This article (http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling) has considerably revised my opinion of the ancient and mediaeval sling. A trained and experienced slinger was deadlier than a javelineer, archer, crossbowman and even musketeer. The trouble was finding one. It is about the hardest missile weapon to learn to use well.
I wonder if we haven't underestimated the power of slingers in many standard rulesets.
Not really, Edward the First, for example has slingers and archers in his armies against the Scots, yet we do not see the English Slinger dominating European warfare. In theory slingers do not need more training than archers because, in warfare, they are aiming at a very large target. Armies such as the Roman or better still the Byzantine could have had a major training programmefor slingers, but they stick to bows in battle, though I think that Vegetius has Roman legionaries trained in its use.
Perhaps its major problem is overhead shooting which means that archers can mass a dense fire against a target, but which must be much harder for slingers. Of course slingers could shoot overhead, but I suppose that they cannot shoot at a high angle to gain power from a dropping shot?
Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 04, 2013, 12:37:26 PM
I wonder if we haven't underestimated the power of slingers in many standard rulesets.
Roy makes good points - slings were about so there were opportunities to train elite units of slingers that would sweep their enemies from the field in the late Roman through to medieval but it didn't happen. There may, of course, be good reasons but an obvious one is that they weren't considered effective enough to make the effort.
Also, perhaps rule writers err on the side of caution in this case to avoid a superweapon? Better to strike a happy medium and boost certain specialists with extra bonuses when they can be historically justified, perhaps.
From what I have read it appears the English longbow ceased to the be the principal arm of the late Mediaeval English army not primarily because of any inherent defects - plate armour notwithstanding - but simply because the English yeoman was not longer prepared to devote the time and effort necessary to become skilled in its use (and strong enough to use it). Much the same thing seems to have happened to the sling.
Add to that the impossibility of creating massed slinger fire. Individual slingers needed plenty of room. I don't know enough about the mechanics of slinging, but it seems overhead fire was not practicable. It could never be more than a skirmish weapon, nonetheless a weapon superior to other kinds of skirmish weapons. Slingers perhaps need to have the most devastating effect of all skirmisher class troops.
Aha, we have the longbow. debate again!
The longbows found on the Mary Rose are apparently as high a draw weight as anything that went before. That looks as though archers in the mid 16th century were as good as their forbears.
Armour does affect longbow arrow penetration. Fully armoured French knights on foot. are all but impervious to their arrows, though there will be an. effect from multiple high energy impacts.
I rather suspect that the longbow died out because it was militatily ineffective rather than that its demise was social. After all, the longbow was cheap and the bowmen trained themselves so from the king's point of view they were very cost effective, they just were not as militarily effective as they once were.
At the risk of being out of my depth in the XVth century, my reading of the battles in France is that the longbowmen often fought hand to hand with sword and buckler or a polearm after using the bow, so at Castillon, for example they are part of a force that makes. repeated assaults on the French camp.
Reading about Poitiers, the longbow there do not mow down the French, they degrade them, but the French footmen still get through and melee repeatedly.
At Najera the Spanish deployed slingers, possibly specifically against the English bowmen. They were very likely unarmoured and thus an excellent target for the bowmen, but the sling missiles themselves were nasty.
if the sling is so effective why don't the Andean slingers take down the horses of the Conquistadors? There are relatively few horses and presumably many slingers. Just because a writer , wanting to exaggerate the opposition, tells us that a slinger could take down a horse, does not mean that that was a frequent or even likely event.
As a comparator, I could, potentially, shoot down a member of the SAS with a Lee Enfield. However, in one on one combat in real terrain my chances of survival would be one in a thousand. If I did manage to get a shot in and killed the opponent then that could be written up as A 60 year old shooting an SAS man with 60 year old rifle thus proving that an army of pensioners with antique weapons would be a viable defence strategy for Britain!
Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 04, 2013, 09:50:13 PM
From what I have read it appears the English longbow ceased to the be the principal arm of the late Mediaeval English army not primarily because of any inherent defects - plate armour notwithstanding - but simply because the English yeoman was not longer prepared to devote the time and effort necessary to become skilled in its use (and strong enough to use it). Much the same thing seems to have happened to the sling.
