Level 1 Halfling ranger
Ranged: sling +5 (1d3 +2)Level 1 Elf fighter
Ranged: longbow +5 (1d8)Now on top of this said elf had a better melee attack AND an unarmed option, matching the benefit of the sling being one I could take anywhere.
Yes, the elf had 1 less HP. His AC was better.
.
Hold on, a halfing gets +1 to attacks and a +1 to ac due to size. Thus, all things being equal, you AC should have been one higher, not lower, so you're off by 2. Your Attack should have been one higher, not the same.
Why did the elf have a unarmed option and you didn't?
:
1. Make reload time equal to the time it takes to draw a weapon.
Reload time for a halfling with the warsling trait is free action.
Reload time for a halfling with the warsling trait is free action.:
1. Make reload time equal to the time it takes to draw a weapon.
Nope. The halfling racial trait for slings doesn't apply to the halfling racial sling. Because the devs said so.
Dr Deth - yes, sorry; both the attacks were +6, not +5
Halfling:
16 dex, 14 str
Elf:
18 dex, 17 str
so...
Halfling: +1 BAB, +3 Dex, +1 Size, +1 Weapon Master
Elf: +1 BAB, +4 Dex, +1 Point Blank Shot
(we rolled stats)
But then AC
Halfling +2 armor, +3 dex, +1 size
Elf +3 armor, +4 dex
Sorry about that; should've posted this earlier.
And what you are being told is that longbows ARE more effective. In the same way that swords ARE more effective than clubs.
Not actually true. Swords are known as the king of weapons and with good reason, as they provide a versatile offense and defense. However, during most eras of foot combat involving armored people, spears, maces, and axes predominated. Spears provide superior penetration, while axes and maces can crush armor and joints. And a mace is, of course, just a metal club. If you recognize that historical slings used lead or bronze bullets, as a rule, or heavy quarry stone, it's not difficult to understand how slings are very dangerous to even an opponent in a helmet and breastplate. Imagine a pellet the size of a large marble, made of lead, hitting you with fastball speed. That's why I think slings should probably get the same damage die as a quarterstaff (d6). A d4 is probably right for bird shot.
Not actually true. Swords are known as the king of weapons and with good reason, as they provide a versatile offense and defense. However, during most eras of foot combat involving armored people, spears, maces, and axes predominated. Spears provide superior penetration, while axes and maces can crush armor and joints. And a mace is, of course, just a metal club. If you recognize that historical slings used lead or bronze bullets, as a rule, or heavy quarry stone, it's not difficult to understand how slings are very dangerous to even an opponent in a helmet and breastplate. Imagine a pellet the size of a large marble, made of lead, hitting you with fastball speed. That's why I think slings should probably get the same damage die as a quarterstaff (d6). A d4 is probably right for bird shot.And what you are being told is that longbows ARE more effective. In the same way that swords ARE more effective than clubs.
good points. Thank you for your thoughts.
Why aren't wooden swords as good as steel swords in the game...
I almost got killed by a wooden sword once. Either that or I would have wished I was dead. Incredibly dangerous.
Slings were better than portrayed in many game systems.
When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling.
How did that work out?
Yes, yes, disease....but seriously, you are arguing that slings are good because the Aztecs and Incas used them when they were absolutely destroyed by much smaller forces?
Really?
you can't handwave away the final decisionmaker in that conflict. I'm sure the spaniards would have won eventually, but it would have been bloodier without that critical piece. I also suspect the stories told by the victors in that particular conflict grew in the telling.
The macuahuitl they were using was actually really brutal against unarmored opponents. Same as most steel swords actually. It didn't have any worse penetration than, say, a katana would have. So in this sense, they were every bit as good as steel swords.
another deadly classic. Makes me miss dark sun.
Not actually true. Swords are known as the king of weapons and with good reason, as they provide a versatile offense and defense. However, during most eras of foot combat involving armored people, spears, maces, and axes predominated. Spears provide superior penetration, while axes and maces can crush armor and joints. And a mace is, of course, just a metal club. If you recognize that historical slings used lead or bronze bullets, as a rule, or heavy quarry stone, it's not difficult to understand how slings are very dangerous to even an opponent in a helmet and breastplate. Imagine a pellet the size of a large marble, made of lead, hitting you with fastball speed. That's why I think slings should probably get the same damage die as a quarterstaff (d6). A d4 is probably right for bird shot.And what you are being told is that longbows ARE more effective. In the same way that swords ARE more effective than clubs.
