Post by jonathan Post by Byker
Hamas top dog: “This is not peaceful resistance. When we talk about peaceful
resistance, we are deceiving the public”
BY ROBERT SPENCER
MAY 15, 2018
Israel didn't need to use live ammunition.
Sheesh, Jonathon you are one ignorant snowflake.
When a terrorist is 100 yards away, with many other
terrorists slinging big deadly rocks,
how would you try to stop them?
Even my news broadcasts show dozens of these Palestinian
military age young men using slings to throw projectiles
at the Israeli soldiers.
By luck, they even tonight had a snippet, one was whipping
the sling around, just as he went down (presume with gunshot?)
Slings are indeed very deadly.
Just how effective and were slings as weapons in ancient warfare and how
were they used?
In the video game Rome 2 total war groups of slingers consisting of
about 160 men each are extremely deadly. They can concentrate rapid fire
on a unit of infantry and shred them. I find it hard to believe that men
essentially throwing rocks could penetrate armor and have enough force
to kill a man. What was the reality of these weapons?
all 147 comments
sorted by: best
[–]JehovahsHitlist 666 points 4 years ago*
Well, there are a few sources that suggest that slings were
exceptionally dangerous weapons in that period, whether you were
armoured or not. Manfred Korfmann in his article The Sling as a Weapon
(which unfortunately I can't find a way to get to without using my
University library to access databases that require accounts) has a few
things to say about them that suggest they are a very deadly weapon. For
him and other sources, I'll just recount the things about them that
talks about how damaging they were, not neat things like their range
compared to bows or whatever.
Korfmann writes that missiles could reach speeds of 100kmph if they
weighed 25 grams or more, which is an intimidating velocity to be sure
and would do a lot of damage on impact, the equivalent of a golf ball
falling from a 7 story building. Vegetius (who was a 4th century AD
Roman military author), writes that biconical (oval shaped) missiles
were more deadly than arrows to a man in leather armour. Even if the
missile could not penetrate the armour of their targets, Vegetius writes
that they were capable of inflicting fatal internal injuries. Vegetius
was writing at the height of the Roman Empire, so clearly slings would
have been capable of killing men in armour for the entirety of the
period Rome 2 is set. In addition to this, Korfmann points to De
Medicina, a Roman medical text so influencial that it was used up to the
18th century. It contains instructions for extracting stone and lead
bullets from the bodies of soldiers.
This next bit is cool; Korfmann goes on to discuss the use of slings
against Conquistadors many centuries later in Peru. "Their chief
weapon," wrote one Spanish observer, "is the sling. With it they throw a
large stone with such force that it could kill a horse. Its effect is
indeed only slightly less than that of [a Spanish firearm]." That, I
think, says a lot about the killing power of the sling. Also this: "I
have seen how a stone flung from a sling over a distance of 30 paces
broke in two a sword that a man was holding in his hand."
So, to answer your question, slings were more than capable at killing an
armour wearing man, though obviously armour was not incapable of
providing protection (Greek historian Thucydides noted that when
invaders attacked Epirus, they were so beset by sling fire that "it was
not possible for [the invaders] to stir without armour"), and whilst I'd
tend towards seeing the sling in Rome 2 as slightly overpowered (this
was before they fixed testudos and I lost entire cohorts in under a
minute), from a historical perspective, yes, slings could kill men
wearing armour, and were a very, very dangerous weapon.