I think it's important to note that sling stones vary in weight and mass. Xenophon writes that the Persians used sling stones that encompassed a hand's width, but were used at a shorter range, compared to a Grecian slinger.
I read somewhere that the Balearic slingers often carried multiple slings of different lengths, meant for throwing different size stones. They first threw smaller projectiles, and as the enemy got closer switched to larger projectiles.
for folks who think medieval bows were the reason why it replaced sling, that is a very narrow view focused on 200 years of english archery history and is mostly irrelevant to why sling was phased out during the "dark ages"
In his Bronze Scythian Arrows short, the lightness of arrows is explained. Meaning that they must have used lighter bows. There's also the shorter Greek draw length to the breast, with a short bow. The sling could possibly have competed with bows because the Classical standards for killing power were lower compared to later Medieval times.
Technically speaking... Slings are actually somewhat relevant to English Archery... Why? In English armies of the 12-13th and early 14th Centuries in Scottish military campaigns, Slingers and Archers were often working side-by-side. Slingers and Warbow archers were literally bros :P
The thing, the sling wasn't phased during the dark ages in all of Europe. Slingers continued to see widespread mass use in Spain through the 14th century & even again the second half the 16th century during the 2nd Rebellion of the Alpujarras. Slingers also appear in medieval art from various parts of Europe. I suspect they could have been much more common than we realize. For instances, some of the innumerable accounts of folks hurling stones may have involved slings.
Thank you for this. For anyone interested in Medieval warfare I hotly recommend Schwerpunkt's videos series. He does a lot about arms and armor and often answers the audience's questions. He's a PhD in Medieval warfare and he gets pretty thoroughly in all these issues
The medieval slings became mini-trebuchets as they starting attaching the sling to a stick or in larger cases a staff aka the sling staff but I’ll always love the classic aesthetic. I’d love to see you use a sling staff
One thing you did miss is alternative slinging styles. Greek style (single rotation overhead) or whatever you like to call it was most likely used by many non-lifetime slingers. I did test it myself and in less than 10 hours over a span of a few weeks I achieved very decent accuracy (reliably hitting ISSF pistol target at 25m). It is also very fast by comparison to Balearic style, but not as versatile or powerful. Big factor with sling is that while you can in theory use random similarly sized stones, this is not conductive to accuracy and for that reason many ancient slingers would have used uniform clay or lead projectiles.
If we take into account that slings seem to only be very popular among ethnic groups that are very often herders, and among insular nations of Oceania, it paints a picture that slings relevancy is largely maintained by populations of very specialized people who's way of life require a weapon like the sling for more than just war, or alternatively, serves as a range weapon in areas where the bow was yet unknown. To me it speaks volume that all over the world, the bow, crossbow and even spearthrower dominate the sling in popularity, exept among populations that are unaware of other range weapons, or herders (like andean incas for exemple).
A sling can be used as a backup weapon for a hunter. It costs next to nothing and is almost weightless. That's an advantage bows and crossbows don't share. Personally I carry a sling with me when I go hunting, mostly as an incentive to practice slinging. Occasionally I use javelins I make on the spot when my shotgun is blocked.
its also just very fun to use while your bored and can throw ammo that cost nothing@@AggelosKyriou dont forget the sling can be used as a backup bowstring
The thing is, multiple 16th-century accounts say skilled slingers perform almost like arquebusiers. The sling was a dangerous weapon in the 16th century, even it wasn't better than other options. It wasn't potent enough to compel folks to put in the effort to use it well, but skilled slingers consistently impressed observers.
@@HistoricalWeapons Where is what located? The sources I'm thinking of are Alonso Enríquez de Guzmán, Luis del Mármol, & whoever described the slingers at the siege of Sancerre as arquebusiers.
What you're saying here is basically correct: for skirmishing, especially from cover, a crossbow has huge advantages over a sling. For most of the medieval period, most crossbows required strength to span for maximum effect - just like bows. There were certain kinds of crossbows that could be spanned in ways that didn't require much strength or allow multiple people to combine their forces, but many military crossbows continued to be spanned from the belt into the early 15th century. Goat's-foot levers, which also require strength, remained popular until the last days of the crossbow's military service in Europe. So a person with only a week of training would shoot a weak crossbow unless they were unusually gifted. However, they still probably would perform better than a slinger with a year of training, though maybe not against armored targets. It's worth noting that slingers saw mass use in Spain through at least the 14th century, & some massed use again during at least the 2nd Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568-1571). Slingers in Peru & Mexico likewise impressed Spaniards in the 16th century. Multiple accounts say the sling performed kind of like an arquebus. The weight of the evidence suggests to me that the sling was generally somewhat worse overall than other ranged options in medieval & Renaissance Europe, but that skilled slingers remained dangerous even if they weren't quite a match to other quality ranged troops like archers & arquebusiers.
Excellent presentation sir. I agree with your historical premise that tactics, weapons, armor and cultural changes caused the sling as a weapon to fall out of use. I look forward to your next video posting.
As a slinger: they do take a shit ton of training to be accurate with. Fire rate on par with archers,but much more versatile. Ie you can lob fist size stones ,breaking heavy infatry necks with it at 70m or put holes in light infatry,and horsemen at 400m.
It seems unlikely that light infantry would be in tight enough formation to hit at 400m. Sources do support the idea that slingers using heavy projectiles were dangerous to heavy infantry at close range.
I think that 400m would be a range at which you'd be trying to dissuade cavalry from making nice formations to come charge you with. I personally have never managed to throw quite that far. My best throws were around 315m with a very long sling (the pouch was almost on the ground with the sling held at shoulder length). At the same point in my life I was quite good at achieving 200m with a sling that went from the knuckles of the throwing hand to the opposite shoulder, and with enough accuracy to land the stones in a 50ftx1000ft area about once every 4 or 5 throws. That's often enough to be useful and I wasn't very accurate. Consistent lead projectiles would definitely improve that, but I never tried them because littering lead was a step too far for my hobby. I was about 16 at the time, and I'm sure an adult man would be able to beat my performance, maybe even me once I get back into shape!
I think the main reason the sling fell mostly out of use in medieval Europe is because warfare became more siege-centered than in ancient times. In the Iberian Peninsula, the sling never fell out of use, and I think it is because units were typically lighter than their European counterparts. They were lighter to be able to face the fast Muslim units. A sling indeed requires long training, but in some places, shepherds use them to guide and protect the cattle, so it wouldn't be hard to find good slingers.
The main reason was the shift of economical center of gravity from Rome to Germania.. There is no real slinging tradition North of Alps simply because stones are too difficult to find.
Another suggestion is purely regionallity, slings are effective if you have a lot of rocks, lots of central Europe gets mud and does not have loads of nice roundish rocks all over the place, but did have loads more useful trees for making bows and arrows than are available in places like Greece.
After 5 years a over 3 thousand hours of sling practice I hit my target 60 percent of the time at about 60 yards with inconsistent stones so take that how you will
@@TW_SlingStone That's pretty decent accuracy then & sounds better than what Joe Gibbs did with a 160lb warbow at 50 meters in one test. He managed hit a human-sized target only twice out of six shots. By contrast, it's not difficult to get a 9-inch or so 5-shot group at 50 yards with a Brown Bess musket: 100% accuracy against a target about the size of a human chest (upper half of the torso).
I think in Iberia....the sling was in use for a bit longer. At the battle of Aljubarrota...I believe the Portuguese used them against the Castillians. Might be wrong about that.....
Great work! I have been trying to learn ancient ranged techniques as a backup to martial arts and can agree. As much as I like them, slings do not allow for the density of troops in a square-area to project lethal effect at a specific target individual or object. As an example, how many spear points can a group attack a single point with, versus knives, slings, bows, or something more compact like a crossbow, blowgun, or firearm?
One advantage of slingers over crossbow men is their range. Slingers had a range of 400m and it could have been even bigger with special ammunitions like the kestros. (The world record for a dart launched from a sling is 477m.) Since the sling is a one handed weapon slingers can also use a shield together with their superior range. Crossbows in china had a range of 345m and an effective range of 225m. So if training isn't a problem, perhaps because many civilians use slings in their job as shepherds etc. slings still had a place on the battlefield. However in most cultures not enough people where trained on the sling to have enough to employ as an effective unit.
That’s fantasy man! Effective range versus max range is Huge. At 300m+ plus those light lead projectiles will fall with so little energy it would be annoying at best. All projectiles are ineffective at those ranges. Actual deadly range for all these projectiles are approximately 150 meters or less
@@aoe2_elo037 Of course lethality and accuracy diminish at high ranges, but sling fire at max ranges can disrupt formations. Knights in full protection could ignore that, but many people on the battlefield didn't wear face protection. Getting hit with a lead bullet to any unprotected part would hurt a lot and cause instant bruising and perhaps break bone. Since sling bullets where way cheaper then arrows shooting at very high ranges in chance you hit was an option. So sling fire at full ranges was more used to annoy the opponents, force them behind their shields and injure some basic infantry men to make their formations less maneuverable. Also I was quite sure I read a source about slingers outranging archers but couldn't remember it so I found this quote while searching: Reports of estimated range of the sling varies in recent literature. This may stem from the inability of historians to find individuals who can properly demonstrate the sling. The bow, crossbow and firearm, if operated correctly, will produce the same effect the weapon had hundreds of years ago. However, the sling requires tremendous skill, and only people who have had extensive training can claim to match the ability of ancient slingers. Existing literature quotes ranges as little as 150m to as much as 500m (Demmin, 1964; Hogg, 1968; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Connolly, 1981; Ferrill, 1985; Richardson, 1998b). Larry Bray set the Guinness World Record for a stone cast with a sling in 1981, achieving an impressive range of 437m (Norris, 1985). In retrospect, Mr. Bray believes he could have surpassed 600m mark with a better sling and lead projectiles (Bray, Personal Communication, March 21st, 2004). Presumably, professional slingers of antiquity who trained from childhood and relied on the weapon in battle could achieve even greater distances, perhaps approaching 700m. From chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling
Plus carrying a sling is probably the easiest of all weapons, wheras a crossbow is a large unweildy weapon. Also the simplest to make v one of the most complicated.