Did somebody say slings weren't dangerous? All I've seen is that there not as good as a bow (unless it's a really old style bow, in unfavorable conditions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1d3 damage barely counts as dangerous....
|
A halfling (the iconic sling user) with the maximum strength afforded to him by the elite array (13) cannot knock down a level 1 warrior with a pathetic 10 constitution, even with Point-Blank Shot. He does, fortunately, have a better than half chance of knocking down a level 1 commoner, as long as the commoner doesn't have Toughness. Barring the 1/20 crits of course for a pathetic x2 damage.
That is not a great representation of how dangerous the sling was.
I actually don't know that this is true. I was just looking up sling videos and realized my perception of what they looked like was wrong. They are still small and easy to hide, but they are not easy to quickly reload or fire.Faster than a crossbow, but it doesn't seem at all faster than or even on par with a bow.
Which is why I didn't make them faster or on par with a bow; someone untrained at speed usage will at level 1 load and fire a bow once as a standard action, and a slinger will load and fire once as a move and standard (though they can also move during the move action). With speed investment, the archer can fire two arrows as a full-round action and the slinger can fire one bullet as a standard action.
So the "reload as quickly as you draw a weapon" is slower than a bow, but faster than a crossbow.
Also, why would they be less effected by weather and wind given the mechanism for firing and far slower velocity.
The projectiles are much more dense. Arrows have fletching that makes them suffer immensely from wind, bullets don't. Especially side wind will affect large projectiles a lot. IIRC there are actually historical evidence that battles have hinged on slingers outranging the enemy's archers, precisely because of weather.
And finally, I actually wonder about accuracy when not using items made for the sling and practices with. Not saying adding that level of complexity is a good idea, but the "We can throw anything" doesn't seem consistent to the video's I've been looking at.
Hence why it works like a flask thrower rather than just allowing attacks with anything. Flask throwers have 20ft range increments. So the accuracy at range is lower.
A halfling (the iconic sling user) with the maximum strength afforded to him by the elite array (13) cannot knock down a level 1 warrior with a pathetic 10 constitution, even with Point-Blank Shot. He does, fortunately, have a better than half chance of knocking down a level 1 commoner, as long as the commoner doesn't have Toughness. Barring the 1/20 crits of course for a pathetic x2 damage.
That is not a great representation of how dangerous the sling was.
A three foot tall NPC with a rock and a string cannot kill a man with one blow?
A three foot tall NPC with a rock and a string cannot kill a man with one blow?
Have you ever been hit in the head with a rock going 70 miles an hour?
I can assure you that if you had, you likely would not be sitting here typing. You'd probably either be dead, or severely brain damaged.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A three foot tall NPC with a rock and a string cannot kill a man with one blow?Have you ever been hit in the head with a rock going 70 miles an hour?
I can assure you that if you had, you likely would not be sitting here typing. You'd probably either be dead, or severely brain damaged.
Like brain damage has ever stopped someone from typing on the Internet.
(Note: not an attack on you, just a joke.)
|
|
A three foot tall NPC with a rock and a string cannot kill a man with one blow?A halfling (the iconic sling user) with the maximum strength afforded to him by the elite array (13) cannot knock down a level 1 warrior with a pathetic 10 constitution, even with Point-Blank Shot. He does, fortunately, have a better than half chance of knocking down a level 1 commoner, as long as the commoner doesn't have Toughness. Barring the 1/20 crits of course for a pathetic x2 damage.
That is not a great representation of how dangerous the sling was.
I'm just saying that as the rules are currently written, any character using a sling is laughable. A halfling using their iconic weapon is laughable, and a human using a sling will only ever be asked why he isn't using a bow.
How is THAT historically accurate? Slingers were feared.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For an academic treatment of slings (rather than the unsubstantiated assertions of internet warriors), here's an peer-reviewed article from the Bulletin of Primitive Technology by Dr Chris Harrison.