Bit confused at this point because I'm not sure if the argument covers all slingers or only medieval ones as per original article. Your argument may have merit in the ancient world to explain why elite slingers like those from the Balearics didn't dominate and eventually died out but I don't know we have any records of elite slingers in the Middle Ages. The few mercenary slingers I've come across appear to be staff slingers (very useful in sieges). Also, do we know if metal sling bullets were used after classical times?
QuoteSlingers perhaps need to have the most devastating effect of all skirmisher class troops.
I think we need a bit more evidence on this. They may shoot further than we sometimes allow (doesn't Xenophon say his slingers outranged the Persian archers?) but we would need to factor in skills, ammunition type etc. It's a bit like archery - we separate composite, longbow, ordinary self bow - do we need a more sophisticated sub-division of slingers to allow specialists to be more effective than random conscripted shepherds (though some of them could be devastating against very tall opponents :) ).
Those interested in investigating more about the sling may care to check article author Chris Harrison's slinging website (http://slinging.org/), which has both historical notes (albeit mostly just from Classical times onwards) and modern experimental evidence, including another copy of the article Justin drew attention to.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 05, 2013, 09:31:54 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 04, 2013, 09:50:13 PM
From what I have read it appears the English longbow ceased to the be the principal arm of the late Mediaeval English army not primarily because of any inherent defects - plate armour notwithstanding - but simply because the English yeoman was not longer prepared to devote the time and effort necessary to become skilled in its use (and strong enough to use it). Much the same thing seems to have happened to the sling.
Bit confused at this point because I'm not sure if the argument covers all slingers or only medieval ones as per original article. Your argument may have merit in the ancient world to explain why elite slingers like those from the Balearics didn't dominate and eventually died out but I don't know we have any records of elite slingers in the Middle Ages. The few mercenary slingers I've come across appear to be staff slingers (very useful in sieges). Also, do we know if metal sling bullets were used after classical times?
Sorry, I was thinking of the extinction of elite slingers in Antiquity. One needed to train with the sling from childhood to become really good with it, and as Chris Harrison points out there is an enormous difference between the effect of a skiller slinger and an unskilled one.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 05, 2013, 09:31:54 AMQuoteSlingers perhaps need to have the most devastating effect of all skirmisher class troops.
I think we need a bit more evidence on this. They may shoot further than we sometimes allow (doesn't Xenophon say his slingers outranged the Persian archers?) but we would need to factor in skills, ammunition type etc. It's a bit like archery - we separate composite, longbow, ordinary self bow - do we need a more sophisticated sub-division of slingers to allow specialists to be more effective than random conscripted shepherds (though some of them could be devastating against very tall opponents :) ).
We probably do need more differentiation. A force of Balearic slingers should be a very different proposition to a band of poorly-trained conscripts, presuming anyone could be trained to use a sling within a short space of time.
Quote from: aligern on October 04, 2013, 10:39:30 PM
Reading about Poitiers, the longbow there do not mow down the French, they degrade them, but the French footmen still get through and melee repeatedly.
Interesting observation: I have come to the conclusion that against troops with any degree of effective protection the main effect of shooting was to slow them down and possibly also disorganise them, casualties being almost incidental but rising appreciably once disorganisation passed a certain threshold. Unprotected targets seemed to go through to the appreciable losses stage a lot faster.
Quote
At Najera the Spanish deployed slingers, possibly specifically against the English bowmen. They were very likely unarmoured and thus an excellent target for the bowmen, but the sling missiles themselves were nasty.
The Spanish slingers may have been skirmishing types or the staff slingers who seem on occasion to have taken the place of archers as shooting ranks in a mixed formation. Either way they would have lacked the depth, density and rapidity of shooting (and instantaneous fire control) of the English archers, so that while at certain ranges an individual slinger could do more damage than an archer and just as accurately* collectively, as Justin points out, it was hard to get slingers into effective massed shooting units, although the medieval Portuguese seem to have tried.
*In one of the earlier Slingshots (not sure which) is an article on Balearic slingers, which points out that they had not one but three slings: one for shooting at long range, one at medium and one at short - and they used different ammunition at each range. I do not remember what was used at long range (perhaps small stones), but at medium range they used metal bullets and at close range big stones which were very damaging indeed.