Anything beyond 300m and it’s a waste of ammunition. There is plenty of time to raise your shield and at that range no casualties will be caused. Even hitting flesh it would be not lethal. At those distances at best you can send a message to the enemy that they have good slingers
Distance without impact is useless. Esungge, a Mongol archer during Genghis Khan's time, was recorded hitting a target at 536 m. Turkish archer, Tozkoparan Iskender and Bursali Shuja, shot arrows up to 930 yards / 850 m distance in the early 1500s, so it outranged sling at its farthest distance. Of course, without knowing how it would penetrate armor, how accurate it is in combat scenario or how fast it travel, it's practically useless feat for combat. Reliability of killing was a big factor, Chinese crossbow bolt of the Han Dynasty was recorded using 3 and 5 stone crossbow as still powerful enough to pierce into wooden wall at 252 m (at least in the Chu-yen slips, the most common Han crossbow was 6 stone draw weight, the next most common is 3 stone) and a Song Dynasty record stated a crossbow bolt could shoot over 340 paces (459 m) and the bolt could penetrate halfway into an elm log (not sure if this was describing the same shot), suffice to say the most common Chinese crossbow in Han Dynasty (6 stone) could pierce a shield and could wound or kill someone behind a shield at 252 m, I highly doubt a sling could penetrate a shield at that range. There are data of Chinese crossbows from Song Dynasty discovered in Ming times and capable of shooting up to 300 paces (405 m using Song Dynasty paces to 450-477 m using Ming Dynasty paces). So the over 400 m range is corroborated in multiple sources. On another account, there was a 17th century English account of the English testing a Native American archer in a friendly setup. The archer managed to penetrate a pistol proof shield. Again, I doubt a sling could surpass those feats. Reliability of killing was such an important thing that you didn't see slings or bows resurge when armor was abandoned in late 17th century Europe and against unarmored musketeer in the 18th-19th century worldwide, despite their lethality and rate of fire. Not even staff sling was used which was easier to use especially in massed formation where inaccuracy was less important. Even in China with the Manchu bow, firearms rate continue to increase. People rather had firearms with slow rate of fire and inaccurate shot that could kill someone reliably than having fast-firing, weaker weapons. - Sling was probably the one that needed the most skill to aim. Chinese crossbows had grid sight for aiming. This will be important to shoot at long range. There is no reason that you couldn't use a shield while operating a crossbow, there are paintings of people shooting bows or using 2 handed lances while having a shield on the left hand. On the other hand, was there common depiction of slingers using shield on the left hand, from what I know, I hadn't seen an Assyrian or Roman slinger depicted suing shield on the left hand, but I had seen Assyrian slingers or archers shooting from behind ground fixed shield which was hardly different than pavises for crossbowmen (which the Chinese use as well as it was depicted in the Wujing Zongyao).
We were born with slings in our hands. Not something you picked up later in life. Most kids can punch a hole in a head at a good distance. Adults can't miss. Thanks.
Did the evolution of armour have any effect on the popularity of the sling? My knowledge isn’t great but if I remember correctly the ancient people, especially from the Mediterranean and north-Africa didn’t use thick padding underneath their top layer of armour, while in late Roman/Dark Age/medieval era chainmail with thick padded clothing/gambeson was worn underneath it, later even with plate armour on top of that or in place of the mail armour. I can imagine that the blunt impact of a slingstone on flexible mail and thick padding might be less effective than on for example a bronze curasse with leather underneath for chafing and some kind of tunic.
You mentioned something that also brings to mind other tactical considerations, namely, the space required to effectively use a sling. Let’s say one is comparing a formation of 100 archers or crossbowmen vs 100 slingers. In order to field that formation of slingers, one would need more area since slingers cannot be packed too closely together. The larger unit size makes it harder to protect, since it requires more frontal coverage and is more likely to have exposed flanks. Moreover, the looser formation makes it an ideal target for a cavalry charge. Cavalry are more easily charged into a loose formation, with less chance of being halted, and with greater effect. And to make matters worse, Medieval Europeans liked their heavy cavalry.
Never thought of it that way but that explains so much. These videos are always teaching me things. I wonder why slings didn't hang on in India then- they didn't have crossbows but did have enormous armies including lots of professional warriors.
I agree with all of these points. I think that the sling also loses points because of its limited practicality in siege defense. You can only sling over the battlements and arrowloops are unusable by slingers. Moreover, a mediocre slinger poses great danger to any bystander and friendly fire would be a great problem. Breaking a car window 60m away from where I was slinging taught me that. Last but not least, lead projectiles must have become too expensive. Likewise, lead-weighted plumbatas were reserved for the elite heavy cavalry before they went extinct.
I doubt that lead projectiles were that expensive, especially in comparison to arrows. To begin with, each individual arrow requires a range of skilled craftsmen from differing job-sets to deliver every single arrow, fletchers, woodworkers, blacksmiths to make the arrowhead etcetera... Then you have to assemble the individual components together and then check for stuff such as ensuring that it is spined well etcetera and works within a certain 'weight' range. It should be no surprise that arrows can therefore cost a fair amount to purchase both for the individual or for the 'state' as it were. Lead is obtained either as a bi-product from the silver-extraction process from silver ores or can otherwise be mined by itself. Given this fact it was a rather cheap material with a variety of uses. Clay or wood used for the mould to melt said lead sling bullets would likely not inflate the cost much if at all. All you need to make sling bullets is three/four components, the lead, the mould, a campfire or similar heating source and the container to hold the lead over the fire. There is pretty much no skill involved in the manufacturing of sling bullets except perhaps in the mould making. The only thing that really costs money is from the lead itself and not from manufacturing said sling bullets. My personal theory on why lead stopped being used in slings has less to do with money and more to do with the idea that using Lead projectiles are not worth the effort when it comes to a certain slinging mass. Lead sling bullets are highly ideal in comparison to clay or stone sling bullets when it concerns small and lightweight shot hovering around the ~40-80 gram range, but once you start going heavier than that lead begins to lose out. It seems to me that slingers started use heavier and heavier stones as time started to go on and I believe that a lack of skilled slingers probably has a role to play in why heavier slingstones were used in later periods. To a certain extent you can make up for a lack of skilled slinging (Where there would be losses in velocity) which can be made up for in increasing slinging mass (that is, throwing heavier stones). Edit: When it comes to Siege defence, slings only lose points because they are fighting on a platform on which they are not really designed for. Hill forts on the other hand were usually designed specifically to work with slings in mind. In this case, slings work well in regards to siege defenses. It is not surprising that many cultures that used slings primarily also used hill forts or similar defensive structures I.E Britain, Gaul, Peru et cetera
@@thejackinati2759 Lead should still be better than stone for heavier sling bullets, though whether this was worth the effort is another question. High density means less surface area for lower drag & greater range. I suspect armor the reason medieval slingers often used heavier stones. The light lead sling bullets common in antiquity aren't going to do much to a person in full armor, but a big stone will, such as at Nájera 1367.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The British Museum has a chonker that is over 400 grams! My point is less that lead isn't effective, but more so from the standpoint that lead isn't ideal for heavy projectiles. From an economic standpoint, large lead sling bullets are not as ideal as smaller projectiles. For example, said Roman sling bullet of 400 grams could have made ~38-39, 40 gram sling bullets (Assuming loss from sprue, slag etcetera), but instead went on to produce one large sling bullet. Whilst lead makes a great deal of sense for lighter weight sling bullets, especially when they can be thrown to high velocities (AA Getting 75+ m/s throws comes to mind), throwing a larger sling bullet would reduce the release velocity and therefore negatively impact one of the greater benefits of lead... its range. While a heavy lead sling bullet would still be superior by pretty much every metric compared to a similar mass stone, throwing a big-ass rock will still give you a lot of the power but with practically Nil cost. IMHO, the range at which lead becomes less viable is in the ~70-80 gram range. That weight seems like the best compromise.
@@thejackinati2759 That makes sense. Given that heavy stones were apparently sufficient to incapacitate soldiers in plate armor in some cases, going to the expense of heavy lead bullets seems unnecessary. It's also possible that some lead & iron sling projectiles were used in medieval Europe. Various secondary sources say Froissart mentioned lead & iron projectiles in relation to slings, but I haven't be able to find the original text to confirm this.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I wish Froissart's works weren't a pain in the ass to find, or I would be reading his account myself. Supposedly, Froissart wrote that slings were able to severely dent the bascinets of the English, but I haven't been able to find it either. If you do find mention about lead projectiles, it would be of immense value to me, as I literally do not know of any examples of lead sling projectile finds post ~300 A.D.
