Slings

正在查看此主题的用户

I get the impression that slings fell out of military use before or in the middle ages, but if what I have read in a few places is right, I don't see why. Wikipedia states the advantages of range, effectiveness against armour, light weight, and ease of ammunition supply. So what was it's disadvantages? Inaccuracy? Hard to use?
 
This should help, I think.  If I recall, a series of videos made by this knowledgeable chap with a beard.

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/20/covH4voKukw

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/19/ivsfp9y9E6g

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/18/yJ3bBkRIJNU

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/17/lU87f5o8vMg

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/16/sGSsbCPeocU

http://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige#p/u/15/gXiUDJRgiUc
 
The mesoamericans made extensive use of slings.

I think when they fought the Spaniards they might have chipped a few teeth and scratched some armor and perhaps killed the one unlucky chap with no helmet on.
 
"For example, during the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire in the 15th century, an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980). "

True, they wouldn't pierce plate armour with every go.  Then again, neither would arrows, thrown spears, or axes.
 
Captain Pyjama Shark 说:
"For example, during the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire in the 15th century, an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980). "

True, they wouldn't pierce plate armour with every go.  Then again, neither would arrows, thrown spears, or axes.

All I know is that none of those mesoamerican civilizations exist anymore because rock doesnt beat iron.
 
Also because of the vast amounts of Indian allies who essentially did all the work and were then written out of history by the Spanish so that they wouldn't have to make good on deals. 
 
Captain Pyjama Shark 说:
Also because of the vast amounts of Indian allies who essentially did all the work and were then written out of history by the Spanish so that they wouldn't have to make good on deals.

Yep the Conquistadors were very good conquerors
 
Captain Pyjama Shark 说:
Well they were good negotiators, opportunists, and liars, though I guess that's what it takes.

People forget alot that there is more to war and conquest than fighting

you learn this from all the kids argueing with eachother over who killed the most people or who fought the most in ww2 to decide who is responsible for winning it on sites like youtube under every video.

They constantly forget the other hundreds of aspects of war that dont have anything to do with fighting.
 
True, Hernan Cortes had about 300 men, and always had 1/3 in reserve in the fort he ordered to built in the coast. Such military force didn't destroy an empire of more than 1 million hab. Religion, diplomacy, fear... those are the real weapons  :razz: (and a lot of luck)

About slings, an arrow with metal tip can go though plate armor (not against chain or some padded clothes). So why use a sling?

Shatter a sword? Hardly, those swords weren't that rigid. Lucky shot. That's like those hollywood movies of sniper shooting though enemy sniper's sight.
 
Although slings are devastating, I don't believe they could shatter a sword. Swords are made to endure hitting, slashing and cutting. I don't think a piece of highly accelerated rock could ever shatter a sword. Not even if it's made of bad quality iron. But since skulls aren't made of iron, they shattered quite well. And that's why slings were used. Shattering a sword wouldn't bring much use to slingers, but smashing ones skull... Btw, that guy who lost his sword would probably have some more blades with him, or he could just go berserk and kick your ass for breaking his precious sword. :wink:
 
Lord Tryko 说:
Although slings are devastating, I don't believe they could shatter a sword. Swords are made to endure hitting, slashing and cutting. I don't think a piece of highly accelerated rock could ever shatter a sword. Not even if it's made of bad quality iron. But since skulls aren't made of iron, they shattered quite well. And that's why slings were used. Shattering a sword wouldn't bring much use to slingers, but smashing ones skull... Btw, that guy who lost his sword would probably have some more blades with him, or he could just go berserk and kick your ass for breaking his precious sword. :wink:

the Spanish were in the jungle, perhaps the sword in question was allready horribly corroded
 
Another advantage to slings is the possibility to break wrists and arms, largely useful against archers, or in this case, Arquebusiers.
 
Austupaio 说:
Another advantage to slings is the possibility to break wrists and arms, largely useful against archers, or in this case, Arquebusiers.

The Spanish didnt use firearms very much in that theatre they just werent practical so they mainly used crossbows.

Anyhow such precision required to hit enemies in specific regions of the body would be really uncommon so its not a good excuse for slings over some other superior weapon. The reason slings were used at all was because they were cheap and in volleys were effective enough against unarmored opponants but in the end its just a glorified version of throwing rocks.
 
According to Spanish accounts, slings were effective against armour (far more so than obsidian-tipped arrows at least) and the impact is described as similar to an arquebus.

Also, disease was a HUGE factor in the success of the conquistadors, since it wiped out most of their population and left the survivors needing to fill the void which happens when a sharp population drop happens.
 
后退
顶部 底部