lenoon posted:

That's the very final word I've come across from the man. Oh how perfectly George.

Arquinsiel posted:

To be fair, that's one hell of an to finish on.

lenoon posted:

lenoon posted:

Agreed. I am a massive fan of the phrase "will o the wisp Imperialists".

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

There's something delightfully "handbags at ten paces" about their exchange.

SeanBeansShako posted:

Just think if the huge swathes of their generation hadn't been horribly killed in the 1st World War how we'd all speak today.

I want to see their hip hop!

EvanSchenck posted:

Given how effective slings were, and the fact that they and their ammunition are ridiculously cheap, why were they abandoned in favor of archery in almost every part of Europe? I assume it has to do with arrows being more likely to cause incapacitating or fatal wounds as they pass through the body. I'm also curious about the effectiveness of sling bullets against padded cloth armor like the gambeson, which were considered the minimum standard for armor.

Nenonen posted:

In addition to EvanSchenck's question, how did they compare in accuracy? Whereas I've understood the concept of bow since childhood, sling is completely alien and I wouldn't dare to try it lest I embed a bullet in my face.

quote:

In Livy’s History of Rome, which was completed in 9 A.D., he states,
A hundred slingers were recruited from Aegium and Patrae and Dymae. These peoples were trained from boyhood [...] Having been trained to shoot through rings of moderate circumference from long distances, they would wound not merely the heads of their enemies but any part of the face at which they might have aimed.

Strabo, a Roman historian born in 64 B.C. commented on the famed Balearic slingers:
...their training in the use of slings used to be such, from childhood up, that [parents] would not so much as give bread to their children unless they first hit it with the sling.

Vegetius, Florus, and other classical writers confirm this Balearic tradition and their remarkable proficiency. The Bible also mentions another legendary group, the Benjamites, noting, “every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss.” (Judges 20.16)

Griz posted:

I'm not an expert in the field but I think it was a combination of bows getting better, extensive trade routes allowing more centralized governments to equip lots of dudes with these bows and their expensive arrows (the tremendous cost of arrows came up somewhere earlier in this thread), and the shift to farming and enclosed pastures instead of free-roaming herds where there were lots of young men sitting around watching sheep and practicing slinging all day.


Professional slingers were noted for their exceptional accuracy, but there's only so many shepherds with thousands of hours of sling practice, and training random peasants to be reasonably good archers is faster and safer than doing the same with slings. You can't really gently caress up shooting a bow (other than scraping the poo poo out of your forearm if you aren't wearing a bracer) but inexperienced slingers can whack themselves with the loaded sling or launch the projectile straight up or behind them.

http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

Fangz posted:

recall that David smacking Goliath in the forehead was considered a miraculous feat of skill

Chillyrabbit posted:

So the bow obsoletes the sling like the musket obsoletes the bow, by being faster, easier and cheaper to train then a slinger?

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

You are seriously misunderstanding the story. The miracle is that a stone launched from a sling killed a seemingly invincible giant. Goliath's armament (helmet, armor, sword, spear, and javelin) are used to contrast markedly with David's meager sling and stone. There is no suggestion that hitting Goliath in the forehead was a difficult shot.

quote:

So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. 49 Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it.

pthighs posted:

I was always taught that David hit Goliath right in the temple, which was the only small unprotected spot on his dead due to the helmet he was wearing, so in that sense it was a miraculous shot. But that also sounds like it might be embellishment - it sounds a lot like Smaug being hit on the missing scale.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

There's also a suggestion by one rabbi that the text has been misinterpreted and originally one of David's shots ended up getting stuck in Goliath's greaves, causing Goliath to stumble around unable to flex his leg, giving David an opportunity to cut his head off.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

There's also a suggestion by one rabbi that the text has been misinterpreted and originally one of David's shots ended up getting stuck in Goliath's greaves, causing Goliath to stumble around unable to flex his leg, giving David an opportunity to cut his head off.