Quote from: aligern on October 05, 2013, 09:20:57 AM
If the sling is so effective why don't the Andean slingers take down the horses of the Conquistadors?
When they had the chance, they did. However it seems that the Incas used comparatively small stones as ammunition (when you are slinging away for an afternoon at high altitude you want a fair supply of ammunition as breaking off to get more is not an option, and small stones are not only easier to carry plenty of but also take less effort to sling than large ones) - these were perfectly adequate against fabric-clad tribal opponents but bounced off Spanish armour at anything more than point-blank range. The Spanish referred to the Inca slingers as 'mosquitoes' in respect of the number and limited effect of their missiles (though took care not to expose horses to them needlessly), but would have sung a different tune if the Incas had used Balearic-style ammunition.
One point to note is that ammunition really matters for a slinger: if one has a powerful and well-organised empire, or a traditional and practising culture, behind one, then one tends to get good ammunition ('good' meaning effective against all known opponents). If one is just one of a band of wolf-scarers brought along to plump out the ranks of an army, one is lucky to get any at all and will probably have to improvise, with mediocre results. If coming up against a new and invulnerable opponent one is is trouble. Being able to select a few decent rounds can make all the difference, especially (as Anthony has reminded us) in a duel with a significantly more sizable opponent. (There could also be considerable career opportunities. ;D)
Quote
As a comparator, I could, potentially, shoot down a member of the SAS with a Lee Enfield. However, in one on one combat in real terrain my chances of survival would be one in a thousand. If I did manage to get a shot in and killed the opponent then that could be written up as A 60 year old shooting an SAS man with 60 year old rifle thus proving that an army of pensioners with antique weapons would be a viable defence strategy for Britain!
Roy
This puts me in mind of the defence of the power station at Hong Kong on the 18th-19th December 1940, held by the Hughes group of a few dozen "men of 55 or over who felt the call to duty though they themselves were outside the terms of the Compulsory Service Act". They and their Lee Enfields held the station against a battalion of crack Japanese assault troops of the 38th Division (who in terms of experience and fieldcraft could have given the SAS a run for their money) for at least six hours.
Let us not despise Britain's triarii. :)
December 1940? 41 surely??
Roy
I liked the way that WRG 6th dealt with the sling. Basically, it counted effect as a short-ranged longbow, if I remember correctly. So relative range limitation and the fact that it had to be used by open order infantry made it quite powerful, but not overly so - certainly better than open order archers or javelinmen. There may well be scope for doing something like this for trained slingers such as the Balearics or Rhodians, but not for the majority, who might just be counted as equivalent to skirmish bowmen; this latter option is how Tactica and perhaps Armati deal with them. It might be the same for other rulesets.
Quote from: aligern on October 07, 2013, 01:05:24 PM
December 1940? 41 surely??
Roy
1941, correct. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Paul Innes on October 07, 2013, 01:50:04 PM
I liked the way that WRG 6th dealt with the sling. Basically, it counted effect as a short-ranged longbow, if I remember correctly. So relative range limitation and the fact that it had to be used by open order infantry made it quite powerful, but not overly so - certainly better than open order archers or javelinmen. There may well be scope for doing something like this for trained slingers such as the Balearics or Rhodians, but not for the majority, who might just be counted as equivalent to skirmish bowmen; this latter option is how Tactica and perhaps Armati deal with them. It might be the same for other rulesets.
Yes, the sling and longbow used the same factors, but the longbow had a range of 280 paces and the sling 120 paces. However - and this was a rather nice finesse - the short range of all bows (including longbows) was 80 paces and the short range of the sling was 120 paces, so when you could shoot with a sling it shot at full effect and slightly outranged the best (i.e. short) range of any bow. This was very handy for a WRG 6th or 7th Inca army ... :)
There was an interesting article in, I think, Ancient Warfare magazine some time ago about slings and slingers. There appears to be 2 basic methods known as 'mortar' and 'pistol' within the article. Mortar involves hefting a large stone in an arc to come down on top of your foe. Pistol involves a flatter trajectory with a smaller stone or cast metal bullet. They involved 2 different types of sling, the mortar sling being more robust/heavy duty.