Dr Christopher Harrison, for those who don't know, is a (now retired) History Professor and Fellow of the University of Keele.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arrows (and crossbow bolts) have great penetration potential because the entire mass of the projectile is concentrated in a thin cylinder directly behind a sharp point, which has a small impact area of about 0.08cm. In contrast, early sling projectiles were roughly spherical, with no defined tip. The impact area was much larger, about 1.9cm, severely reducing the projectile’s ability to penetrate flesh or armor. (Gabriel, 1991) These projectiles typically weighed about the same as arrows, so the sling had no advantage in payload mass (Korfmann, 1973; Gabriel, 1991; Richardson, 1998a; Skobelev, 2000). However, it should be noted that projectiles as large as a fist, perhaps half a kilogram or more in mass were sometimes used in slings (Hawkins, 1847; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Ferrill, 1985; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.3.16).
Advances in armor design were perhaps the sling’s biggest obstacle. In the early middle ages, it was common for infantry to carry a shield but wear little or no armor at all (DeVries, 1956; Martin, 1968; Nicholson, 2004). The sling would have been effective against these troops. However, by the High Middle Ages, advances in metallurgy and production meant more advanced armor was being used by knights and in greater quantity (Bradbury, 2004; Nicholson, 2004). These improvements trickled down to the common foot soldier. The formation of national or city militias meant that taxes could fund troop equipment, drastically raising the average level of armor in European armies (Martin, 1968). Plate armor became increasingly prevalent during the 1300s. By the 15th century, entire suits of plate mail were used by knights. (Blair, 1958; Nicholson, 2004) While a sling projectile has considerable impact energy, plate armor was often designed to deflect hits, reducing and redirecting the force. In addition, soldiers would wear gambesons and other padded clothes underneath their armor to diffuse the force of an impact. These new innovations made the sling ineffective. Although tipped projectiles were better suited at penetration, even archers and crossbowmen had difficulty with plate armor, which ultimately lead to the widespread adoption of firearms.
Basically what I gathered was slings are better than bows for people trained in the sling and people who didn't know how to make the more complex bows. That is a far cry from them better than, or even on par with, bows.
Relative to steel swords?Why aren't wooden swords as good as steel swords in the game...I almost got killed by a wooden sword once. Either that or I would have wished I was dead. Incredibly dangerous.
Miyamoto Musashi came down as saying that wooden swords were slightly advantageous, after suffering one of his few defeats at the hands of a jo master. Afterwards, he trained using a boat oar as a weapon, and used his new techniques to improve his swordsmanship, and also demonstrated his ability to use a wooden bokken to defeat a sword-armed opponent.
Similarly, several of the European weapon masters came around to weighing in favor of the quarterstaff over the longsword.
There is a lot to be said for cutting potential, and the sword has superior defensive capabilities relative to the ax, but especially against an armored opponent, impact matters more than edge. In fact, the famous "thunder stroke" of the longsword or greatsword fighter was delivered by grasping the sword via the ricasso, and smashing the opponent with the pommel or hilt of the sword, as a hammer. This could deliver a strong impact with less risk of damaging the blade.
For an academic treatment of slings (rather than the unsubstantiated assertions of internet warriors), here's an peer-reviewed article from the Bulletin of Primitive Technology by Dr Chris Harrison.
Dr Christopher Harrison, for those who don't know, is a (now retired) History Professor and Fellow of the University of Keele.
Great article, thanks.
"Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."
That's not quite medieval fantasy.
By the middle ages, the sling was largely replaced by the crossbow, including the bullet crossbow.
Note that all the examples of the sling above were in times of war.
Adventurers are not on battlefields. It is far more analogous to say they are dueling with small squads or single monsters.
Only officers bothered with longswords on an effective battlefield. On a battlefield, the SPEAR is the "king of weapons" (so named by the Chinese). If you wanted to hack at someone in armor, you used an axe, not a sword.
Swords got used by the wealthy who had time to devote to it, and by those who wanted to cut with some reach. It was far more a horseman's weapon then a foot soldiers. You can't build a spear hedge with swords, and long/broadswords tend to be rather ineffective next to short swords and punching daggers in tight quarters.