Interesting, I know you live in North Texas or Canada as we call it. Ben Franklin wanted to outfit the Army with Longbows over the None Rifled Musket. That might be a subject for you to look into.
Crossbows and slings need little skill to start using but crossbows and even bows with little skill and usually outperform a sling Crossbows don't need bendy arrows
In the Americas, slingshots were a very common and effective ranged weapon used by many indigenous groups . They required little technology or resources to produce. - Slings had a long range of over 100 meters, were accurate, and could deliver lethal blows from projectiles like stones. This made them formidable in battle even against steel armor and firearms of the period. - Accounts from the Spanish conquest era do suggest sling-armed natives inflicted casualties on Spanish forces and that the conquistadors feared engaging well-armed slingers. Their technology provided less protection from projectiles than blades or pikes. Just as the skills of experienced sling-users like the Balearic shepherds were renowned. Indigenous Americans likely developed equivalent proficiency through centuries of use.
Yes. Alonso Enríquez de Guzmán specifically claimed that Peruvian slingers could kill through armor. He wrote that with their slings they threw "a very fat stone that kills a horse and even sometimes the rider, though they strike him in the helmet. In truth than are little less than an arquebus."
@@WagesOfDestruction They can't do everything a sling can, but neither can even the best slinger do everything a crossbow can with a sling. Crossbows are more accurate, much easier to use from cover, require much less energy to inflict a fatal wound, & can deliver poison. The sling can do more shots per minute, can sling various types of projectiles, & manages more blunt trauma at close range with a heavy projectile (at least compared with most crossbows).
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I can see advantages e.g. a slinger is in the open, whereas a crossbowman is undercover. The story of David and Goliath suggests individual slingers could achieve similar accuracy. Poison is programmatic; yes, it can kill, but it takes time long after the battle. I am not so sure about these various types either; there is some evidence that ancient slingers may have experimented with or occasionally used incendiary projectiles, although it does not appear to have been a common or widely adopted practice:
Short slings are easier to use, maybe? They could have been used by melee soldiers before closing in. The "throw weapon and then charge" tactic was used by roman legionaires. Their pilums were long-ish and had to be thrown starting behind the body, which would influence the tightness of the formation (and maybe they threw one rank at a time? I don't really know, but if each tight rank moved forward 2 meters to throw and then another 2, followed by the next, they could accomplish such a thing by moving the whole unit just 4 meters ahead). I think short slings used less space, assuming it's an up and down throwing motion; though I don't think space is too much a concern if the unit was drilled on how to move accordingly for such tactics. The problem would be that a shorter sling has a similar range (and accuracy?) to a javelin with an amentum. So I can see why crossbows were so popular - they had the penetration, accuracy and range, in exchange for a more expensive weapon. Guns were basically an improvement on whatever could be considered "doctrinal usage" in the age of the crossbow; even more range (in the flat trajectory sense), more penetration and power for that range, but (probably) similar accuracy at 100 meters.
You say that crossbowmen can fire in tight formations, while slingers need more horizontal room to throw their projectiles. However, why would slingers need to form tight formations, given their rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute is 6x faster (or up to 12x faster for heavy crossbows) than crossbow rate of fire. You would need to squeeze 6x more crossbowmen side by side into the same space to match the overall slinger firepower. Assuming a slinger takes up the space of three crossbowmen, your army is still getting twice the firepower from slingers, and with a third the overall manpower, meaning less food, supplies, space, vulnerabilities, etc. needed.
But the sling didn't disappear in medieval times, the staff sling appeared, that's all. And the sling was super precise in the right hands, which made her equivalent to the long bow in that regard. But the longbow was able to penetrate some armour, whereas the sling wasn't which is why when it was used, it seems as though they'd have used bigger rocks, not to penetrate, but to impact harder.
I’m not sure I agree. Slingers are hard to train, while crossbow men are not. If a crossbow man get taken out of combat, you can quickly replace him and another person will use his equipment while that’s not the case with a slinger or an archer. Ancient armies are larger than medieval one not due the emphasis of quantity over quality, but difference in population and administration.
This isn't actually true for most of the medieval period. Even into the early 15th century, many military crossbows required strength to span. Spanning powerful prods from the belt was a key feat of strength in El Victorial. A crossbower who couldn't span a heavy prod from the belt or with a lever would be less effective than one who had to shoot a weaker bow or rely on slower & more cumbersome spanning methods. Cranequins & windlasses changed that, but they weren't widespread until quite late in the medieval era & never totally displaced levers (which require strength).
I don't I agree with your take on personal valuability. Afterall, the crossbow in medieval europe spread because it gave the chance for any serf or paesant to effectively contribute in a battle after a few days of training. I think the slingers in Europe were mostly limited by the fact that sling use was, as you said, related to ethnicity. The Romans fielded Iberian auxilia in the late Republican/ early Imperial era, but later on, Iberia became deeply romanised, at which point it is fair to assume that Iberians were serving as legionaries more than anything. I also think that it was easier for Roman officers to manage archers, crossbowmen or javelin skirmishers on a tactical level, instead of slingers whose range and effectiveness depended on individual skill, which was difficult to assess. Instead, the Romans preferred standardised units.
In ancient times peasants were the one doing the slinging. It does take some training but many of the peasants especially in the shepherd class were already proficient
regarding "Afterall, the crossbow in medieval europe spread because it gave the chance for any serf or paesant to effectively contribute in a battle after a few days of training." the ancient slingers were mostly peasants. its just that the medieval peasants did not practice slinging as much. why? that is difficult to say but I think your ethnicity part and cultural pride is important factor and I think scale of battles is a more important factor. Although the adoption of crossbow due to ease of use is a factor, the staff sling does this niche better. still the staff sling is used much less than crossbows, while conventinal slings are almost completely forgotten
so the question boils down to why ancient peasants practiced slinging more than medieval peasants? i guess medieval peasants are too busy with witch burning
What evidence is there for barely trained crossbowers in medieval Europe? I'm sure it varied, but medieval crossbowers often trained & competed regular in associations specifically for that purpose. Many crossbowers on medieval battlefields were skilled & reasonably well-paid soldiers. Also keep in mind that crossbows required strength to span for most of the medieval period.
Great video once again. I agree with you, and I will also say I truly believe that a big reason the sling went out of fashion for military usage is similar to the atlatl quite frankly. Sure, it makes you a better spear thrower. But at the end of the day, is it worth manufacturing + training vs just telling a dude to throw a spear intuitively? A regular thrown spear was still devastating enough, and didn't require anything else besides a spear and a person to throw it. A sling is the same in that it is simply a better way of throwing. It is largely the same mechanics as throwing, but increasing the reach of the throwing arm which increase velocity. To be kinda somber, Ray Chapman died in 1920 in a Major League Baseball game when he got hit in the head by a 5oz baseball made out of soft leather, wound up string, and a rubber core. Dudes didn't throw as hard in the 20s as they do now and that still had the ability to be lethal at close range. Call it 80-90mph at 60' without a sling. A 16oz rock just thrown regularly is gonna cause problems at 50m, which I think gets to the heart of the issue. If I want something that is lethal + good against armor at better range than the distance that I can get get if I just throw a rock from off the ground, do I want that to be a little spear going further or do I just want to throw the same rock further? If I have to pay for the equipment + training, I'm training the archer. Because worst case scenario, that archer can still pick up a rock and throw it.
@@HistoricalWeaponsIt was pre-helmet times, but it was still probably a pretty big freak injury. Probably just the right combination of things like where it hit him unfortunately.
I think that the slings became less popular because kingdoms became more localised, and it was just irrelevant to go across the seas to just recruit some Balearic slingers for example, but slings never actually fell out of use by slingers or Rhodian slingers or even Greek slingers, the only thing that happened is that they just stopped being recruited to the military that much and logically the weapons dead was much easier to learn to use became more popular because you would not want your peasants to try to learn using Sling if you can just teach them to use bow or crossbow, or even staffsling
Hello, I'm a subscriber who subscribes to the channel because I'm interested in history I heard you're going to post a crossbow here, but I was wondering if you could post a crossbow like a crossbow or a gungjangno from the Silla Dynasty in Korea
Not exactly. While I myself do prefer sling techniques like Byzantine, where it is thrown within one rotation, multiple-rotation throwing techniques don't necessarily degrade performance if you are skilled enough. Some of the best slingers use multiple-rotations before throwing. Multiple rotations can actually be ideal when it concerns random ammunition such as uneven stones or pebbles as it can help establish the 'feel' in the pouch and ensure that you know that it won't just fall out when you go in for the throw. If you use consistent ammunition though, then this aspect is not as important. The reason I personally prefer doing one-rotation slinging techniques like the Byzantine is that multiple rotations can sometimes screw up my 'timing' in my head.
@@thejackinati2759 multiple rotation is for waiting for a target of opportunity or threatening but causes risk for those around you. Lots of Romans died from sling projectiles slipping out backwards into their own ranks. When you are hunting or taking out Goliath you want to be fast and not project your intent. Rotation increases your chance of missing by a factor of 359 every rotation. It’s better to miss high or low and worse to miss left to right. I find the best way to hit the target is by not using too much power. A rock at that slower speed kills anyway. I tried trap shooting with a sling and I had to be fast to beat the shot gun I was racing. I got one of 20.