The slingers would vary what they fired, so half the unit would fire mortar and half would fire pistol. As the foe raised their shields overhead to fend off the mortar barrage the pistols would have a good target. As the foe drop their shield forward to protect against the pistols then the mortars would rain down!
This worked well until troops got better armoured. Head projection would make the likelihood of a "kill shot" very small. Any warrior wearing a helm, chain mail and a shield would be all but impervious against slingers (but not able to ignore them). Any mounted troops, whose horses where not armoured, and similarly lightly armoured troops could still take a mauling from a unit of slingers.
And of course, a sling is easy to carry. Nothing to stop your archers becoming slingers once the arrows run out!
Dave
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
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! :o
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 :)
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.
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.
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-********.
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
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.
Quote from: aligern on November 12, 2013, 10:19:21 AM
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?
Quote from: Mick Hession on November 12, 2013, 10:28:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 11, 2013, 06:44:08 PM
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...
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 12, 2013, 03:33:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 07, 2013, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: aligern on October 07, 2013, 01:05:24 PM
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
Quote from: Erpingham on November 12, 2013, 06:26:07 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 13, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
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!
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
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 13, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 14, 2013, 05:28:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Mick Hession on November 14, 2013, 03:56:26 PM
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.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 15, 2013, 10:58:58 AM
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?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 15, 2013, 11:14:46 AM
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.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 15, 2013, 12:04:28 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 15, 2013, 11:14:46 AM
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.
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
Quote from: aligern on November 15, 2013, 06:56:25 PM
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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
Quote from: Dave Beatty on November 25, 2013, 07:33:56 AM
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.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 25, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
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.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 25, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
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.
1 foot pound is equivalent to1.3558179483314 joules
Conversely, 1 joule = 0.737562149277 foot pounds
Hence 80 joules equates to 59 foot pounds - so a 'blunt force trauma instrument' should deliver at least 60 ft lbs (or 81.35 joules) at impact - more if the opponent happens to be a Philistine with Anakim heritage. ;)
Quote from: Erpingham on November 25, 2013, 05:34:56 PM
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.
Other people quote this - Secrets of the English Longbow uses it as do any number of TV documentaries. Wikipedia has an entry for those interested in this gruesome subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_force_trauma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_force_trauma). Also this fascinating article on modern protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest) Incidentally, I agree with Tony that most people using the 80J figure tend to ignore the effect of body protection.
An important part of modern (ballistics-related) calculation of the force necessary to wound or kill is the hydrostatic shock (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock) aspect. Hydrostatic shock creates secondary disruption to tissues and internal organs by pressure wave action and fluid displacement (hence 'hydro-static'). One may note that the figure of 300 foot-pounds (410 joules) is regarded as the effective minimum to produce disabling effects and 500 foot pounds (680 joules) is recommended to be reasonably sure.
Slow-moving torsion-propelled rounds (arrows, slingshot) tend not to have hydrostatic shock effect as it depends upon propagation of waves of a certain frequency and energy level. Slow-moving gunpowder rounds (from pre-1800 black powder weapons) also tended to rely on direct impact rather than secondary effects for a kill. Such rounds were much heavier than their modern counterparts for this reason (sling bullets and musket balls seemed to coalesce weight-wise around the ounce).
I suspect the figure of 80 joules (59 foot pounds) may be more along the lines of the minimum force required to get a missile from initial skin penetration into an artery or internal organ - anything less and it will perhaps stop part-way.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 26, 2013, 08:09:11 PM
I suspect the figure of 80 joules (59 foot pounds) may be more along the lines of the minimum force required to get a missile from initial skin penetration into an artery or internal organ - anything less and it will perhaps stop part-way.
I would sure about 80J being so puny. I mean, it is the equivalent of 1kg dropped from 8m, which is quite enough to kill someone or at least seriously incapacitate them. However, as Tony points out, it needs to hit the right spot.