The sword used alone is a superior weapon because it is equal parts spear, axe and potentially hammer. It is VERSATILE. It is not as good at thrusting as a spear, lacking reach and speed (and can't be thrown easily). It's not as good as hacking as an axe, lacking weight and penetrating power. It's not as good at crushing as a mace or hammer, lacking weight and proper distribution.
But it can do all those things, if you are well trained...and it takes a long time to train an effective swordsman.
Slings work well when you have a group of men who can range a bunch of heavy rocks down from above on lightly armored or shield-less foes, breaking and concussing them.
in one on one dueling situations, it is clearly suboptimal, because of slower reload, less penetrating power, easier to dodge, and the fact it bounces off most armor. Without direct hits to the skull, a sling stone is unlikely to kill quickly.
The sling fell out of favor because it is an inferior all-around weapon. That's basically all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
These new innovations made the sling innefective[What follows is also revealing
" ...Although tipped projectiles were better suited at penetration, even archers and crossbowmen had difficulty with plate armor, which ultimately lead to the widespread adoption of firearms."
yet, longbows are not punished against plate armor in PF.
Again, it depends on what you mean by punished. Plate armor has a higher AC bonus, thus is harder to deal damage against some one wearing it. Slings actually gain a benefit compared to their real world counterpart in that you merely need to roll a higher attack than their AC rather than just ruling the sling ineffective. All these concepts your arguing are abstracted in the game. AC, hit points, etc.
There is an ongoing thread right now discussing the tedium of tracking the number of arrows an archer uses. How many people would use a multitude of rules for every single weapon.
Archers lose range if they keep their bows strung and cannot use them in the rain.
Crossbows ignore armor except for plate.
Slings stun opponents not wearing a helmet.
How many people complain that Pathfinder is too simplified?
dont get me wrong i am no expert, but has the shortbow ever shown any historical significance aside from its use in horse archery compared to the sling?
from everything i have read it seems medieval warfare has gone from sling to crossbow (with the English opting for the immense training given to the longbow. that makes it out to be an exotic weapon to me
The "short bow" in Pathfinder basically covers self bows (Bronze Age weapons), horse bows, and the type of bows using in hunting. It's an appropriate weapon for a scout. In open warfare, virtually all military bows would be considered longbows. However, in terms of the training required, the longbow and the greatsword would both be considered exotic weapons.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Longbow users? could the shot that fast and still do the draw required to penetrate an armor?
I've seen the modern archer in question penetrate armor with period arrows with his short bow, so yes, I am pretty sure it could penetrate. Further, if some scrawny dude with maybe 12 strength can quick-shoot his shortbow like that, I don't see why a massive guy with 20 strength and the same training (BAB) couldn't do the same with a longbow.
I knew going in that "dwarf and sorcerer " is not a optimal combo. But- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT- "Not optimal" does not = "not fun".
Now if "Not optimal" does = "not fun" for *YOU*, then for crikiessakes don't play a not optimal choice. Which you knew going in. Just like I did.
This is kind of the entire point of the thread. For many participating in this discussion, the following is true:
"Not optimal" = "not fun"
AND
"I want to use a sling as my primary weapon"
This is the issue. I, for example, would love to make a sling focused character, but being mechanically sub-optimal is not fun. That is the reason I find the situation frustrating.
A wooden sword is not a weapon of war, like the sling is. It is either a toy or a training aide, or essentially a club for thugs.
Tell that to the Hawaiians. They (and other Pacific Islanders) made wooden swords from special hardwoods that actually held an edge quite well and were very dangerous weapons of war. No, they're not going to chop through a steel breastplate, but, well, neither will a steel sword. Sharp metal does not chop through other metal--it doesn't happen. You can maybe pierce through it, but more likely, you'd want an axe or club to concuss or smash through the armor.
Which is again a big thing the sling has going for it. High speed lead bullets do more to heavily armored opponents than arrows do. Think about all those reports of Crusaders walking around looking like pincushions from all the arrows stuck in their armor that failed to penetrate and cause real damage--keeping in mind that they were being shot at by the people that actually used composite bows (and for reference, there weren't any composite longbows anyway, so the weapon people are claiming is the best historically isn't even real).
