tongue and shoelaces of an old sneaker with great success.  I could routinely kill a stationary rabbit at 50 yards and could hit a man sized target at 150 yards.  Conversely, I currently hunt elk with a bow and would not attempt a shot beyond 50 yards.

In my view a key is kinetic energy.  How many foot-pounds of force can a sling generate versus a bow?  Kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared divided by 2.  In my sling as a kid, I used a fairly large stone, at least a pound in weight.  I have no idea of the velocity of the stone, but it was not very great - probably about 75-100 feet per second as it took about 3-4 seconds for my stone to hit at 100 yards.  The arrows I currently use are 125 grains on top of a carbon shaft with the entire arrow weighing about 275 grains for a total arrow weight of about .06 of a pound.  Initial speed of my arrow is about 280 feet per second.  Thus, my sling had a kinetic energy of 2812 foot-pounds and my bow only generates 2352 foot-pounds.  I think that English long bows fired heavier arrows at perhaps greater velocity with a resulting greater KE (an acquaintance has killed an elk at 65 yards with a longbow with a 100 pound pull).

In my experience, it was much easier to learn to use a sling than a bow.  So you thusly have a weapon with greater kinetic energy, longer effective range (at least in my personal experience), that is easier to learn to use.

Having said all that there is a reason I don't hunt elk with a sling - all I'd do is irritate the elk when I hit him!  Don't forget that even David had to kill Goliath with a sword - all the sling did was knock the big guy down!

Just sayin'.

[Jim Webster]

I actually went back to the Hebrew  http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa17.pdf

as you say, it doesn't say the stone killed him, just put a dent in his forehead, so I'd probably stay clear of the elk :-)

Jim

[Nick Harbud]

In my view a key is kinetic energy.  How many foot-pounds of force can a sling generate versus a bow?  Kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared divided by 2.  In my sling as a kid, I used a fairly large stone, at least a pound in weight.  I have no idea of the velocity of the stone, but it was not very great - probably about 75-100 feet per second as it took about 3-4 seconds for my stone to hit at 100 yards.  The arrows I currently use are 125 grains on top of a carbon shaft with the entire arrow weighing about 275 grains for a total arrow weight of about .06 of a pound.  Initial speed of my arrow is about 280 feet per second.  Thus, my sling had a kinetic energy of 2812 foot-pounds and my bow only generates 2352 foot-pounds.  I think that English long bows fired heavier arrows at perhaps greater velocity with a resulting greater KE (an acquaintance has killed an elk at 65 yards with a longbow with a 100 pound pull).

FWIW it is generally reckoned that 80J (don't ask me what that is in foot-pounds) is enough to kill a man from blunt force trauma.  (No idea what the equivalent figure is for an elk.)  Most longbow arrows shot with around 150lb pull can achieve this up to 200yds.  The weight of reconstructed longbow arrows varies from 1270 grains for short bodkins up to 1925 grains for a quarrel-type bodkin.

[Erpingham]

FWIW it is generally reckoned that 80J (don't ask me what that is in foot-pounds) is enough to kill a man from blunt force trauma.  (No idea what the equivalent figure is for an elk.)  Most longbow arrows shot with around 150lb pull can achieve this up to 200yds. 

This figure is taken from the technical appendix to Great Warbow and, I think, does have some problems (for me anyway).  The actual quote is :

It is usually considered that a penetrative impact delivering 80J of energy on an unprotected person is likely to be lethal (clearly the the part of the body hit will affect the outcome to some extent)

The figure is actually related to a penetrative injury, and it depends on where the target is hit.  The figure is oft quoted as the force of an arrow hitting will be lethal regardless (blunt force trauma) but maybe it is more the force needed to actually penetrate deeply enough to do serious damage?

There is probably more to be done on blunt force trauma and armour i.e. the effect of a non-penetrating or slightly penetrating blow on the insides of a human.  As modern soldiers wear armour again, I wouldn't be surprised if there are studies and methodologies out there.