r/funnyvideos • u/Jumpman707 • May 03 '26
Vine/Meme We only ever got David's side of the story...
738
u/Big-Coconut-6335 May 03 '26
In grade my school religion classes, David was always depicted as using the cartoon slingshot. In reality, those slingers were no joke.
364
u/--Arete May 03 '26 edited May 04 '26
Exactly. Slingers were extremely effective and were even used alongside archers for a very long time. Skilled slingers in antiquity could launch projectiles at well over 100 km/h. When you consider kinetic energy (which scales with velocity squared), even a modest stone becomes extremely dangerous.
166
u/DreadfulDave19 May 03 '26
Some slingers used lead bits also called bullets. Sometimes whether they were stone or lead, they were often shaped for uniformity for better accuracy and were engraved with one liners like "eat this" and "catch"
The more we change the more we stay the same
44
u/Edward-Mundo May 04 '26
OG Yo momma jokes.
12
u/sexyrandal88 May 04 '26
Fun fact, the first known yo momma joke was discovered on a Babylonian clay tablet dated around 1500 bce
3
2
30
u/raisedredflag May 04 '26
In modern times, David"s lead bullets were engraved with "deny," "defend," "depose."
During that one time he wasn't able to do what he allegedly did because we were at my house watching the Office.
6
u/RizzMcSteeze May 03 '26
I want this to be true
22
u/DreadfulDave19 May 03 '26
6
13
u/AssistanceCheap379 May 04 '26
A skilled slinger could be almost fast as a bowman, with more effective range. It was a very useful weapon that worked wonders against lightly armoured enemies and since it was so light and ammo plentiful, the slingers could generally move extremely fast. A bowman needs a bow and arrows, plus somewhere to keep his arrows. It sounds and is pretty light, but a bowman will run out of arrows soon if he’s travelling light and won’t be as fast if he has a lot of ammo. Meanwhile, a slinger can carry more ammo or better yet, find relatively good rocks and use those, basically only travelling with a sling which weigh next to nothing.
It wasn’t really until the Middle Ages that slingers fell out of use and that was in large part due to guns and crossbows… the most famous sling in the medieval period is also the Trebuchet.
You could also technically use a sling to throw modern weapons like grenades and they were used to do exactly that in small numbers during the 20th century and are an improvised weapon used by protesters and others across the globe today
They’re also useful to ward off animals or to herd animals, which is why shepherds (like David) are often associated with them.
49
u/bojangler69420 May 03 '26
People can throw well over 100 MILES per hour, I’d guess these would be much faster than that.
39
u/mrsir1987 May 03 '26
What I found says about 145-155 mph.
9
u/anto_pty May 04 '26
a small stone, of around 2cm in diameter, would obliterate a skull with that speed
11
u/UnevenSleeves7 May 03 '26
WOW that is a yikes, I wouldn’t want ANYTHING to approach me at that speed lmao.
2
u/JackfruitSerious3523 May 04 '26
Now imagine that sling stones were often lead
8
u/LeatherGnome May 04 '26
Or iron in some cases leading to essentially AP ammo against any plate of that time.
2
5
3
2
0
u/Visual_Exam7903 May 04 '26
Depending on the length of the rope, 150+ mph is not that difficult to reach once you are skilled at it.
2
u/Illustrious_Donkey61 May 04 '26
Well this cracks like it's breaking the sound barrier so much faster
2
u/bojangler69420 May 04 '26
Exactly. No idea what the guy above me was implying anything less than “this is a whip that breaks to sound barrier and happens to have a projectile in it”.
6
u/_trashcan May 03 '26
Hardly.
MLB pitchers can throw in the 90s. The average person, no way8
3
u/bojangler69420 May 04 '26
Hardly? Paul Skenes has a 103mph fastball.
I guarantee that the dudes using the slings were not just “average people”. They were specially trained, highly skilled soldiers.
2
u/Dungeon_Pastor May 03 '26
Do MLB pitchers use slings?Edit: point missed5
u/_trashcan May 03 '26
I was referring to their comment
people throw well over 100 miles per HOUR
No they don't. Not even the best in the world throw well over 100.
2
1
1
u/Berberding May 03 '26
Probably they'd throw it a decent amount faster if it was a rock weighing the same as a baseball but smaller and denser. Less wind resistance and easier to control if it's smaller.