The issue I have with the 80J thing is how it is sort of a mantra. As Nick says, a quick thought experiment shows that a 1kg rock falling from 8m could kill you if it fell on your head. If it fell on your foot it would probably disable you. So it isn't the shock of a certain force hitting you that causes death, it what happens to your body on impact. Also, arrows tend to cause sharp force not blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma from arrows is more likely to be an issue if the target has armour on, and that is no easy calculation (it is essentially about what happens to the energy - how much goes into breaking the armour, how quickly the arrow strike energy is absorbed (elasticity/plasticity), over how wide an area the point impact energy of the arrow is spread/diffused by the armour).
But to return to the sling for a moment, we are much more dealing with blunt force trauma. There are some fun things to be said about big slingshots versus sling bullets (KE is a square function of speed, so smaller bullets could do more more damage if they travelled significantly faster, the impact area of a small bullet may be more efficient at transfering blunt force etc.).
It is an interesting question whether we should maintain this discussion of weapon trauma and ballistics here or split out - what do folks think?
If it grows, specifically beyond the effectiveness of slings, we split it. If it subsides, or remains sling-oriented, we keep it here. :)
Lacking the refinements of modern physics, classical military thinkers settled for looking at effects (which they were in a better position to do than we are) and seem to have decided that slings were more effective than other missile types against armour, having noticed that non-penetrating sling wounds nevertheless occasionally (or perhaps often) put a man down.
I understand that Balearic slingers used small stones for long range shots, lead bullets for medium range shots and large stones for close range shots (and had a different sling for each range, wrapping those not in use about their waist and head). Incas seem to have been satisfied with small stones for general use (then again, until the Spanish arrived, metal-armoured opponents were not a fact of life). On this basis we might presume that small stones have the best travelling capability and enough force when arriving at the end of a long flight to cause harm, while lead bullets do more (and/or better, from the shooter's point of view) damage in their optimum range bracket, but nothing beats a good, big stone for sheer knockdown capability.
The next question would be: can we validate (or challenge) these presumptions? And how do they fit with blunt force trauma energy considerations? (One might note in passing that sling bullets seem to have had good penetration against unarmoured opponents.)
Quote from: Erpingham on November 27, 2013, 04:43:24 PM
But to return to the sling for a moment, we are much more dealing with blunt force trauma. There are some fun things to be said about big slingshots versus sling bullets (KE is a square function of speed, so smaller bullets could do more more damage if they travelled significantly faster, the impact area of a small bullet may be more efficient at transfering blunt force etc.).
FWIW, when I was looking at trebuchet and early bombard ballistics a few years ago it was fairly obvious that although medieval artillerists did not have the understanding of Newton, they were aware that increasing either projectile speed or mass could increase the effect on the target. With trebuchets and other mechanically propelled weapons, the energy that can be imparted is limited by the counterweight, stretched sinews or whatever else one uses and there is a fairly low limit to the velocity that can be achieved, no matter how light one makes the projectile - typically somewhere in region of 60-100m/s. Therefore the only way to increase the punch was to increase projectile mass. There was also a limit to how large one could make the projectile, based on the strength of the catapult construction materials and the ability of the crew to manhandle the ammunition - around 150kg.
Early gunpowder changed this only somewhat. Partly this was because the early gunpowder did not burn as well as later preparations and partly it was due to the early gun founders inability to cast cannon that would withstand high pressure. Again, the artillerists resorted to low velocity, high mass bombardments. Somewhere around the middle of the 15th century gunpowder mixtures, gun manufacture and experimentation all caught up with each other and gunners realised they could achieve the desired effect with smaller cannon balls shot at a higher velocity.
Incidentally, the force exerted by an impact is equal to the rate of change of momentum (m*v/t). The stress exerted is equal to the force divided by the area. Projectile area increases in accordance with the diameter squared, whereas the mass increases according to diameter cubed.
I have an article from Scientific American on the sling as a weapon. If I remember correctly, the article if from the late seventy's. I haven't read it in years and had forgotten about it until this discussion started up. The file is to large to attach to this post, but if anyone is interested, I will be glad to e-mail it to you.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on November 28, 2013, 11:24:46 PM
I have an article from Scientific American on the sling as a weapon. If I remember correctly, the article if from the late seventy's. I haven't read it in years and had forgotten about it until this discussion started up. The file is to large to attach to this post, but if anyone is interested, I will be glad to e-mail it to you.