@@andrewsock1608 'Lots of Romans died from sling projectiles slipping out backwards into their own ranks.' Citation needed Side-ways errant releases are one thing, but if you are throwing backwards then you are clearly doing something wrong. Backwards releases are "Rare" The only time, in my years of slinging, where I have ever thrown backwards... was literally the very first day that I started slinging. If you throw backwards with a sling, you are clearly doing something Very, Very wrong. Edit: Said backwards release can also be contributed to the fact that I used a split pouch sling.
@@thejackinati2759 ya look it up. Also when used in military defence formations the slingers are close together and they use the half rotation going over the top. And you know big rocks slip out. See what happens when you are flailing your sling about and you get hit in the head with a projectile. You will let it go anywhere.
I think your assessment is off. Cost is my understanding of why the sling was phased out. Simply put, participation in war narrowed to people that could afford better equipment, and simultaneously equipment became more affordable over time. Slings might be my favorite ranged weapon, but they’re undeniably the least effective and efficient. Ironically, the cheap sling’s biggest weakness is that the more effective ammo types are prohibitively expensive (the TH-camr Acroballistics made a steel bullet, that would have been interesting to see historically). Bows are just more effective due to piercing of the arrowheads, and arrowheads becoming more affordable makes slinging unnecessary. I’m glad you made the distinction that it was used less, some people wrongly believe it wasn’t used at all. I think the reason is that it’s less common in the historical record, and this is probably because it was used by levies who didn’t have better. The battles we see quick references are more local disputes. For example, I think both English and Scottish armies in conflicts had slingers among them even into the 1200s. Slingers were present during the wars of the reconquista in Spain and the resistance by the locals in those regions against Spain. The last use in Western Europe that I know of is the siege of Sancerre in 1572, and there are drawings from Russia that show several slingers in battle from Russia into the 1600s. Slings were also used on horseback. The drawings from Russia depict slingers on horseback, and there’s even a Greek vase that has slingers on horseback (I think in a hunting context). I think it’s mentioned in Roman sources once or twice that the Cantabrians would sometimes use slings on horseback in addition to javelins. Slings might be a little trickier on horseback (though I can’t give insight, I’ve never done it), but it is quite possible. I think the main reason slings weren’t used on horseback is again, cost. People using slings either can’t afford a horse or can’t afford to risk it in war. Finally, you mentioned that training takes years. Technically correct, but it’s weird framing. Typically people in the population would already have that knowledge from activities like hunting. Same thing for archery or a lot of other skills. The crossbow’s ease of use is great if they have no experience with any weapons, but otherwise that’s not a great point. Even a skilled slinger would probably take the crossbow because it’s just better, they just don’t have one because they’re broke. As for your experience, you’re right that the accuracy is pretty trash. But I think you are making some mistakes that impact your assessment. I noticed that you lean your center of mass back, even lifting your front foot off the ground to get more power. I recommend leaning forward and starting the throw with your feet both on the ground. I do step forward when I throw, but I always start with the foot on the ground. I don’t know why leaning center of mass forward works, it just does for me. Secondly, it looks like you speed up the spin a couple rotations before your release. This also screws up your accuracy by lessening your control. Remember that it’s only the release that you need to put energy into. Spinning too much was a problem I had, so another tip might be to limit yourself to a set number of rotations. That way, you always know when you will release so there is no hesitation. I think there was a Roman poem that mentioned 3 rotations, so that might also be a historical strategy or maybe it’s just poetic flair. Either way, it works for me. I usually stick to 2 rotations. Finally, this you probably already know about, but short sling is king. The power loss is a bummer, but the control is definitely worth it. My slings are often around 20 inches or so. If you need any help with research or anything, you can reach out for anything on the slinging forums, the Reddit, the discord servers, etc.
dude a composite bow takes a year to make and the arrows takes months and is much much more expensive than sling ammo. doesnt matter how you try, bows and crossbows are MUCH more expensive
@@langdavid6852 Composite bows don’t necessarily have to take that long, there are people even today that are experimenting with it. Some bows dry pretty quickly. But the difference between arrows and sling bullets is that arrows are recoverable. Unless you closely monitor where a bullet goes, you’re never finding it again. Lead was what was historically used as a more expensive bullet type, which was only used on a large scale for 600 ish years. For whatever reason, the Romans stopped using them. It might have been a cost thing. If you really wanted to match bows, steel ammo would be the best. It could hold a sharp point and have a brutal impact. But a version made by Acroballistics was around 42 grams (if my memory is right), which is probably as much or more material than the point of a Manchu arrow. That’s a lot of material for a single shot.
@@Cycad1 Lead was likely used for a longer period of time. There was a Bronze-age site in the Near-East that sets back the earliest dating of lead projectiles from the ~5th Century B.C.E to about ~1000-1200 B.C.E. The piece in question is titled 'A lead ingot and lead production at Late Bronze Age Hala Sultan Tekke' Regarding ammunition and sharp points, You should look into the findings of Cypriot sling bullets. Quite a few of them are Bimetallic projectiles with bronze blades embedded into the core of a lead sling bullet, creating UFO like sling bullets. I happen to have a damaged one in my 'collection' of sling bullets at home.
It's not undeniable that slings are the least efficient & effective ranged weapon. We have multiple 16th-century sources saying the sling was nearly as powerful as an arquebus or was like an arquebus. We have multiple sources saying the sling could incapacitate or kill soldiers in plate armor. It's a legitimate question why such a potent ranged weapon didn't see more use in medieval Europe, as the arquebus didn't exist then.
The comparison to an arquebus is sensationalized. They were just impressed by the power, that doesn’t mean it actually was that strong. You certainly wouldn’t be able to kill a dude in plate armor. For example, the conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo was hit in the head with a sling stone during a battle in Mexico. He was wearing a helmet, so although rattled and wounded he was able to continue fighting. For comparison, one account of the death of Moctezuma had him die as a result of a sling stone. It took a while for him to actually die. I guess I’d be curious to know what sources you have for incapacitating or killing men in armor, especially plate armor. Everything I’ve seen seems to suggest that this is not the case. Sling stones in most cases only pose a lethal danger to in armored targets.
I wonder if geography drives slinging: the Pacific Islands had to be careful about how much wood they could use, Tibet and Peru the woods are a bit down out of reach of the herding peoples, Middle Eastern slingers often come from mountainous regions without a lot of good wood, Rhodes and the Balearic islands are rocky, etc. Not much bow wood, plenty of stones, so slinging is a good idea. There's something I see a lot about shepherds associated with slings; is that codified by the Bible? On one hand there's a lot of herders in Eurasia with slings. On the other hand there's a lot more archers on the steppe (probably because of horses) and in Africa the sling is pretty uncommon while most of the continent relies on big herds of livestock.
TLDR 1000 years of tradition and culture to create 500 slingers vs me'n the boys came down from the pub and the sargent gave us this goofy looking stick an' i saw a greek guy with a rope so i shot him with it.
@@HistoricalWeapons Benevenuto Cellini's autobiographical account is a great source for that! Benevenuto Cellini was watching a duel between his teenage friend and some rando rich guy... and when the rich guy was losing the fight one of the people in the crowd who was probably on the Rich-guy's side literally pulled out a sling and pelted Cellini's friend in the back of the head, which struck him 'Nearly dead' IIRC. Cellini had to pull his unconscious friend out through the crowd.
This is so cool, as an artist it helps me create characters by learning different weapons to be used!
I think it's important to note that sling stones vary in weight and mass. Xenophon writes that the Persians used sling stones that encompassed a hand's width, but were used at a shorter range, compared to a Grecian slinger.
sling stone of various sizes must of been used by all slingers from the mob slingers of blibical times to professional slingers of classical greece
@@langdavid6852getting stoned to death must of been enjoyable
@@HistoricalWeapons Lemme ask me boy Goliath
I read somewhere that the Balearic slingers often carried multiple slings of different lengths, meant for throwing different size stones. They first threw smaller projectiles, and as the enemy got closer switched to larger projectiles.
@@sleazypete6170i had never considered this.
for folks who think medieval bows were the reason why it replaced sling, that is a very narrow view focused on 200 years of english archery history and is mostly irrelevant to why sling was phased out during the "dark ages"
In his Bronze Scythian Arrows short, the lightness of arrows is explained. Meaning that they must have used lighter bows. There's also the shorter Greek draw length to the breast, with a short bow. The sling could possibly have competed with bows because the Classical standards for killing power were lower compared to later Medieval times.
for scythian yes but i believe cretan archers used very heavy arrowheads @@jeanlannes4396
Technically speaking... Slings are actually somewhat relevant to English Archery...
Why? In English armies of the 12-13th and early 14th Centuries in Scottish military campaigns, Slingers and Archers were often working side-by-side. Slingers and Warbow archers were literally bros :P
The thing, the sling wasn't phased during the dark ages in all of Europe. Slingers continued to see widespread mass use in Spain through the 14th century & even again the second half the 16th century during the 2nd Rebellion of the Alpujarras. Slingers also appear in medieval art from various parts of Europe. I suspect they could have been much more common than we realize. For instances, some of the innumerable accounts of folks hurling stones may have involved slings.