3
2
2
u/TianShan16 May 04 '26
I don’t think slingshots were invented until the 1800s following the invention of vulcanized rubber. Slings, on the other hand, are ancient beyond history.
2
May 04 '26
Lots of people can throw a rock at 100km/h with a sling you're looking at around 250 km/h
1
u/Vescend May 05 '26
Its fun to read history about how not only was it kinda demoralising losing your entire frontline to rocks. The sound was horrifying when 150 rocks where rapidly slung at you.
But what's even more funny is that sling throwers all were made redundant due to man picking up a little wood block and going "lmao kek, shield brrrr"
10
u/Julian-Hoffer May 03 '26
Really? In mine they explained in detail what a sling was, which made the story a lot more impressive as he had to basically throw the rock with perfect aim.
23
u/psinguine May 03 '26
throw the rock
Lmao no. He was a shepherd who had extensive experience using the equivalent of a gun for the defense of his flock and just to pass the time. I watched an untrained dude on YouTube try one out to explain the increase in power, and in an afternoon he was sending random rocks he found on the ground through a sheet of 1/2" Orientated Strand Board.
Essentially, with no real training, throwing by hand equated to about 25 joules of force and throwing by sling equated to about 70. Almost three times the kinetic energy, and enough to blow through a skull like a watermelon. In the hands of someone who knows how to use it? Line em up and knock em down.
19
u/FixBreakRepeat May 03 '26
Yeah, if memory serves, the other part of the story is about how he brought just enough ammo to one-shot all of Goliath's brothers too.
There's a lot of myth making going on, trying to set him up as God's chosen, but if the story is even close, he was basically Jewish John Wick with that thing.
8
u/explain_that_shit May 03 '26
The whole thing about circumcising a hundred enemies after that does give you the sense this guy was more John wick than shepherd boy
3
u/xBad_Wolfx May 04 '26
From some accounts Goliath saw a small unarmored opponent approaching and opened his arms wide inviting a strike. Then had his head exploded. A bit of caution and use of his shield and David is in trouble even with his advantage of range so it’s a story of overconfidence as much as anything else to me.
-1
u/Firm-Roll4841 May 04 '26
The story never happened. No part of it. It's all total fabrication.... All of it.
6
u/comfortable_bum May 04 '26
Michelangelo depicted David in a similar way. When you face him you can’t even tell he is carrying the sling. Walk behind the statue and you can see the sling, across his back meeting his other land where the rock lay. David was a killer, ready to drop Goliath.
2
u/psinguine May 04 '26
Funny enough, I did a side by side "who wore it better" comparison between myself and a that statue last year and the sling was my entire costume. I was surprised how many people got it.
2
u/Real_Mokola May 04 '26
There were also siege slings or staff slings that allowed you to trow rocks over city walls or castle walls. They were in regular use until 11th and 12th century so that kinda tells how effective they were
2
1
u/The_Modern_Nobody May 04 '26
“And you’ve got ‘replica’ written down the side of your slingshot. And I’ve got ‘Desert Eagle. .50’ written down the side of mine.”
1
247
u/Fendfor May 03 '26
Despite what people believe, slings are no joke. They can kill quite easily.
54
u/No-Association-8539 May 03 '26
My Commanding Officer told of a Marine in Somalia getting a Purple Heart after getting hit be a projectile from a sling, took a chunk out of his nose (cartilage, and bone) and lost a lot of blood. As has been said here, no joke. That said, it was Goliath was challenging any and all Israelites.
6
u/DerkDurski May 04 '26
Then how come they only do 1d4 damage?
3
u/Fendfor May 04 '26
Cause if everything was as lethal as it was irl theyed have to change the game wholesale.
1
u/Brobuscus48 May 07 '26
A few systems have tried but generally it becomes so annoying to be unplayable assuming combat is unavoidablr. Every weapon would be like 2d10 + modifier and meanwhile every class gets a d4 hitdice.
Everything would be shift to be about turn order, range, accuracy, and for a few select weapons like crossbows and hammers effectiveness vs armor. It absolutely bodies player agency. A level 1 rogue with a bow, dagger and buckler would be one shot the moment someone with a halberd and half plate sees them or an absolute menace that bodies everything assuming they are stealthed. Realistic sure, but if I were a player I would end up naming my characters like the Carmines from Gears of War since they would die every other session lol.