Unless you have checked the position with respect to the magazine's or the author's copyright it is probably as well not to reproduce it on a forum like this. The 1970's is a bit early for such publication's on-line archives, but you never know. Have you tried contacting Scientific American to see what the score is?
Failing that, is it possible for you to summarize the article here?
chuck, you can happily quote chunks for the purposes of research and review.
Most interesting to see the conclusions.
Roy
I'd guess from a quick google that the article in question is Korfmann's from 1973. I wasn't able to find that online but did find this which might be of interest :
http://www.academia.edu/176644/New_Experimental_Data_on_the_Distance_of_Sling_Projectiles
Possibly of interest wrt kinetic energy: Bert S. Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe (p145) describes a test in which a early modern pistol was fired at a 16C breastplate from 8.5 m range. The calculated impact energy was 907 J (so more than eleven times the supposed "blunt force trauma" lethality threshold). The bullet did penetrate the breastplate, but in doing so expended practically all it's energy, failing to penetrate the linen beneath. The investigators concluded that a man wearing the breastplace would not have been killed or seriously injured, but merely bruised.
The original citation is:
Kalaus, P. "Schießversuche mit historischen Feuerwaffen des Landeszeughauses Graz und der Prüf- und Versuchsstelle für Waffen und Munitionen des Amtes für Wehrtechnik." In Von alten Handfeuerwaffen: Entwicklung, Technik, Leistung ed. Peter Krenn, 41-113. Veröffentlichungen des Landeszeughauses Graz, 12. Graz: Landesmuseum Johanneum, 1989.
Mea culpa. I didn't even think about copyright and I know better. It appears that old timers disease is worse than I thought. :-\
Quote from: Erpingham on November 29, 2013, 07:22:24 PM
I'd guess from a quick google that the article in question is Korfmann's from 1973.
Yes it is Korfmann's article. It's older than I thought.
I'll read the article and post a summary here in the next couple of days. I'm still recovering from Thanksgiving; clean up, food coma, etc. :)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 29, 2013, 09:24:41 PM
Possibly of interest wrt kinetic energy: Bert S. Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe (p145) describes a test in which a early modern pistol was fired at a 16C breastplate from 8.5 m range. The calculated impact energy was 907 J (so more than eleven times the supposed "blunt force trauma" lethality threshold). The bullet did penetrate the breastplate, but in doing so expended practically all it's energy, failing to penetrate the linen beneath. The investigators concluded that a man wearing the breastplace would not have been killed or seriously injured, but merely bruised.
I would agree with investigators on this one. I can say from personal experience that being shot with an AK-47 at long range (1000 yards or so) the bullet did not penetrate my old Vietnam issue flak jacket but it sure did knock me on my ass and leave a nasty bruise over most of my chest. In a different engagement, a colleague was shot in the head at close range (20 yards) by an AK-47 and the bullet did not penetrate his new fangled Kevlar helmet (this was in Grenada in 1983). The kid's helmet went flying but he was entirely uninjured. The helmet (complete with 7.62 bullet lodged therein) is in the museum at Ft Bragg last I saw it.
Quote from: Dave Beatty on December 03, 2013, 01:16:07 PM
I would agree with investigators on this one. I can say from personal experience that being shot with an AK-47 at long range (1000 yards or so) the bullet did not penetrate my old Vietnam issue flak jacket but it sure did knock me on my ass and leave a nasty bruise over most of my chest.
Dave, I am surprised anyone could hit a target with an AK47 at 1,000 yards or so. Are you sure it was not a Dragunov (SVD-63) sniper rifle? Those things were pretty accurate and I suspect that Charlie was aiming for your head but thankfully failed to allow for bullet drop.
Muzzle velocity on an SVD is about 830 m/s compared with the AK-47's 715 m/s, this being from a 7.62x54mm cartridge instead of 7.62x39mm. Not sure what the impact energy would be at 1,000 yards but the word 'considerable' comes to mind.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 29, 2013, 07:22:24 PM
I'd guess from a quick google that the article in question is Korfmann's from 1973. I wasn't able to find that online but did find this which might be of interest :
http://www.academia.edu/176644/New_Experimental_Data_on_the_Distance_of_Sling_Projectiles
Yes, of particular interest is this snippet from the conclusion:
"
The previous maximum downslope distance model very significantly underestimates the range that an experienced adult male slinger can cast stones."