@@thejackinati2759 thats interesting to me. Can you remember at which battles the English used slingers? Thank you.
Thank you for this. For anyone interested in Medieval warfare I hotly recommend Schwerpunkt's videos series. He does a lot about arms and armor and often answers the audience's questions. He's a PhD in Medieval warfare and he gets pretty thoroughly in all these issues
The medieval slings became mini-trebuchets as they starting attaching the sling to a stick or in larger cases a staff aka the sling staff but I’ll always love the classic aesthetic. I’d love to see you use a sling staff
One thing you did miss is alternative slinging styles. Greek style (single rotation overhead) or whatever you like to call it was most likely used by many non-lifetime slingers. I did test it myself and in less than 10 hours over a span of a few weeks I achieved very decent accuracy (reliably hitting ISSF pistol target at 25m). It is also very fast by comparison to Balearic style, but not as versatile or powerful.
Big factor with sling is that while you can in theory use random similarly sized stones, this is not conductive to accuracy and for that reason many ancient slingers would have used uniform clay or lead projectiles.
If we take into account that slings seem to only be very popular among ethnic groups that are very often herders, and among insular nations of Oceania, it paints a picture that slings relevancy is largely maintained by populations of very specialized people who's way of life require a weapon like the sling for more than just war, or alternatively, serves as a range weapon in areas where the bow was yet unknown. To me it speaks volume that all over the world, the bow, crossbow and even spearthrower dominate the sling in popularity, exept among populations that are unaware of other range weapons, or herders (like andean incas for exemple).
A sling can be used as a backup weapon for a hunter. It costs next to nothing and is almost weightless. That's an advantage bows and crossbows don't share.
Personally I carry a sling with me when I go hunting, mostly as an incentive to practice slinging. Occasionally I use javelins I make on the spot when my shotgun is blocked.
its also just very fun to use while your bored and can throw ammo that cost nothing@@AggelosKyriou dont forget the sling can be used as a backup bowstring
The thing is, multiple 16th-century accounts say skilled slingers perform almost like arquebusiers. The sling was a dangerous weapon in the 16th century, even it wasn't better than other options. It wasn't potent enough to compel folks to put in the effort to use it well, but skilled slingers consistently impressed observers.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 where is it located
@@HistoricalWeapons Where is what located? The sources I'm thinking of are Alonso Enríquez de Guzmán, Luis del Mármol, & whoever described the slingers at the siege of Sancerre as arquebusiers.
What you're saying here is basically correct: for skirmishing, especially from cover, a crossbow has huge advantages over a sling. For most of the medieval period, most crossbows required strength to span for maximum effect - just like bows. There were certain kinds of crossbows that could be spanned in ways that didn't require much strength or allow multiple people to combine their forces, but many military crossbows continued to be spanned from the belt into the early 15th century. Goat's-foot levers, which also require strength, remained popular until the last days of the crossbow's military service in Europe. So a person with only a week of training would shoot a weak crossbow unless they were unusually gifted. However, they still probably would perform better than a slinger with a year of training, though maybe not against armored targets.
It's worth noting that slingers saw mass use in Spain through at least the 14th century, & some massed use again during at least the 2nd Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568-1571). Slingers in Peru & Mexico likewise impressed Spaniards in the 16th century. Multiple accounts say the sling performed kind of like an arquebus. The weight of the evidence suggests to me that the sling was generally somewhat worse overall than other ranged options in medieval & Renaissance Europe, but that skilled slingers remained dangerous even if they weren't quite a match to other quality ranged troops like archers & arquebusiers.
Excellent presentation sir. I agree with your historical premise that tactics, weapons, armor and cultural changes caused the sling as a weapon to fall out of use. I look forward to your next video posting.
As a slinger: they do take a shit ton of training to be accurate with. Fire rate on par with archers,but much more versatile. Ie you can lob fist size stones ,breaking heavy infatry necks with it at 70m or put holes in light infatry,and horsemen at 400m.
It seems unlikely that light infantry would be in tight enough formation to hit at 400m. Sources do support the idea that slingers using heavy projectiles were dangerous to heavy infantry at close range.
I think that 400m would be a range at which you'd be trying to dissuade cavalry from making nice formations to come charge you with. I personally have never managed to throw quite that far. My best throws were around 315m with a very long sling (the pouch was almost on the ground with the sling held at shoulder length). At the same point in my life I was quite good at achieving 200m with a sling that went from the knuckles of the throwing hand to the opposite shoulder, and with enough accuracy to land the stones in a 50ftx1000ft area about once every 4 or 5 throws. That's often enough to be useful and I wasn't very accurate.
Consistent lead projectiles would definitely improve that, but I never tried them because littering lead was a step too far for my hobby. I was about 16 at the time, and I'm sure an adult man would be able to beat my performance, maybe even me once I get back into shape!
I think the main reason the sling fell mostly out of use in medieval Europe is because warfare became more siege-centered than in ancient times.
In the Iberian Peninsula, the sling never fell out of use, and I think it is because units were typically lighter than their European counterparts. They were lighter to be able to face the fast Muslim units.
A sling indeed requires long training, but in some places, shepherds use them to guide and protect the cattle, so it wouldn't be hard to find good slingers.
But siege is just as common in ancient times and slingers were widely used in ancient sieges
Check Assyrian siege slingers or Britannia siege slingers
I would argue that iberian herders living in arid rugged montains are why slings didn't fell out of use. I really think it's linked to pastoralism
@@theghosthero6173 Highly agreed... also heya Ghost! :P
The main reason was the shift of economical center of gravity from Rome to Germania.. There is no real slinging tradition North of Alps simply because stones are too difficult to find.
Very informative channel.
Cheers from that slingshot guy down at the beach.
Glad you enjoyed it
Another suggestion is purely regionallity, slings are effective if you have a lot of rocks, lots of central Europe gets mud and does not have loads of nice roundish rocks all over the place, but did have loads more useful trees for making bows and arrows than are available in places like Greece.
Didn’t slingers use leaded ammo
Weak argument. There have been archaeological finds in celtic hill forts in Britain of thousands of sling stones for use in defence up the hill fort
After 5 years a over 3 thousand hours of sling practice I hit my target 60 percent of the time at about 60 yards with inconsistent stones so take that how you will
How big is the target?
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 it’s usually a torso size stump at that range
@@TW_SlingStone That's pretty decent accuracy then & sounds better than what Joe Gibbs did with a 160lb warbow at 50 meters in one test. He managed hit a human-sized target only twice out of six shots. By contrast, it's not difficult to get a 9-inch or so 5-shot group at 50 yards with a Brown Bess musket: 100% accuracy against a target about the size of a human chest (upper half of the torso).
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I’ll be honest a lot of days I can’t hit shit lol
That's an insane range! 👏
I think in Iberia....the sling was in use for a bit longer. At the battle of Aljubarrota...I believe the Portuguese used them against the Castillians.
Might be wrong about that.....
Great work! I have been trying to learn ancient ranged techniques as a backup to martial arts and can agree. As much as I like them, slings do not allow for the density of troops in a square-area to project lethal effect at a specific target individual or object. As an example, how many spear points can a group attack a single point with, versus knives, slings, bows, or something more compact like a crossbow, blowgun, or firearm?
Nice Slavic Swafelrad on the Shield. Saloot.
One advantage of slingers over crossbow men is their range. Slingers had a range of 400m and it could have been even bigger with special ammunitions like the kestros. (The world record for a dart launched from a sling is 477m.) Since the sling is a one handed weapon slingers can also use a shield together with their superior range.
Crossbows in china had a range of 345m and an effective range of 225m.
So if training isn't a problem, perhaps because many civilians use slings in their job as shepherds etc. slings still had a place on the battlefield. However in most cultures not enough people where trained on the sling to have enough to employ as an effective unit.
That’s fantasy man! Effective range versus max range is Huge. At 300m+ plus those light lead projectiles will fall with so little energy it would be annoying at best. All projectiles are ineffective at those ranges. Actual deadly range for all these projectiles are approximately 150 meters or less
@@aoe2_elo037 Of course lethality and accuracy diminish at high ranges, but sling fire at max ranges can disrupt formations. Knights in full protection could ignore that, but many people on the battlefield didn't wear face protection. Getting hit with a lead bullet to any unprotected part would hurt a lot and cause instant bruising and perhaps break bone. Since sling bullets where way cheaper then arrows shooting at very high ranges in chance you hit was an option. So sling fire at full ranges was more used to annoy the opponents, force them behind their shields and injure some basic infantry men to make their formations less maneuverable.
Also I was quite sure I read a source about slingers outranging archers but couldn't remember it so I found this quote while searching:
Reports of estimated range of the sling varies in recent literature. This may stem from the inability of historians to find individuals who can properly demonstrate the sling. The bow, crossbow and firearm, if operated correctly, will produce the same effect the weapon had hundreds of years ago. However, the sling requires tremendous skill, and only people who have had extensive training can claim to match the ability of ancient slingers. Existing literature quotes ranges as little as 150m to as much as 500m (Demmin, 1964; Hogg, 1968; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Connolly, 1981; Ferrill, 1985; Richardson, 1998b). Larry Bray set the Guinness World Record for a stone cast with a sling in 1981, achieving an impressive range of 437m (Norris, 1985). In retrospect, Mr. Bray believes he could have surpassed 600m mark with a better sling and lead projectiles (Bray, Personal Communication, March 21st, 2004). Presumably, professional slingers of antiquity who trained from childhood and relied on the weapon in battle could achieve even greater distances, perhaps approaching 700m.
From chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling
Plus carrying a sling is probably the easiest of all weapons, wheras a crossbow is a large unweildy weapon. Also the simplest to make v one of the most complicated.
Anything beyond 300m and it’s a waste of ammunition. There is plenty of time to raise your shield and at that range no casualties will be caused. Even hitting flesh it would be not lethal. At those distances at best you can send a message to the enemy that they have good slingers
Distance without impact is useless. Esungge, a Mongol archer during Genghis Khan's time, was recorded hitting a target at 536 m. Turkish archer, Tozkoparan Iskender and Bursali Shuja, shot arrows up to 930 yards / 850 m distance in the early 1500s, so it outranged sling at its farthest distance. Of course, without knowing how it would penetrate armor, how accurate it is in combat scenario or how fast it travel, it's practically useless feat for combat.
Reliability of killing was a big factor, Chinese crossbow bolt of the Han Dynasty was recorded using 3 and 5 stone crossbow as still powerful enough to pierce into wooden wall at 252 m (at least in the Chu-yen slips, the most common Han crossbow was 6 stone draw weight, the next most common is 3 stone) and a Song Dynasty record stated a crossbow bolt could shoot over 340 paces (459 m) and the bolt could penetrate halfway into an elm log (not sure if this was describing the same shot), suffice to say the most common Chinese crossbow in Han Dynasty (6 stone) could pierce a shield and could wound or kill someone behind a shield at 252 m, I highly doubt a sling could penetrate a shield at that range.
There are data of Chinese crossbows from Song Dynasty discovered in Ming times and capable of shooting up to 300 paces (405 m using Song Dynasty paces to 450-477 m using Ming Dynasty paces). So the over 400 m range is corroborated in multiple sources.
On another account, there was a 17th century English account of the English testing a Native American archer in a friendly setup. The archer managed to penetrate a pistol proof shield. Again, I doubt a sling could surpass those feats.
Reliability of killing was such an important thing that you didn't see slings or bows resurge when armor was abandoned in late 17th century Europe and against unarmored musketeer in the 18th-19th century worldwide, despite their lethality and rate of fire. Not even staff sling was used which was easier to use especially in massed formation where inaccuracy was less important. Even in China with the Manchu bow, firearms rate continue to increase. People rather had firearms with slow rate of fire and inaccurate shot that could kill someone reliably than having fast-firing, weaker weapons.
-
Sling was probably the one that needed the most skill to aim. Chinese crossbows had grid sight for aiming. This will be important to shoot at long range.
There is no reason that you couldn't use a shield while operating a crossbow, there are paintings of people shooting bows or using 2 handed lances while having a shield on the left hand. On the other hand, was there common depiction of slingers using shield on the left hand, from what I know, I hadn't seen an Assyrian or Roman slinger depicted suing shield on the left hand, but I had seen Assyrian slingers or archers shooting from behind ground fixed shield which was hardly different than pavises for crossbowmen (which the Chinese use as well as it was depicted in the Wujing Zongyao).
We were born with slings in our hands. Not something you picked up later in life. Most kids can punch a hole in a head at a good distance. Adults can't miss. Thanks.
Did the evolution of armour have any effect on the popularity of the sling? My knowledge isn’t great but if I remember correctly the ancient people, especially from the Mediterranean and north-Africa didn’t use thick padding underneath their top layer of armour, while in late Roman/Dark Age/medieval era chainmail with thick padded clothing/gambeson was worn underneath it, later even with plate armour on top of that or in place of the mail armour. I can imagine that the blunt impact of a slingstone on flexible mail and thick padding might be less effective than on for example a bronze curasse with leather underneath for chafing and some kind of tunic.
We have multiple sources that claim slingers using large rocks could be effective against plate armor, including in the 16th century.
Yes i think so. more armour = more need for penetration. slings were super popular in bronze age and as you get iron and steel they drop in popularity
That’s what I was thinking for, sling with a shield 🛡️ I just left the coming weeks ago 😊
Sling was incredibly accurate in the hands of a Trained user.
Compare that to a crossbow. Check crossbow competition accuracy vs balearic sling completion acccuraxy
You mentioned something that also brings to mind other tactical considerations, namely, the space required to effectively use a sling. Let’s say one is comparing a formation of 100 archers or crossbowmen vs 100 slingers. In order to field that formation of slingers, one would need more area since slingers cannot be packed too closely together. The larger unit size makes it harder to protect, since it requires more frontal coverage and is more likely to have exposed flanks. Moreover, the looser formation makes it an ideal target for a cavalry charge. Cavalry are more easily charged into a loose formation, with less chance of being halted, and with greater effect. And to make matters worse, Medieval Europeans liked their heavy cavalry.
Never thought of it that way but that explains so much. These videos are always teaching me things.
I wonder why slings didn't hang on in India then- they didn't have crossbows but did have enormous armies including lots of professional warriors.
I agree with all of these points. I think that the sling also loses points because of its limited practicality in siege defense. You can only sling over the battlements and arrowloops are unusable by slingers.
Moreover, a mediocre slinger poses great danger to any bystander and friendly fire would be a great problem. Breaking a car window 60m away from where I was slinging taught me that.
Last but not least, lead projectiles must have become too expensive. Likewise, lead-weighted plumbatas were reserved for the elite heavy cavalry before they went extinct.
I doubt that lead projectiles were that expensive, especially in comparison to arrows. To begin with, each individual arrow requires a range of skilled craftsmen from differing job-sets to deliver every single arrow, fletchers, woodworkers, blacksmiths to make the arrowhead etcetera... Then you have to assemble the individual components together and then check for stuff such as ensuring that it is spined well etcetera and works within a certain 'weight' range. It should be no surprise that arrows can therefore cost a fair amount to purchase both for the individual or for the 'state' as it were.
Lead is obtained either as a bi-product from the silver-extraction process from silver ores or can otherwise be mined by itself. Given this fact it was a rather cheap material with a variety of uses. Clay or wood used for the mould to melt said lead sling bullets would likely not inflate the cost much if at all. All you need to make sling bullets is three/four components, the lead, the mould, a campfire or similar heating source and the container to hold the lead over the fire. There is pretty much no skill involved in the manufacturing of sling bullets except perhaps in the mould making. The only thing that really costs money is from the lead itself and not from manufacturing said sling bullets.
My personal theory on why lead stopped being used in slings has less to do with money and more to do with the idea that using Lead projectiles are not worth the effort when it comes to a certain slinging mass. Lead sling bullets are highly ideal in comparison to clay or stone sling bullets when it concerns small and lightweight shot hovering around the ~40-80 gram range, but once you start going heavier than that lead begins to lose out.
It seems to me that slingers started use heavier and heavier stones as time started to go on and I believe that a lack of skilled slingers probably has a role to play in why heavier slingstones were used in later periods. To a certain extent you can make up for a lack of skilled slinging (Where there would be losses in velocity) which can be made up for in increasing slinging mass (that is, throwing heavier stones).
Edit: When it comes to Siege defence, slings only lose points because they are fighting on a platform on which they are not really designed for. Hill forts on the other hand were usually designed specifically to work with slings in mind. In this case, slings work well in regards to siege defenses. It is not surprising that many cultures that used slings primarily also used hill forts or similar defensive structures I.E Britain, Gaul, Peru et cetera
@@thejackinati2759 Lead should still be better than stone for heavier sling bullets, though whether this was worth the effort is another question. High density means less surface area for lower drag & greater range. I suspect armor the reason medieval slingers often used heavier stones. The light lead sling bullets common in antiquity aren't going to do much to a person in full armor, but a big stone will, such as at Nájera 1367.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The British Museum has a chonker that is over 400 grams!
My point is less that lead isn't effective, but more so from the standpoint that lead isn't ideal for heavy projectiles. From an economic standpoint, large lead sling bullets are not as ideal as smaller projectiles. For example, said Roman sling bullet of 400 grams could have made ~38-39, 40 gram sling bullets (Assuming loss from sprue, slag etcetera), but instead went on to produce one large sling bullet.
Whilst lead makes a great deal of sense for lighter weight sling bullets, especially when they can be thrown to high velocities (AA Getting 75+ m/s throws comes to mind), throwing a larger sling bullet would reduce the release velocity and therefore negatively impact one of the greater benefits of lead... its range. While a heavy lead sling bullet would still be superior by pretty much every metric compared to a similar mass stone, throwing a big-ass rock will still give you a lot of the power but with practically Nil cost.
IMHO, the range at which lead becomes less viable is in the ~70-80 gram range. That weight seems like the best compromise.
@@thejackinati2759 That makes sense. Given that heavy stones were apparently sufficient to incapacitate soldiers in plate armor in some cases, going to the expense of heavy lead bullets seems unnecessary. It's also possible that some lead & iron sling projectiles were used in medieval Europe. Various secondary sources say Froissart mentioned lead & iron projectiles in relation to slings, but I haven't be able to find the original text to confirm this.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I wish Froissart's works weren't a pain in the ass to find, or I would be reading his account myself.