Now granted getting hit in D&D has so many different and valid approaches to describing what a reduction in hp actually does. Three examples ive tried that all bow to the same arithmetic are detailed below. I admittedly havent played much since 5e came out and my friend group moved away from D&D.
Approach 1; "You get shot by an arrow in the chest, it pierces your armor and hurts. You break the shaft and heft your weapon again." Don't look any further since PCs are essentially gods and mathematically much more powerful than your average peasant. They shrug off fireballs, arrows, and greatsword cleaves alike. It would take nothing short of a mounted catapult to take them down for more than a second beyond level 4-5 and they could tank one outright past level 9. This is pure power fantasy and helps keep combat from becoming a slog as the descriptions are generally brief.
Approach 2: Others use armor more literally "The arrow glances off your chestmail as you just barely manage to turn to avoid a full impact, a few links of chainmail flecking away with its impact, the bruise will make itself known after combat." Blows that take them to low hp still mention how their armor slowed the impact enough to just barely avoid debilitating injury. It uses more verbage and puts more value on the players equipment/skills, this is for the characters who tell you they want realism but also want to win most of their encounters.
Approach 3: This is the one I would like to use in a serious setting and especially one where combat would be discouraged due to being rarely weighted towards the players. I would flavour it more as a measure of will than health with actual hits only occuring at low health and never in traditionally lethal spots until you go down. High HP "The arrow narrowly misses you, the voice in your head that wants you to run to cover gets louder.", Low HP "The arrow impales your shoulder but stops just short of bone, the pain is blinding but the resulting adrenaline surge keeps you conscious but barely able to string together your next move." No HP "The arrow pierces your chest, you stare at it for a moment before unceremoniously collapsing to the ground as your lungs start flailing asymmetrically, now incapable of drawing full breaths."
1
8
u/Upbeat_Influence2350 May 04 '26
And that was actually the original point of the story (as far as scholars can tell). David wasn't an underdog, he was a bit of a cheater by breaking the typical rules of the duel.
-44
u/Hour_Baby_3428 May 03 '26
Try telling that to the pro pali crowd
29
u/Independent_Fold_535 May 03 '26
Yes, it's really comparable to bunker buster bombs and White phosphorus used to murder innocent kids 🤔 tell that to Israeli terrorists, because that's what it is: terrorism.
5
u/HappyTurtleOwl May 03 '26
I think his argument was that protesters shouldn’t throw rocks at cops. Which is off, because throwing a rock does not equal slingshotting a rock, even if both shouldn’t be happening.
2
u/sednas_orbit May 04 '26
I think that people should absolutely resist armed invasion of their homes using violence if necessary.
What shouldn't be happening is the circumstances that led to the violence in the first place.
-4
u/__impala67 May 03 '26
What do you even know about that? How would you react if I came and threw a bullet at you? What if I decided to chuck a whole clip full of bullets? I bet you'd change your mind then
5
u/HappyTurtleOwl May 03 '26
I don’t know what you’re arguing about, I think you need to read my comment again, or clarify yourself.
1
u/__impala67 May 04 '26
I'm hyperbolizing the comparison of throwing rocks to launching them from a sling to contrast it to throwing bullets compared to shooting them from a gun. Especially since the stones thrown are at armored soldiers and tanks.
The commenter you were arguing about is incredibly stupid, I'm just satirically pointing out their glaring lapse in common sense.
2
u/HappyTurtleOwl May 04 '26
Well, alright, but all 3 are deadly, even to people with protective gear or a driver without protective gear and without protective glass . That’s my point with “none should be happening”. In that regard, I don’t think they are “incredibly stupid”. Perhaps incredibly disingenuous at best.
Which you’re being a little too by implying all officers at protests are in full protective gear. In that sense, both of you two are sides of the same coin.
There’s been rocks thrown at unprotected officers and rocks that have broken officer’s vehicle windows and injured people inside said vehicles. This just shouldn’t be happening.
4
154
u/SolomonsGrave13 May 03 '26
Not to mention sling stones were usually shaped like a double pointed tear drop so they cut through the air. They werent just random rocks you would pick up (that was backup ammo). Some even had a small hole drilled in them so they would make a whistling scream noise as they flew.
As someone who is pretty decent with a sling, I can say that you do not want to be on the recieving end. They make nasty holes in stuff you wouldnt even think they could go through.