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 04, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
Dave, I am surprised anyone could hit a target with an AK47 at 1,000 yards or so. Are you sure it was not a Dragunov (SVD-63) sniper rifle?
Be fair patrick - asking the guy what weapon he was using probably wasn't a priority on having been hit in a fire fight :)
Quote from: Erpingham on December 04, 2013, 05:12:19 PM
Be fair patrick - asking the guy what weapon he was using probably wasn't a priority on having been hit in a fire fight :)
It can matter, though: "Do you realise you should have had a +1 on that last roll?" ;)
It was definitely an AK. The poor dumb dude just emptied a whole clip in my general direction and scored the proverbial golden BB hit. What he didn't know was that I had two US Navy A-7s on high CAP with 1200 rounds of 20mm and 24 cans of MK-20 Rockeye and I called them in on his position which was about a klick away (as measured on the tourist map I was using). When the mortuary affairs guys investigated what was left of the building a day or so later they pulled 8 bodies and 8 AKs out of the rubble. So it was definitely an AK. Plus I still have the bullet which was lodged in my flak jacket and it looks like a 39. I actually have an old Mosin Nagant that I sometimes hunt with and it shoots a 7.65x54 so do have something to compare it with. BTW, it wasn't Mister Charles, it was some poor unlucky Cuban down in Grenada in October, 1983.
Thanks, Dave - it just never crossed my Brit-trained mind that someone would loose off a whole clip at 1,000 yards.
Good call with the strike, by the way. :)
I apologize for the delay in posting the information from the Manfred Korfman's 1973 Scientific American article on the sling. Life, work and family matters have consumed me over the last month. The article is a general survey of the sling in history and does not have any footnotes or references listed. There is very little information of use to the gamer on the use of the sling.
For the range of the sling, Korfman quotes Xenophon's speech to the 10,000 that the Rhodian slingers had double the range of the Persian slingers due to the use of lead missiles by the Rhodians as opposed to the large stones used by the Persian slingers. Korfman quotes Xenophon as saying the Rhodian slingers outrange the Persian archers.
Korfman further states, "On the basis of Xenophon's comment alone, it seems probable that a slinger casting lead missiles could attain a range in excess of 400 meters."
Korfman also quotes Vegetius description of biconical sling missiles being deadlier than arrows against leather armor. Vegetius claims that even if the sling missile didn't penetrate the armor, it would cause a fatal internal injury.
Korfman uses an incident from Thucydides to demonstrate the effectiveness of slingers. When the Acarnanians district was invaded, they harassed the invaders with a hail of missiles at long range with the result, "it was not possible for [the invaders] to stir without armor."
Korfman describes two methods of launching a missile from the hand sling (funda in Latin). In the first, the slinger whirls the sling in a semi-horizontal motion around his head before releasing the missile. In the second method, the slinger whirls the sling in a vertical plane parallel to his body before launching the missile. The second method would result in a high angle trajectory.
That's all the information that I found that might be useful to a gamer. If you have any questions, I will be glad to try to answer them.
Thanks, Chuck.
Xenophon's coment is:
"For the rest of the day the one army continued its march and the other its pursuit. And the barbarians were no longer9 able to do any harm by their skirmishing at long range; for the Rhodian slingers carried farther with their missiles than the Persians, farther even than the Persian bowmen. [17] The Persian bows are also large, and consequently the Cretans could make good use of all the arrows that fell into their hands; in fact, they were continually using the enemy's arrows, and practised themselves in long-range work by shooting them into the air. In the villages, furthermore, the Greeks found gut in abundance and lead for the use of their slingers." - Anabasis III.4.16-17
The Greek actually has the Rhodians outrange "ton Person esphenodon kai ton toxoton", i.e. the Persian slingers and archers. The 'lead for the use of [Greek] slingers' almost certainly explains why, although the Rhodians may have employed a different model of sling and a different technique to gain extra range.
One may note in passing how the Cretans "were continually using the enemy's arrows, and practised themselves in long-range work by shooting them into the air", indicating that they were familiar with indirect shooting.