And a side note about the Macuahuitls that the Aztec's used, there are reports of them literally chopping horses in half, so, I'm going to guess that they were actually quite scary and dangerous, too.
This comes back to a few people asserting that the realism they care about is more important than any other bits of realism. Bows were not always better, and their limitations are not actually reflected in Pathfinder at all.
For example, in all seriousness, a composite bow could not get wet--heck, it couldn't really even be in humid conditions. Or cold ones. There's a reason the Inuit are famous for Cord-backed Bows. You also couldn't walk around with a strung bow for very long because the tension would destroy the weapon. You couldn't walk around with an arrow nocked and ready for dozens of reasons. You can't shoot effectively in high winds. People could actually dodge long range shots because the projectile was easy to see coming and your aim is obvious and dodgeable as well (dodging someone's aim is the only way to avoid ranged attacks at close ranges, and it does work). You're also unprotected while shooting a bow.
Slings, meanwhile suffered none of those issues. You could use one in literally any weather. You could hold one underwater for a week and then use it without fear. You could freeze one in a block of ice, pull it out, and sling with it right away. You could walk with a bullet in the cup and it would be no issue at all--it wouldn't even be tiring, since they're so light. There's no special set up (like stringing your bow before a fight, which could take a long time if it's an especially powerful bow), just load and sling. The projectile is too small to track visually for long distance shots, and there's no object pointing at you to dodge aim. You can sling straight into a strong wind and not suffer much in the way of lost accuracy or range because lead bullets are too dense to care about most wind. You can also use a shield with your sling, since it's easy enough to load one with the hand holding the shield, even while maintaining the shield's cover.
There are lots of different advantages the sling has over the bow, but none of them matter in the Pathfinder rules. The only thing the rules care about when it comes to ranged weapon is rate of fire, and since it's one area the sling lacks in (though it should be faster than a crossbow), the sling is just screwed mechanically.
A three foot tall NPC with a rock and a string cannot kill a man with one blow?
I don't know how serious this question is, but a three foot tall man with a rock and a string absolutely can kill a man with one blow. Weapons are good at killing--that's the point of weapons.
Anyway, the main reason put forward "proving" slings were worse than bows is that slings were replaced by bows in war. The problems with this line of thinking are extensive.
1) The PCs do not generally go to war. They are generally involved in small skirmishes between small forces, mostly of monsters, not men, so talking about a weapon's value in war is not exactly relevant.
2) However, if you want to talk about the value of a weapon in war, then swords need to stop being brought up. Swords were the pistol of the ancient arsenal. They were not used on the battlefield as anything but a back up. Spears and other polearms were the weapon of choice of just about every military ever (note that spears also get zero respect and are treated as junk weapons), with axes and various blunt weapons (clubs, essentially) being the next most prevalent.
3) Slings were supplanted mostly because they required too much time and effort to master. Bows take training and practice, but not nearly as much--not even close. However, this is not reflected in the game at all because the game considers slings easier weapons to use than bows.
Someone upthread mentioned that an army of conscripts with bows would be worse than an army of conscripts with crossbows. I don't understand why. If the conscripts are warriors, they'd be proficient with both. If they were commoners, they'd likely be proficient with neither, since a much better simple weapon to be proficient in would be the spear or dagger. At that point, they could choose proficiency in either weapon for a feat, and the bow would obviously be a better choice. So, yeah, that example doesn't really work at all.
The fact that there is even an issue here is baffling. I was skeptical at first, but I am really starting to see how the longbow (and longsword, for that matter) is (are) the katana of the West.
For the sling staff, not for slings in general.Nope. The halfling racial trait for slings doesn't apply to the halfling racial sling. Because the devs said so.Reload time for a halfling with the warsling trait is free action.:
1. Make reload time equal to the time it takes to draw a weapon.
Minds are useless, I lost mine a long time ago and dont ever miss it.
But I think one thing that could be used to improve slings would be a feat that allowed slings to be used to toss grenades and other nasty things. As I have mention before Grenades where often tossed by slings and I could see some one in pathfinder using a sling to do such.