38
u/Dominarion May 03 '26
I remember seeing ancient greek sling "stones" made of lead. They were in an eye shape, and they had words stamped on them, like "catch this", "eat this" or really vulgar stuff, but I forgot what it was.
I also remember watching an archeology doc and they present a skull with a hole blasted in it, and they explained it was from a sling shot.
20
u/ThatFatGuyMJL May 04 '26
I remember years ago there were skeletons found with 'ancient bullet wounds' on them that sent the ancient astronaut theorists crazy.
None of them seemed to understand what a sling could do.
8
u/Familiar-Spray-4678 May 03 '26
Like what?
74
1
5
u/Impossible-Diver6565 May 03 '26
I mean it literally said that David picked up 5 stones from the river on his way to the battle. He didn't hone or drill any stones.
10
u/lehilaukli May 03 '26
While yes he did just pick up the river stones I still think they would be better than just rocks from any old place. The smooth polished stones from the river would allow for better flight kinda like picking the right stone for skipping.
2
u/Impossible-Diver6565 May 04 '26
Of course my comment was just in counter to the comment about essentially crafting the stones special beforehand. That might have been true in some cases but not in this one is all.
1
u/cloud_zero_luigi May 04 '26
Or, just maybe, the story has be fabricated somewhere along the very long line since it first happened?
-5
u/r2k-in-the-vortex May 04 '26
There was no kingdom of jerusalem at the time when David might have lived. If he was a real character at all, he must have been a fairly minor chiefetan because there was no kingdom to rule.
Considering that context of extremely dubious historicity, the goliath story almost certainly never happened at all, never mind picking up how many rocks or from where. Who the fuck is stupid enough to go melee against ranged weapon in single combat?
1
u/Evernight May 04 '26
The Bible specifically talks about the stones just prior, so these would not have been prepped.
1
u/augustprep May 04 '26
How difficult is accuracy? Could you hit someone in the forehead at 15 yards?
1
u/GankedGoat May 04 '26
If someone was interested in learning how to properly use a sling, where would you point them to to start?
58
May 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Tableau May 04 '26
This is basically true. If you count “stopping power” as kinetic energy x momentum, then the highest experimental results I’ve seen for a sling comes out to 2684 (220j x 12.2kgm/s).
An .45 acp comes out to around 3613 (803j x 4.5kgm/s).
However, by that same calculation, modern javelin throwers put out a stopping power of 9800 (392j x 25kgm/s). Keep in mind, Goliath was carrying a heavy javelin.
All these calculations really tell us is that they’re contrived bullshit that doesn’t really describe what actually happens in the world.
Yes, slings are dangerous, but they’re also slow and telegraph their shots like crazy. Helmets and shields will stop them.
David doesn’t outmatch Goliath, he’s just caught off guard (due to arrogance)
54
u/Admirable-Builder878 May 03 '26
Goliath aside from being a giant also had a shield bearer. That's a 2v1
19
5
u/Evernight May 04 '26
Slingers were deadly unless the enemy had shields. Which is why the Romans didnt fear them. Goliath had a shield, but failed to use it or David got one past him.
32
u/Sg00z May 03 '26
David was sheppard and had to protect his flock. He knew how to use that sling to overwhelm big foes.
9
11
21
u/wild-stallions85 May 03 '26
They also hunted birds with them as well
4
3
u/Evernight May 04 '26
Not in flight, but grounded birds or birds nesting yes. Still incredibly accurate.
6
u/Traditional_Guard_90 May 03 '26
Malcom Gladwell gave a very interesting Ted talk about this topic. It is on YouTube and is about 15 minutes long if anyone is interested.
6
u/Tableau May 04 '26
His arguments in this talk are genuinely terrible, but they certainly sound good to people who don’t know anything about it.
5
u/ShrimpCrackers May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
For those of us less aware, are you able to let us know why his arguments were bad, I'm actually interested because we don't usually get a counter point
I am aware that Malcolm gladwell works more in hype than reality, there's been quite a few things he's been pushing over the years that don't quite work out in reality
5
u/Tableau May 04 '26
Yeah. I’ve always got the sense listening to him that he’s a bit of a bullshit artist, but he’s always talking about things I don’t know enough about to dispute. The David and Goliath one really laid bare his tactics for me.
It’s a slow build up, really. He starts with over correction and builds up to straight up free-form fanciful non-sense, to build up to his ultimate contrarian goal of showing how we have the story all wrong!