Supposedly, Froissart wrote that slings were able to severely dent the bascinets of the English, but I haven't been able to find it either. If you do find mention about lead projectiles, it would be of immense value to me, as I literally do not know of any examples of lead sling projectile finds post ~300 A.D.
Interesting, I know you live in North Texas or Canada as we call it. Ben Franklin wanted to outfit the Army with Longbows over the None Rifled Musket. That might be a subject for you to look into.
Sounds like benny was an idiot.
👍The sling is an excellent ranged weapon
Crossbows and slings need little skill to start using but crossbows and even bows with little skill and usually outperform a sling
Crossbows don't need bendy arrows
Actually, they were quite commonly used.
Compared to antiquity in Europe
Yeah that sling would sure tangle an enemys sword. That would only piss the enemy off even more.
In the Americas, slingshots were a very common and effective ranged weapon used by many indigenous groups . They required little technology or resources to produce.
- Slings had a long range of over 100 meters, were accurate, and could deliver lethal blows from projectiles like stones. This made them formidable in battle even against steel armor and firearms of the period.
- Accounts from the Spanish conquest era do suggest sling-armed natives inflicted casualties on Spanish forces and that the conquistadors feared engaging well-armed slingers. Their technology provided less protection from projectiles than blades or pikes.
Just as the skills of experienced sling-users like the Balearic shepherds were renowned. Indigenous Americans likely developed equivalent proficiency through centuries of use.
Yes. Alonso Enríquez de Guzmán specifically claimed that Peruvian slingers could kill through armor. He wrote that with their slings they threw "a very fat stone that kills a horse and even sometimes the rider, though they strike him in the helmet. In truth than are little less than an arquebus."
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I think that Jack is correct that a crossbow needs less training, but I am dubious that a crossbow can do all a sling can.
@@WagesOfDestruction They can't do everything a sling can, but neither can even the best slinger do everything a crossbow can with a sling. Crossbows are more accurate, much easier to use from cover, require much less energy to inflict a fatal wound, & can deliver poison. The sling can do more shots per minute, can sling various types of projectiles, & manages more blunt trauma at close range with a heavy projectile (at least compared with most crossbows).
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I can see advantages e.g. a slinger is in the open, whereas a crossbowman is undercover.
The story of David and Goliath suggests individual slingers could achieve similar accuracy. Poison is programmatic; yes, it can kill, but it takes time long after the battle. I am not so sure about these various types either; there is some evidence that ancient slingers may have experimented with or occasionally used incendiary projectiles, although it does not appear to have been a common or widely adopted practice:
Short slings are easier to use, maybe? They could have been used by melee soldiers before closing in. The "throw weapon and then charge" tactic was used by roman legionaires. Their pilums were long-ish and had to be thrown starting behind the body, which would influence the tightness of the formation (and maybe they threw one rank at a time? I don't really know, but if each tight rank moved forward 2 meters to throw and then another 2, followed by the next, they could accomplish such a thing by moving the whole unit just 4 meters ahead). I think short slings used less space, assuming it's an up and down throwing motion; though I don't think space is too much a concern if the unit was drilled on how to move accordingly for such tactics.
The problem would be that a shorter sling has a similar range (and accuracy?) to a javelin with an amentum.
So I can see why crossbows were so popular - they had the penetration, accuracy and range, in exchange for a more expensive weapon. Guns were basically an improvement on whatever could be considered "doctrinal usage" in the age of the crossbow; even more range (in the flat trajectory sense), more penetration and power for that range, but (probably) similar accuracy at 100 meters.
You say that crossbowmen can fire in tight formations, while slingers need more horizontal room to throw their projectiles. However, why would slingers need to form tight formations, given their rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute is 6x faster (or up to 12x faster for heavy crossbows) than crossbow rate of fire. You would need to squeeze 6x more crossbowmen side by side into the same space to match the overall slinger firepower. Assuming a slinger takes up the space of three crossbowmen, your army is still getting twice the firepower from slingers, and with a third the overall manpower, meaning less food, supplies, space, vulnerabilities, etc. needed.
But the sling didn't disappear in medieval times, the staff sling appeared, that's all.
And the sling was super precise in the right hands, which made her equivalent to the long bow in that regard. But the longbow was able to penetrate some armour, whereas the sling wasn't which is why when it was used, it seems as though they'd have used bigger rocks, not to penetrate, but to impact harder.
I’m not sure I agree. Slingers are hard to train, while crossbow men are not. If a crossbow man get taken out of combat, you can quickly replace him and another person will use his equipment while that’s not the case with a slinger or an archer. Ancient armies are larger than medieval one not due the emphasis of quantity over quality, but difference in population and administration.
he literraly said that
Thanks for the feedback I will trim out segments of the quality quantity
This isn't actually true for most of the medieval period. Even into the early 15th century, many military crossbows required strength to span. Spanning powerful prods from the belt was a key feat of strength in El Victorial. A crossbower who couldn't span a heavy prod from the belt or with a lever would be less effective than one who had to shoot a weaker bow or rely on slower & more cumbersome spanning methods. Cranequins & windlasses changed that, but they weren't widespread until quite late in the medieval era & never totally displaced levers (which require strength).
sorry about the Jack shirt I didnt realize what I was even wearing and the implications. future videos will have no branding on shirts
i have no clue what that is.
is it a company or something?
yeah @@markd.s.8625 i have no intentions of advertising that company it was just the closest shirt to reach in the morning without thought
@@HistoricalWeapons ah, fair enough
As a Fellow Jack... I say more representation of Jacks is always a good thing! :P
I don't I agree with your take on personal valuability.
Afterall, the crossbow in medieval europe spread because it gave the chance for any serf or paesant to effectively contribute in a battle after a few days of training.
I think the slingers in Europe were mostly limited by the fact that sling use was, as you said, related to ethnicity. The Romans fielded Iberian auxilia in the late Republican/ early Imperial era, but later on, Iberia became deeply romanised, at which point it is fair to assume that Iberians were serving as legionaries more than anything. I also think that it was easier for Roman officers to manage archers, crossbowmen or javelin skirmishers on a tactical level, instead of slingers whose range and effectiveness depended on individual skill, which was difficult to assess. Instead, the Romans preferred standardised units.
In ancient times peasants were the one doing the slinging. It does take some training but many of the peasants especially in the shepherd class were already proficient
regarding "Afterall, the crossbow in medieval europe spread because it gave the chance for any serf or paesant to effectively contribute in a battle after a few days of training." the ancient slingers were mostly peasants. its just that the medieval peasants did not practice slinging as much. why? that is difficult to say but I think your ethnicity part and cultural pride is important factor and I think scale of battles is a more important factor. Although the adoption of crossbow due to ease of use is a factor, the staff sling does this niche better. still the staff sling is used much less than crossbows, while conventinal slings are almost completely forgotten
so the question boils down to why ancient peasants practiced slinging more than medieval peasants? i guess medieval peasants are too busy with witch burning
@@langdavid6852Witch burning is protestant sooo not very medieval is it
What evidence is there for barely trained crossbowers in medieval Europe? I'm sure it varied, but medieval crossbowers often trained & competed regular in associations specifically for that purpose. Many crossbowers on medieval battlefields were skilled & reasonably well-paid soldiers. Also keep in mind that crossbows required strength to span for most of the medieval period.
Great video once again. I agree with you, and I will also say I truly believe that a big reason the sling went out of fashion for military usage is similar to the atlatl quite frankly. Sure, it makes you a better spear thrower. But at the end of the day, is it worth manufacturing + training vs just telling a dude to throw a spear intuitively? A regular thrown spear was still devastating enough, and didn't require anything else besides a spear and a person to throw it. A sling is the same in that it is simply a better way of throwing. It is largely the same mechanics as throwing, but increasing the reach of the throwing arm which increase velocity. To be kinda somber, Ray Chapman died in 1920 in a Major League Baseball game when he got hit in the head by a 5oz baseball made out of soft leather, wound up string, and a rubber core. Dudes didn't throw as hard in the 20s as they do now and that still had the ability to be lethal at close range. Call it 80-90mph at 60' without a sling.
A 16oz rock just thrown regularly is gonna cause problems at 50m, which I think gets to the heart of the issue. If I want something that is lethal + good against armor at better range than the distance that I can get get if I just throw a rock from off the ground, do I want that to be a little spear going further or do I just want to throw the same rock further? If I have to pay for the equipment + training, I'm training the archer. Because worst case scenario, that archer can still pick up a rock and throw it.
Wow that’s useful info I’m surprised a leather baseball can kill with a helmet?
@@HistoricalWeaponsIt was pre-helmet times, but it was still probably a pretty big freak injury. Probably just the right combination of things like where it hit him unfortunately.
Nice!
I think that the slings became less popular because kingdoms became more localised, and it was just irrelevant to go across the seas to just recruit some Balearic slingers for example, but slings never actually fell out of use by slingers or Rhodian slingers or even Greek slingers, the only thing that happened is that they just stopped being recruited to the military that much and logically the weapons dead was much easier to learn to use became more popular because you would not want your peasants to try to learn using Sling if you can just teach them to use bow or crossbow, or even staffsling
Hello, I'm a subscriber who subscribes to the channel because I'm interested in history I heard you're going to post a crossbow here, but I was wondering if you could post a crossbow like a crossbow or a gungjangno from the Silla Dynasty in Korea
Have you tried using a sling on horseback?