Dr Deth - yes, sorry; both the attacks were +6, not +5
Halfling:
16 dex, 14 strElf:
18 dex, 17 strso...
Halfling: +1 BAB, +3 Dex, +1 Size, +1 Weapon Master
Elf: +1 BAB, +4 Dex, +1 Point Blank Shot
(we rolled stats)
But then AC
Halfling +2 armor, +3 dex, +1 size
Elf +3 armor, +4 dex.
He wore better armor, which is odd since you should have had much more $ left over. Str bows are Expensive. Slings are free.
But the big thing is he rolled 12 more points than you did. That's a HUGE difference. Esp since normal PF starting points is 15, so he almost had a whole characters worth of points more than you did.
For an academic treatment of slings (rather than the unsubstantiated assertions of internet warriors), here's an peer-reviewed article from the Bulletin of Primitive Technology by Dr Chris Harrison.
Dr Christopher Harrison, for those who don't know, is a (now retired) History Professor and Fellow of the University of Keele.
Great article, thanks.
"Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."
Yep, note that date- 300AD or so. Until they had decent CB and the Longbow, slings were still common military weapons. No one has said the sling wasn't a deadly weapon. Just that the CB and esp the longbow were BETTER, which oddly they are in the game. Once the Longbow and Crossbow became common, the sling disappears from standard military usage except for odd corner cases like sieges, etc.
This ground has been covered over and over and over- even in this thread, this is not anything new. The sling- in the hands of a expert was a decent weapon until surpassed by better technology. So was the Clovis point, the bronze spear and yes, even the longbow once decent firearms came out. Technology marches on.
dont get me wrong i am no expert, but has the shortbow ever shown any historical significance aside from its use in horse archery compared to the sling?
f
Yes, auxiliaries were armed with slings, short bows and javelins. The Cretan Archers were as well known and feared as the Balearic Slingers. And indeed, in PF the simple short bow has little to commend it over the sling for low level warriors.
Which is again a big thing the sling has going for it. High speed lead bullets do more to heavily armored opponents than arrows do.
The article posted above, in defense if slings, said the exact opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to make a sling now.
Which is again a big thing the sling has going for it. High speed lead bullets do more to heavily armored opponents than arrows do.The article posted above, in defense if slings, said the exact opposite.
No, the article was specifically talking about penetration. It never mentioned anything about which had more effect when they didn't penetrate. As the quote from the Romans attested to, the sling did not need to penetrate to kill.
But let me point out the ultimate conclusion again:
Nothing penetrated reliably except for guns. Guns. The sling was a viable weapon straight up until guns, just like bows and crossbows, so this nonsense about it being replaced earlier than that by bows can stop.
I really want to make a sling now.
Me, too, and it's apparently really easy.
the reason why the 20 str guy with the longbow can't shoot as fast as the 12 str guy with a short bow is the draw lengeth.
A short bow is typically drawn to the chest, moving your hand maybe a foot.
A longbow is a full draw, because the stave of the bow allows you to...it's the LENGTH of the draw that makes a longbow more powerful then a shortbow. You can put identical poundage on two bows, but the longbow has a longer draw, so it accelerates the arrow for a longer distance then a short bow does, resulting in a higher speed and more penetrating power with a heavier arrow.
You do flick-shots like are done in that video using a longbow, guess what? No better then a short bow in force, and now your weapon is heavier.
==Aelryinth
Which is again a big thing the sling has going for it. High speed lead bullets do more to heavily armored opponents than arrows do.The article posted above, in defense if slings, said the exact opposite.No, the article was specifically talking about penetration. It never mentioned anything about which had more effect when they didn't penetrate. As the quote from the Romans attested to, the sling did not need to penetrate to kill.
But let me point out the ultimate conclusion again:
Nothing penetrated reliably except for guns. Guns. The sling was a viable weapon straight up until guns, just like bows and crossbows, so this nonsense about it being replaced earlier than that by bows can stop.
Nothing penetrated plate mail reliably, until guns. That's why armor died out (for awhile) after guns.
Just going by that one article (as I am not an expert) the times where slings were used over bows...