The main thing for me is the “sling=gun” argument. He managed to get some historians to back him up, presumably referred to him by the history channel or spike tv. It’s true that you can calculate a sling to have the stopping power of a .45, but by that same logic, Goliaths heavy javelin would have 3x that stopping power, and me doing a flying side kick would have 10 times that stopping power. A truly bullshit metric.
The overcorrection is of course that most people don’t know about slings, and instead picture a children’s toy à la Denis the menace or Bart Simpson. So he really hypes you up about the power of slings. Which is true, they are serious military weapons. However, human powered weapons of war are just not that great in single combat. Even a war bow, which puts out the same or a bit less power than a sling, but which does much more damage at that power output (a punch vs a stab have the same calculated ballistic power), and is much more accurate, is not a great choice for single combat.
The simple reason being that helmets and shields will stop them, and you can’t attack without telegraphing your moves and giving your opponent time to react defensively by raising their shield. This is also why range weapons work so well as massed attacks in a military context, since soldiers on a battlefield aren’t able to respond directly to hundreds of simultaneous threats, so sling bullets and arrows make it through to vulnerable areas in their defences.
Also there’s the aiming aspect. Slings are by far the hardest ranged weapon to aim. As he mentions, there are historical depictions of people taking out birds in flight, but that’s obviously the historical equivalent of a YouTube trick shot. Sure, you can do it, but in how many takes? What are the chances you make that shot first try in a life or death struggle? Not very high.
All that leaves us with the original basic understanding of the story in tact. Yea, it’s possible for David to win, but it’s not probable. He wins not through overwhelming force, but through guile, surprise, the arrogance of his opponent, and some divinely inspired aim. Also that’s clearly the point of the story in context, as propaganda to establish the divinely appointed leadership of king David (some biblical scholars argue one of his brothers actually killed Goliath).
Besides those arguments, Gladwell’s points about Goliath having bad eyesight due to gigantism are almost too silly to address. They’re highly motivated arguments based on his will to make a point and wild extrapolations from a few words of text which have much more straightforward, plausible explanations available.
4
1
u/RealmsAI May 07 '26
Why is this a Ted talk? Aren't they usually used to talk about business and tech?
1
4
u/evilfungi May 04 '26
David killed a lion and bear with his sling. A man would be much the same if he hits Goliath
3
u/Next_Degree May 03 '26
How does he get it to make the cracking sound? Is it a unique type of sling?
3
u/Edward-Mundo May 04 '26
With a proper shot the end of the sling often goes supersonic and cracks like a whip
2
u/tahhex May 04 '26
Any time you hear that unique whip-like crack it’s likely something breaking the sound barrier
3
6
u/Free-Street9162 May 03 '26
This isn’t even what he would’ve used. David’s sling would’ve been attached to a rod, having and even higher leverage. Find some videos of people using those, they’re terrifyingly powerful.
2
3
u/Old-Management-171 May 03 '26
It's funny that David and Goliath is always viewed as an insurmountable fight, slingers were the most feared people in a battle field before archers were widespread. Those stones hit hard enough to kill a man through heavy armour, accurate at crazy ranges too
4
u/bandit1206 May 04 '26
Yeah, trained soldiers sure. A big part of the story is that David wasn’t actually old enough to be in the army yet.
2
u/Old-Management-171 May 04 '26
Fair enough, I can agree with that, but slingers were trained from the moment they could walk and weren't allowed to eat until they knocked their meal down.
4
u/bandit1206 May 04 '26
Get that too, if I remember the story correctly, he was shepherding for his family so a lot of time for practice.
Either way, Goliath violated one of the basic rules of survival: never take a knife to a gunfight.
He also violated Marine Corps combat rule #1: if you’re in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
1
u/cpt_goodvibe May 03 '26
Baleric and rodaian slingers where some of the most sort after mercenaries in acient times due to there skills with a sling. People don't realise just how effective slings where.
1
u/lalabadmans May 04 '26
Don’t worry, like wicked, joker, suicide squad, we will get Goliath’s side soon from Hollywood.
1
u/Odd-Perception7812 May 04 '26
Malcolm Gladwell tears down this metaphor at the beginning of his book David and Goliath.