How about a video on how to make a Staff sling, and how to use it! Message if u do, I'll subscribe.
Slings aren't innacurate, it's based on the skill of the thrower.
Compared to archers they are for the average user
Just swing the sling once. It’s more powerful and accurate
Not exactly. While I myself do prefer sling techniques like Byzantine, where it is thrown within one rotation, multiple-rotation throwing techniques don't necessarily degrade performance if you are skilled enough. Some of the best slingers use multiple-rotations before throwing.
Multiple rotations can actually be ideal when it concerns random ammunition such as uneven stones or pebbles as it can help establish the 'feel' in the pouch and ensure that you know that it won't just fall out when you go in for the throw. If you use consistent ammunition though, then this aspect is not as important.
The reason I personally prefer doing one-rotation slinging techniques like the Byzantine is that multiple rotations can sometimes screw up my 'timing' in my head.
@@thejackinati2759 multiple rotation is for waiting for a target of opportunity or threatening but causes risk for those around you. Lots of Romans died from sling projectiles slipping out backwards into their own ranks.
When you are hunting or taking out Goliath you want to be fast and not project your intent.
Rotation increases your chance of missing by a factor of 359 every rotation. It’s better to miss high or low and worse to miss left to right.
I find the best way to hit the target is by not using too much power. A rock at that slower speed kills anyway.
I tried trap shooting with a sling and I had to be fast to beat the shot gun I was racing. I got one of 20.
@@andrewsock1608 'Lots of Romans died from sling projectiles slipping out backwards into their own ranks.'
Citation needed
Side-ways errant releases are one thing, but if you are throwing backwards then you are clearly doing something wrong. Backwards releases are "Rare"
The only time, in my years of slinging, where I have ever thrown backwards... was literally the very first day that I started slinging. If you throw backwards with a sling, you are clearly doing something Very, Very wrong.
Edit: Said backwards release can also be contributed to the fact that I used a split pouch sling.
@@thejackinati2759 ya look it up. Also when used in military defence formations the slingers are close together and they use the half rotation going over the top. And you know big rocks slip out. See what happens when you are flailing your sling about and you get hit in the head with a projectile. You will let it go anywhere.
I think your assessment is off. Cost is my understanding of why the sling was phased out. Simply put, participation in war narrowed to people that could afford better equipment, and simultaneously equipment became more affordable over time. Slings might be my favorite ranged weapon, but they’re undeniably the least effective and efficient. Ironically, the cheap sling’s biggest weakness is that the more effective ammo types are prohibitively expensive (the TH-camr Acroballistics made a steel bullet, that would have been interesting to see historically). Bows are just more effective due to piercing of the arrowheads, and arrowheads becoming more affordable makes slinging unnecessary.
I’m glad you made the distinction that it was used less, some people wrongly believe it wasn’t used at all. I think the reason is that it’s less common in the historical record, and this is probably because it was used by levies who didn’t have better. The battles we see quick references are more local disputes. For example, I think both English and Scottish armies in conflicts had slingers among them even into the 1200s. Slingers were present during the wars of the reconquista in Spain and the resistance by the locals in those regions against Spain. The last use in Western Europe that I know of is the siege of Sancerre in 1572, and there are drawings from Russia that show several slingers in battle from Russia into the 1600s.
Slings were also used on horseback. The drawings from Russia depict slingers on horseback, and there’s even a Greek vase that has slingers on horseback (I think in a hunting context). I think it’s mentioned in Roman sources once or twice that the Cantabrians would sometimes use slings on horseback in addition to javelins. Slings might be a little trickier on horseback (though I can’t give insight, I’ve never done it), but it is quite possible. I think the main reason slings weren’t used on horseback is again, cost. People using slings either can’t afford a horse or can’t afford to risk it in war.
Finally, you mentioned that training takes years. Technically correct, but it’s weird framing. Typically people in the population would already have that knowledge from activities like hunting. Same thing for archery or a lot of other skills. The crossbow’s ease of use is great if they have no experience with any weapons, but otherwise that’s not a great point. Even a skilled slinger would probably take the crossbow because it’s just better, they just don’t have one because they’re broke.
As for your experience, you’re right that the accuracy is pretty trash. But I think you are making some mistakes that impact your assessment. I noticed that you lean your center of mass back, even lifting your front foot off the ground to get more power. I recommend leaning forward and starting the throw with your feet both on the ground. I do step forward when I throw, but I always start with the foot on the ground. I don’t know why leaning center of mass forward works, it just does for me. Secondly, it looks like you speed up the spin a couple rotations before your release. This also screws up your accuracy by lessening your control. Remember that it’s only the release that you need to put energy into. Spinning too much was a problem I had, so another tip might be to limit yourself to a set number of rotations. That way, you always know when you will release so there is no hesitation. I think there was a Roman poem that mentioned 3 rotations, so that might also be a historical strategy or maybe it’s just poetic flair. Either way, it works for me. I usually stick to 2 rotations. Finally, this you probably already know about, but short sling is king. The power loss is a bummer, but the control is definitely worth it. My slings are often around 20 inches or so.
If you need any help with research or anything, you can reach out for anything on the slinging forums, the Reddit, the discord servers, etc.
dude a composite bow takes a year to make and the arrows takes months and is much much more expensive than sling ammo. doesnt matter how you try, bows and crossbows are MUCH more expensive
@@langdavid6852 Composite bows don’t necessarily have to take that long, there are people even today that are experimenting with it. Some bows dry pretty quickly.
But the difference between arrows and sling bullets is that arrows are recoverable. Unless you closely monitor where a bullet goes, you’re never finding it again. Lead was what was historically used as a more expensive bullet type, which was only used on a large scale for 600 ish years. For whatever reason, the Romans stopped using them. It might have been a cost thing. If you really wanted to match bows, steel ammo would be the best. It could hold a sharp point and have a brutal impact. But a version made by Acroballistics was around 42 grams (if my memory is right), which is probably as much or more material than the point of a Manchu arrow. That’s a lot of material for a single shot.
@@Cycad1 Lead was likely used for a longer period of time. There was a Bronze-age site in the Near-East that sets back the earliest dating of lead projectiles from the ~5th Century B.C.E to about ~1000-1200 B.C.E.
The piece in question is titled 'A lead ingot and lead production at Late Bronze Age Hala Sultan Tekke'
Regarding ammunition and sharp points, You should look into the findings of Cypriot sling bullets. Quite a few of them are Bimetallic projectiles with bronze blades embedded into the core of a lead sling bullet, creating UFO like sling bullets. I happen to have a damaged one in my 'collection' of sling bullets at home.
It's not undeniable that slings are the least efficient & effective ranged weapon. We have multiple 16th-century sources saying the sling was nearly as powerful as an arquebus or was like an arquebus. We have multiple sources saying the sling could incapacitate or kill soldiers in plate armor. It's a legitimate question why such a potent ranged weapon didn't see more use in medieval Europe, as the arquebus didn't exist then.
The comparison to an arquebus is sensationalized. They were just impressed by the power, that doesn’t mean it actually was that strong. You certainly wouldn’t be able to kill a dude in plate armor. For example, the conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo was hit in the head with a sling stone during a battle in Mexico. He was wearing a helmet, so although rattled and wounded he was able to continue fighting. For comparison, one account of the death of Moctezuma had him die as a result of a sling stone. It took a while for him to actually die.
I guess I’d be curious to know what sources you have for incapacitating or killing men in armor, especially plate armor. Everything I’ve seen seems to suggest that this is not the case. Sling stones in most cases only pose a lethal danger to in armored targets.
I wonder if geography drives slinging: the Pacific Islands had to be careful about how much wood they could use, Tibet and Peru the woods are a bit down out of reach of the herding peoples, Middle Eastern slingers often come from mountainous regions without a lot of good wood, Rhodes and the Balearic islands are rocky, etc. Not much bow wood, plenty of stones, so slinging is a good idea.
There's something I see a lot about shepherds associated with slings; is that codified by the Bible? On one hand there's a lot of herders in Eurasia with slings. On the other hand there's a lot more archers on the steppe (probably because of horses) and in Africa the sling is pretty uncommon while most of the continent relies on big herds of livestock.
TLDR 1000 years of tradition and culture to create 500 slingers vs me'n the boys came down from the pub and the sargent gave us this goofy looking stick an' i saw a greek guy with a rope so i shot him with it.
there was a lot more slingers mostly in mob and riot use and sieges
@@HistoricalWeapons Benevenuto Cellini's autobiographical account is a great source for that!
Benevenuto Cellini was watching a duel between his teenage friend and some rando rich guy... and when the rich guy was losing the fight one of the people in the crowd who was probably on the Rich-guy's side literally pulled out a sling and pelted Cellini's friend in the back of the head, which struck him 'Nearly dead' IIRC. Cellini had to pull his unconscious friend out through the crowd.
Monstra
😮
hi
ues
HISTORICAL WEAPONS MAKES HIS OWN STORY UP AS HE GOES ALONG. MATE, DO PROPER RESEARCH AND STOO GUESSING.
There is no historical source that explicitly explains why slings are used less, hence my speculation
😢
😂
😮