Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9747914" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Okay. Good. I will add it to the stack. Glad to see it isn't 'I've practiced Martial Art X for 5 years/heard the word HEMA three times/watched Todd's LindyGladitoria Youtube for the past 6 months and am convinced no other gamer knows this stuff' version 8,675,309.Re: Slings --Any number of weapons are 'obsolete once armor and shield are being used,' yet still saw plenty of use. Spears/pikes are notably bad at penetration, yet get used pretty much throughout history. Swords, particularly slashing-focused ones, also generally (so, yes, except a bunch of exceptions) had trouble with armor and shields. Sometimes this meant only using it against the softest troops. Sometimes, it meant going around the armor -- which was possible because near full-body complete armoring was rare up until very late (doubly so when applied to one's horse). Sometimes it meant that the weapon was mostly to disrupt or make you keep your head down/shield up/whatever so you are more vulnerable to the real main thrust.Slings undoubtedly did slip from common battlefield usage in some part as more and more troops would have had helms and shields and other armor. But I think there were any number of other reasons. Their status as high-skill-requiring weapons used by non-densely-packed foot troops was always a niche troop type that you had to work to make work, and fluctuated with situation and technology (moreso, I am saying, as this applies to every troop type).</blockquote>

Verification