Fangz posted:

If it was straightforward to hit a charging warrior in an unprotected but lethal area with a stone, I do not think the feat would have been so remarkable. Remember in the story also that David brought five stones to the fight - which I assume implies he expected to miss.

quote:

Edit: Certainly I agree that the story contrasts the equipment of the two, but in the context of a readership who is familiar with what a sling is capable of, I think there is nevertheless also an understanding that this is a difficult shot to make in a difficult match up. Otherwise it would kinda undermine the entire point, having it be something like that scene in Indiana Jones where Jones just shoots the swordsman. A slinger is expected to lose to a guy like Goliath, whose armour should provide sufficient protection.

gradenko_2000 posted:

When people talk about encrypted/coded messages over the radio in WW2, what does that actually mean? It is it like, you write down your message, jumble the letters according to your cipher, broadcast the letters in morse [?], the receiver gets the jumbled letters, and then they decrypt?

And then, in the case of the need for real-time voice transmissions, are those always in plain spoken-word, such that anyone on the same frequency can hear you ordering your tanks to wheel around (assuming they had the frequency and spoke the language)?

SeanBeansShako posted:

I remember reading about quite a few people in the neutral nations risking their lives in saving some people from the concentration camps which is drat heroic.

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Or he expected the injury of one stone to be insufficient, or there is mystical significance to the number five, or it is easier to find one of five stones in a bag than just the one, or some thing else. You are inferring a lot from the presence of 5 stones. You are also underestimating how accurate slings are,. Livy notes, speaking of slingers from Aegeam, Patram, and Dymae " they would wound not merely the heads of their enemies but any part of the face at which they might have aimed." Given Goliath and David were able to exchange threats, and then ran towards each other, they can't have been very far apart when David loosed his projectile, and Goliath having a significantly larger face than the average man would mean this feat required even less skill than what has already been achievable by men. It is not miraculous.


All the language in the passage emphasizes Goliath's strength, from his size to listing the weight of his armour and weapons. David, meanwhile, emphasizes physical weakness and inexperience, being both only a boy and unused to wearing armour. Yet David had already slain a lion and a bear, both strong animals. This is because David's might comes from God rather than his own body, and thus on an enemy even larger than the bear or lion he is able to fell him with the first blow. The stone struck Goliath in the forehead "so that the stone sank into his forehead", a qualifier that emphasizes the power of the shot. This is a telling blow, not a rock whipped by a youth. This is because the passage is set up to demonstrate testing strength on strength (the strength of God vs. the strength of men), not the accuracy of David's aim.

Ensign Expendable posted:

Yup, that's pretty much how encryption worked.

With real time transmissions you would use code words, as the enemy was very likely listening in. I read a German document that complained about poor radio discipline where a German commander called for reinforcements in plaintext on a frequency known by the Soviets, so they knew his position was weak and attacked there.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is something like real-time encryption of voice traffic something that exists now in militaries? When was it developed if so?

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

This is because David's might comes from God rather than his own body

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is something like real-time encryption of voice traffic something that exists now in militaries? When was it developed if so?

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

There's also a suggestion by one rabbi that the text has been misinterpreted and originally one of David's shots ended up getting stuck in Goliath's greaves, causing Goliath to stumble around unable to flex his leg, giving David an opportunity to cut his head off.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Not much has changed

gradenko_2000 posted:

When people talk about encrypted/coded messages over the radio in WW2, what does that actually mean? It is it like, you write down your message, jumble the letters according to your cipher, broadcast the letters in morse [?], the receiver gets the jumbled letters, and then they decrypt?

And then, in the case of the need for real-time voice transmissions, are those always in plain spoken-word, such that anyone on the same frequency can hear you ordering your tanks to wheel around (assuming they had the frequency and spoke the language)?

SlothfulCobra posted:

There's a lot of implausible parts of the bible, but knocking a guy down by hitting him in the face with a rock isn't one.

Phanatic posted:

There's also the suggestion that it's a bunch of folk mythology/bullshit and NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. See also: all of Exodus.

Arquinsiel posted:

Bear in mind that some giants were descended from some angels and thus were magical. This is basically an Eowyn vs Witch King duel.

Polyakov posted:

Those giants all got nobbed because their naval budget wasn't large enough, if only IJN planners had been around at the time for some good super-ark on super-ark combat.