|
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.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 22:03 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 14:45 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 22:16 |
|
lenoon posted:That's the very final word I've come across from the man. Oh how perfectly George.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 22:19 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:To be fair, that's one hell of an to finish on. Agreed. I am a massive fan of the phrase "will o the wisp Imperialists".
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 22:46 |
|
That one photo of a supposedly American born POW in July 1941 keeps bugging me. The caption date is 8 July so if the photo was taken on that day then the prisoner would have been captured among the first POWs of the war and then delivered to Nastola on an express train. It's not physically impossible but it does sound like there could be some mis-captioning going on.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 22:52 |
|
"My skunk must have the breath of life in its body" is a phrase I need to memorize, for reasons...
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 23:12 |
|
lenoon posted:Agreed. I am a massive fan of the phrase "will o the wisp Imperialists". There's something delightfully "handbags at ten paces" about their exchange. Also, I really don't know what Ol' George would make of his book being sold for over a hundred quid these days. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 00:46 |
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:There's something delightfully "handbags at ten paces" about their exchange. 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!
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 00:49 |
|
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRPBCiJg2c
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 01:15 |
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. 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. 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. 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. quote:In Livy’s History of Rome, which was completed in 9 A.D., he states,
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:18 |
|
There's disadvantages to slings. The effective range is limited, accuracy requires a lot of training (recall that David smacking Goliath in the forehead was considered a miraculous feat of skill), a slinger needs space to work, and has difficulty shooting over the head of the man in front of him. It's also not easy to make use of arrow slits in fortifications.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:32 |
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. So the bow obsoletes the sling like the musket obsoletes the bow, by being faster, easier and cheaper to train then a slinger?
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:35 |
|
Fangz posted:recall that David smacking Goliath in the forehead was considered a miraculous feat of skill 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. 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? I don't buy this line of argument. Slings had almost completely disappeared from the battlefield by the turn of the 12th century, and I haven't seen any actual positive evidence that they took more time to train or maintain. Instead we have a lot of retroactive theories justifying their disappearance, but even these fall apart under scrutiny. Slings can be made for far less money than bows, and stones are essentially free while lead bullets, though not cheap in the strictest sense, certainly cost less than arrows to make both in time and materials. As mentioned above there is no evidence that slings take more time than bows to train for, and in Nikephoros Ouranos's Taktika it is advised that archers also carry slings on their belts, which suggests they have sufficient time to train for both. Unfortunately I can't find any reliable recorded figures for slings to compare with corresponding figures from, say, Mark Stretton's arrows, so you all are saved from me mangling physics again. The one thing I will say is that sling projectiles, be they stone or lead, will have a larger impact area than an arrow, and will require, correspondingly, more energy to penetrate their target. Slings obviously were useful weapons, given their use in warfare for many centuries, but I find it very hard to believe they were strictly superior to bows, discounting logistical concerns. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:14 |
|
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. So they said he had no sword in his hand, but that he killed him with his sword? And did he throw the rock, or sling it? Who was on the nearby grassy knoll? Was there a second slinger?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:24 |
That's probably but just in case: David kills Goliath with Goliath's sword, after knocking him to the ground with a slung ('thrown ') rock.
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:28 |
|
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. 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. Fangz fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:36 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:54 |
|
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. Way back when I was a kid and went to Sunday school they had an illustration of David as like a 10-year old kid beaning Goliath right between the eyes with a rock. Back then the story was reworded just to say David knocked him down but for a room full of kids who threw rocks at birds and squirrels and possums (but not dogs or cats, it was definitely hosed up to throw rocks at cats/dogs) out of childish assholery that wasn't fooling everyone and he clearly killed his big rear end dead with a rock to the head.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 05:13 |
|
I only remember the version in Xena in which Goliath's weak spot was between the eyes.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 07:52 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 07:55 |
|
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. Bible: the Mechwarrior story. "Hit them on the weakspot for massive damage" - Proverbs, 5:15
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 09:18 |
|
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. This is way cooler.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 11:39 |
|
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. 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. 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. 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.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 13:33 |
|
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)?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 13:34 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 13:44 |
Speaking of the 2nd World War, how did movement of the population in Europe work at the time with both neutral and occupied by the Axis countries? Did they keep a close eye on people from Switzerland and Spain? how easy was it for somebody to move from occupied France to a neutral country? did trains have to be constantly stopped and searched? What were the more neutral mainland Europe stances on POW's of both sides? 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.
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 14:18 |
|
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. Today they would be called people smugglers, I bet. Well, some really were in it for profit I bet, but then there's also costs and considerable risks so I wouldn't blame a fisher for taking a fee for taking a family across the sea. In general back in the day there were a lot more policemen, plus military police and other officials who would love to check your papers if you seemed out of place, and without proper documentation it would be nigh impossible to get accommodation. On the other hand at least papers were easier to forge back then, especially when there were no international standards - how would a local constable know if your Portuguese passport from 1914 was real or not? Stopping a train between stations would be counter-productive though, it's better to inspect papers when the train is moving so you can't get out easily.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:02 |
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. There's also been suggestions by modern scholars that if David vs. Goliath was based on an actual incident, Goliath may have suffered from gigantism caused by tumors of the pituitary gland, like Andre the Giant. These tumors can press on nerve fibers in the optic chiasm, resulting in a narrower field of vision. Goliath is described in the Bible as slowly moving led by a shield bearer, and his dialogue suggests that he may be having trouble even seeing David in the distance. So according to Malcolm Gladwell, the true meaning of David & Goliath is that Goliath's greatest strength also acts as his greatest weakness. It was essentially this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:30 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yup, that's pretty much how encryption worked. Is something like real-time encryption of voice traffic something that exists now in militaries? When was it developed if so?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:32 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is something like real-time encryption of voice traffic something that exists now in militaries? When was it developed if so? Older than you think - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:46 |
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is because David's might comes from God rather than his own body Swole with the lord
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:49 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is something like real-time encryption of voice traffic something that exists now in militaries? When was it developed if so? Voice encryption has been around since WWII (see above post) and pretty much everything digital today is encrypted, but tactical radio comms are still usually not: they are mostly analog and thus just use frequency hopping as their main form of cryptography.. FH is getting pretty long in the tooth though so there's been a years-long movement towards proper digital tactical comms which will actually encrypt a digital signal among other neat things. Development has been shall we say challenging however. bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:19 |
|
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. There's also the suggestion that it's a bunch of folk mythology/bullshit and NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. See also: all of Exodus.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:05 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:49 |
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:
There's also that one guy who dropped a toilet on Vietnam. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 19:07 |
|
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? There was also Hellschreiber as a sort of radio fax machine for text. The chief advantage was presumably not needing to know morse. I don't know how prevalent its use was.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 21:15 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2016 00:24 |
|
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. Thanks for your contribution, Mr. Dawkins, but the truth of whether David and Goliath ever existed is ABSOLUTELY loving IRRELEVANT for the purposes of this discussion, which you would've noticed if you weren't so anxious to get off a cool edgy HEY DID U KNO TEH BIBBLE IS DUMB r/atheism post. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Oct 8, 2016 |
# ? Oct 8, 2016 00:25 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2016 00:28 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 14:45 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2016 00:48 |