The Sling: king of the missile weapons

[aligern]

Scuse me mate I am not about to drop my expensive and personally fitted bow and quiver and take up whirling a leather jock strap around my head....would be the archers' reply. Plus I cannot see why an archer who is presumably carrying bow and a full quiver is going to want to heft four  of kilos of  lead shot with him all the time he is shooting. If the archers could carry more then the archer captains would use that for extra arrows. If the sling requires training then that is time out from archery practice, or just maybe some hand to hand skills for defending walls.
So, no I would not see archers as being dual armed with slings:-))

Roy

[Nick Harbud]

With regard to just how effective slings, longbows or, indeed, any other ancient missile weapon might have been, it could be worth looking at the research into the performance of later weapons.  BP Hughes in his classic book "Firepower" examined the effectiveness of smoothbore muskets under ideal conditions (shooting at canvas screen) and compared it with reality. 

The attachment is the composite curve constructed by Hughes for the theoretical percentage of hits from a body of musketeers under ideal circumstances.  Yes, I know everyone will argue that ALL ancient weapons and their users were infinitely more accurate than a man with a Brown Bess.  One could adjust the curve left or right depending upon one's own prejudices, but that is not the point.  Consider a body of 4,000 musketeers discharging a volley at 30 paces - pretty much point blank range, even for a musket.  The graph shows that these 4,000 men might expect to cause roughly 3,000 casualties!  Pretty devastating stuff, but completely wide of the mark (sic).  During the British advance on Blenheim village, the French withheld their fire to deliver such a volley under clear conditions and caused...

...800 casualties! 

[Erpingham]

It is probably pretty axiomatic that no weapon achieves its theoretical lethality on a battlefield (well, conventional ones anyway).  The tricky bit is working out how far below par it falls

[Patrick Waterson]

And this involves a lot of human factors ...

... consider our French contingent at Blenheim.  How many of them aimed at the same target?  In fact, considering that musketry c.1700 was largely a matter of going through the poses and then pulling the dangly bit to make the flint spark, how many aimed at all?  Most lethality calculations assume 100% perfect fire distribution and fire discipline, whereas in real life we tend to get overkill when several missiles land on or in the same unfortunate person.

[Andreas Johansson]

Regarding the social factor, crossbows and handguns were variously denounced as being declassé, unchivalrous, cowardly, un-Christian, un-Islamic, etc - this didn't prevent their wide adoption. So I find it somewhat difficult to believe that social prejudice prevented the sling from achieving its full potential.

[aligern]

I don't know about that Andreas. The sling has associations with sheperding and a hill based lifestyle so I could well see archers and others viewing it as a  rather low tech weapon, good only for those Balearic sheep-********.

[Mick Hession]

I don't think the social status is the issue - crossbows and guns were adopted because it was easy to train men to use them effectively. It takes time to train a good slinger (time being one thing shepherds tend to have in quantity...).

Regards
Mick

[Patrick Waterson]

One might also note that in addition to being favoured by shepherds, who needed a cheap and readily portable 'equaliser' against wolves and other predators, slings tended to be the missile weapon of choice in windy hilly environments where javelins lacked range and bows lacked accuracy (and both got wet).

In terms of raw firepower my impression is that a good unit of archers could put out more 'weight of fire' than an equivalent unit of slingers, and could do so over a narrower frontage.  Hence while the individual slinger might be a more formidable missileman than the individual archer - as Xenophon's experiences would seem to suggest - massed slingers would not have the same impact as massed archers for reasons of individual space requirements and number of ranks able to shoot effectively.  This I would see as the main reason the sling remained on the fringes of missiledom, remaining in service with skirmishers throughout most of our period but being represented in the main line of battle only rarely.

[Andreas Johansson]

I don't know about that Andreas. The sling has associations with sheperding and a hill based lifestyle so I could well see archers and others viewing it as a  rather low tech weapon, good only for those Balearic sheep-********.

Had slings been battle-winners, I expect they'd soon enough rationalized a change of opinion.

Do we have any reason to assume, anyway, that an association with shepherds would be more damning than one with infidels (Mamluks accused Ottoman gunners of cheating by using "Christian" weapons against fellow Muslims) or generalized lower class knaves?

I've read a fair number of medieval quotes where knights and other worthies complain about how crossbows or firearms are unfair and socially disruptive because they allow the meanest knave to kill the bravest knight. There's a bit in Thucydides about a Spartan complaining that an arrow does not discriminate between men of honour and the other sort*. Did anyone object to slingshot on similar grounds? If slings suffered social stigmatization sufficient to prevent their widespread adoption despite great utility, we ought expect that they were denounced at least as vociferously as weapons that were widely adopted, oughtn't we?

I don't think the social status is the issue - crossbows and guns were adopted because it was easy to train men to use them effectively. It takes time to train a good slinger (time being one thing shepherds tend to have in quantity...).

It takes time to train a good archer too, which didn't stop it being done en masse in many places. This suggests to me that bows were generally felt more effective.