1. Didn't know how to make bows
2. Couldn't afford bows
3. People already trained with slings
None of this suggests to me that slings were better or even on par with bows.
Edit: just to add-I don't believe anyone has said slings weren't a viable weapon, just not an optimal weapon. If I'm a crazy MMA guy (which I am not) but have never used a sword; I'm probably better unarmed than armed with a sword. This is not proof that fists are better with swords.
The sling, much like the shortsword (gladius) was superceded early on in the medieval period, but did not disappear entirely until the Renaissance. Slings and staff slings are still used today; John Rambo aside, modern fighters use slings, not bows, to hurl grenades. The humble shortsword finally gave way, not to the pistol, but to the curved Bowie knife and the tanto.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing penetrated plate mail reliably, until guns. That's why armor died out (for awhile) after guns.
That's a myth. The phrase "bulletproof" in fact refers to testing armor for the ability to stop a bullet. Armor became heavier to stop bullets; as a consequence, warriors on the march started discarding pieces bit by bit, until by the time of the Spanish Empire, nothing remained but the helmet, breastplate, and maybe bracers. Even then, soldiers would sometimes discard the heavy and hot armor, an offense punishable by whipping and loss of pay. But those breastplates could and did stop bullets. Armor declined in popularity because few people had good reason to wear it regularly. However, it still existed in many armies even at the time of the US Civil War. During the US Civil War, the soldiers were generally unarmored because armor was expensive but conscripts were cheap; as a result, the Civil War caused a boom in business for private companies who sold bulletproof armor, which was then employed by those soldiers who could afford it. Even some risk-averse officers were known to have worn small breastplates under their uniforms. During WWI, breastplates were employed by the Germans for their machinegunners, and at the outbreak of WWII, many tank and truck gunners were also outfitted with breastplates, until supplies ran low. Note that almost universally, soldiers in both world wars wore plate armor... on their heads! It was certainly possible to have outfitted WWII troopers as modern day knights, but those resources were instead used to create numerous fast and heavily armored vehicles for transport.
Mostly, the end of armor was caused by a shift from elite, expensive mounted troops to less expensive foot soldiers. Consequently, gear had to be lighter, and also the political order of the day did not place a high value on the lives of common soldiers.
Nothing penetrated plate mail reliably, until guns. That's why armor died out (for awhile) after guns.
That's a myth. The phrase "bulletproof" in fact refers to testing armor for the ability to stop a bullet. Armor became heavier to stop bullets; as a consequence, warriors on the march started discarding pieces bit by bit, until by the time of the Spanish Empire, nothing remained but the helmet, breastplate, and maybe bracers. Even then, soldiers would sometimes discard the heavy and hot armor, an offense punishable by whipping and loss of pay. But those breastplates could and did stop bullets. Armor declined in popularity because few people had good reason to wear it regularly. However, it still existed in many armies even at the time of the US Civil War. During the US Civil War, the soldiers were generally unarmored because armor was expensive but conscripts were cheap; as a result, the Civil War caused a boom in business for private companies who sold bulletproof armor, which was then employed by those soldiers who could afford it. Even some risk-averse officers were known to have worn small breastplates under their uniforms. During WWI, breastplates were employed by the Germans for their machinegunners, and at the outbreak of WWII, many tank and truck gunners were also outfitted with breastplates, until supplies ran low. Note that almost universally, soldiers in both world wars wore plate armor... on their heads! It was certainly possible to have outfitted WWII troopers as modern day knights, but those resources were instead used to create numerous fast and heavily armored vehicles for transport.
Mostly, the end of armor was caused by a shift from elite, expensive mounted troops to less expensive foot soldiers. Consequently, gear had to be lighter, and also the political order of the day did not place a high value on the lives of common soldiers.
Just going by the article...
|
|
Slings were better than portrayed in many game systems.
When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling.
How did that work out?
Yes, yes, disease....but seriously, you are arguing that slings are good because the Aztecs and Incas used them when they were absolutely destroyed by much smaller forces?
Really?
As I recall Cortez destroyed the entire Incan empire with a force of 12 men armed with mustkets, swords, and bayonets.
That really doesn't say much for the awesome deadly powers of slings.
Citation needed.