Archers vs Slingers

[vakarr]

Is the only difference between light infantry archers and slingers the range and points value, or do they have differing effects on their target, e.g. slingers do better against armoured targets?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Range and points are the only difference.

[vakarr]

OK that's kind of disappointing but, thanks!

[TheGrayMouser]

OK that's kind of disappointing but, thanks!

Why disappointing? Its possible an individual sling shot did more "damage" than an arrow but likely bows were more accurate, flexible in various tactical situations, could shoot faster and finally, the men could be a lot closer together so more concentrated firepower.

[MVP7]

I'm very suspicious of whether a sling would deal more damage to armoured opponent. Slings were most prominent when armour was relatively rare and provided limited coverage. Role of slings in warfare declined through the middle ages while armour became stronger and more common. I'm not claiming there's certain causality between the two but they definitely correlate.

A lead sling projectile weighs about the same as arrow, it can be launched at higher velocity than an arrow and it would even suffer less from air resistance. Even with all that considered an arrow still focuses it's energy on much smaller area and hence pierces better, especially with purpose built arrows.

I'm not saying a sling would always be worse than a bow against armor, just that the difference between the two systems on average is probably not significant enough either way to make one better than the other. What I think is more questionable is if the sling actually deserves to have a shorter range than the bows as there are not ballistic reasons for it and there are records of extremely skilled slingers.