An aside here would be the Incas (and other Andeans?) who, IIUC, did field massed slingers (who weren't shepherds, for lack of sheep). They were aware of archery - tho perhaps only simple self-bows? - so something special apparently applied here to change the calculation. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about their warfare.


* The Athenian lights who pestered the Spartans - this is at Sphacteria - also included slingers, but, significantly or not, it's the arrows the Spartan chose to complain about.

[Nick Harbud]

It is probably pretty axiomatic that no weapon achieves its theoretical lethality on a battlefield (well, conventional ones anyway).  The tricky bit is working out how far below par it falls

Indeed.  For the full examination of this one should really read Hughes, but the fraction of shots hitting a line of men versus shots hitting a canvas screen is always pretty low. 

Furthermore, whilst one accepts that individuals with good weapons and matched missile sets can achieve some impressive accuracy, when one has a body of lower status archers, firing a job lot of livery arrows, whilst suffering the hideous after effects of dysentery, I suspect their performance might not be wildly different from later musketeers, who at least have a consistency to their aim engendered by the sergeant's halberd laid across the leveled barrels.

But I know people hold strong views on this subject...

[Erpingham]

Furthermore, whilst one accepts that individuals with good weapons and matched missile sets can achieve some impressive accuracy, when one has a body of lower status archers, firing a job lot of livery arrows, whilst suffering the hideous after effects of dysentery, I suspect their performance might not be wildly different from later musketeers, who at least have a consistency to their aim engendered by the sergeant's halberd laid across the leveled barrels.

But I know people hold strong views on this subject...

Yes, one advantage the musketeer has is more consistent weapon and ammunition (your comment on livery arrows is well made - the medieval English army had considerable problems with poor arrows and cheap arrowheads).  He also was usually not shooting at opponents with varying degrees of armour varying between fairly effective and almost invulnerable.   On the upside, many ancient missilemen had more practice.

[Jim Webster]

December 1940? 41 surely??
Roy

1941, correct.  Sorry about that.

In Ancient history we tend to be a bit casual to a year either way :-)

Jim

[Nick Harbud]

He also was usually not shooting at opponents with varying degrees of armour varying between fairly effective and almost invulnerable.   

Much effort has been expended on how much protection body armour offers to its wearer against the effect of arrows.  Some argue that this is a pointless (sic) exercise as the kinetic energy in a longbow arrow or crossbow bolt is generally greater than 80 Joules, which is reckoned to be quite enough to cause death from blunt force trauma.  However, such arguments disregard the capacity of some armours to dissipate the energy in the same manner as a modern flak jacket. 

Any search through modern literature will reveal that there has been much trawling of primary sources, non-destructive examination of surviving armour, occasionally destructive testing of the same and trials with replicas.  The end result is that protection appears to vary wildly.  Nevertheless, some common ground exists.

• Chain mail is easily penetrated.  It offers little protection unless provided in multiple layers and backed up by a good quality linen or cotton gambeson.
• The quality of plate armour was highly variable depending to a large extent on whether it had been fashioned from wrought iron, mild steel or properly hardened and tempered steel.  Good quality steel appears to have become available in small amounts from the 14th century and became widespread during the 15th century.
• The very best plate armour offered a large degree of protection against arrows, but even the best could be penetrated under good conditions.
• Brigantines, consisting of pieces of plate armour sewn into a cloth garment, offer almost as good protection as plate armour.
• The angle at which the arrow struck the armour is important.  Somewhere between 20° and 40° from the perpendicular will prevent penetration.
• Plate or brigantine armour would dissipate the missile's kinetic energy and provide protection against blunt force trauma.  Mail or lamellar armour would be much less effective at this.

What does this tell us we should do for our wargames rules?  In my view good quality body armour (that is, plate, brigantine or several layers of mail) should significantly reduce the effect of archery.  Lesser quality armour might also be considered, but not to anywhere near the same extent and one could consider disregarding it entirely.

Many of the arguments relating to body armour are also valid for that other protective measure, the shield.  Without going into detail on size, shape and construction methods, shield protection appears to be variable.  Whilst the very heavy shields carried by pavisiers would offer good protection, it would appear that most shields could be penetrated by an arrow hitting them squarely.   Coupled with this, it is commonly noted that the greater availability of quality plate armour during the later 14th and 15th centuries was one reason for the general abandonment of shields.

From a wargames rules perspective I would argue that missile rules should not consider shields (apart from pavises and similar) as a factor when calculating effect.

[Patrick Waterson]

Good points, Nick.

I would add that in the classical period the scutum/thureos should be considered as protection against archery, being fairly robust and covering much of the target; the aspis/hoplon also seems to have provided useful protection against arrows but all of these shields seem to have been penetrated by heavy javelins (pilum, spiculum, angon etc.) and hence provided no 'bonus' against same (even if the shield stopped the missile the user now had a very unbalanced shield which was more of a hindrance than a help).  Achilles' custom-made seven-layered shield was an exception but not everyone had access to his smith.

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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.

Interestingly one of the pieces of anecdotal evidence speaks of a Crusader having his shield pinned to his arm by a Saracen arrow - not much protection there!