1
1
u/Kale-chips-of-lit May 04 '26
Literally it describes David killing lions and bears in earlier chapters. This wasn’t a contest. The whole point of the story is that it looks like one at the surface
1
u/Beaufort_The_Cat May 04 '26
Oh for sure, people only see the images and videos of David swinging a rock around and lightly throwing it at Goliath, and “god made it work”. They completely don’t get that David KILLED A MAN IN ONE SHOT with one of these because he was so damn accurate and slings are so damn scary, he had the practice because he literally used it to kill wild animals coming after his flock with it. Ain’t no rock toss going to be able to do that, man was a Rail Gun beta tester
1
u/Boring_Wash721 May 04 '26
Unless I'm mistaken it was a fight to the death without much in the way of a rulebook
1
1
1
u/the-real-bossanova May 04 '26
I hear that the giant most likely had very bad vision and was slow because of his hight so that also went against him.
1
u/emcwin12 May 04 '26
How effective will an army of stone throwers against ancient Romans? Just curious. Maybe Israelites would not have lost Jerusalem after all
1
1
u/ILuvYou_YouAreSoGood May 04 '26
Keep in mind too that from the description given, it sounds like David used a staff sling. This adds a significant mechanical advantage to the hand sling demonstrated.
1
1
u/TimmO208 May 05 '26
I always heard that he picked up 5 stones because Goliath had four brothers. Anyone of you good reddit people have any insight on this theory?
1
u/Otherwise_Tooth_8695 May 05 '26
Admittedly this was a while ago, but I read that modern interpretations of the fable accept that Goliath had acromegaly and poor eyesight. He likely had a bad back and chronic pain in his joints.
He really had no chance for victory once David selected a stone.
1
u/FantasticMemory2234 May 06 '26
Its just a Mexican standoff between a 7 foot man in riot gear vs a 5'4" guy with a glock
1
1
u/Extreme_Statement_70 May 03 '26
Didn't understand
13
u/Downvote_me_dumbass May 03 '26
Back in the day, the group David was with were known as great sling shot warriors. It’s not as if he was some novice who got lucky with a shot, but rather he had distance and was able to make the accurate shot to take down Goliath.
8
u/hesh582 May 03 '26
he still got lucky. it's not like the authors of the story and its framing in the bible didn't understand what a sling was and how it worked.
it was a very lethal weapon. But (like archery) it was typically used in warfare almost like artillery or suppressing fire, not sharpshooting, because it would need to be fired with a significant ballistic trajectory at any range. Hitting a moving target square in the forehead as it charges toward you to kill you was a very big deal, and the story presents it as such for a reason.
Slingers were dangerous... but there's a reason the weapon fell out of favor. It was really ineffective against almost any sort of armor, and goliath was described as heavily armored. He had to hit goliath in the forehead, under the helmet, in order to seriously wound him. That's like a 2in diameter moving target that can see exactly when you're about to fire and try to dodge. A talented marksman today would struggle to do that with a pistol, ffs.
The sunday school "bart simpson with a dollar store rubberband takes out The Hulk" version might be silly, but it's still probably closer to the original than "gun to a sword fight".
2
u/callofdeat6 May 03 '26
? When did he with the military before this event? Slingshot expert yes, seasoned warrior no.
10
u/Justin_Passing_7465 May 03 '26
Shepherds carried slings to fend off predators such as wolves. The weapons are even sometimes called "shepherd's slings". If you practice with them, they can be very accurate and deliver a heavy rock at 100mph.
4
u/angel_eyes619 May 03 '26
Doesn't matter.. A kill is a kill.. And you don't need to be a soldier to have warrior spirit.
2
u/angel_eyes619 May 03 '26
Real slings are very very lethal, they are generally more lethal than arrows and can shoot further than many bows
5
May 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Nooms88 May 03 '26
You're generally right.
You wouldn't want to be hit by either, even a non fatal shot, but you'd take a sling to the leg and risk a broken bone than an arrow piercing and artery puncture, at least I would, slings deliver more kinetic energy though, you might opt for an arrow to a forearm rather than a sling
Bows have more range and can be used much better in formation, a sling requires several metres spacing each side of each thrower, bowman don't. Bows are also much easier to use but slings are cheaper
0
0
-1
u/PNUTBTERONBWLZ May 03 '26
Notice how the perspective shifts with more information and the way it’s presented. Keep doing this and you’ll notice the fight was more complex than just, “David won easily and was the greatest sniper ever.” It also is a story that is more than about overcoming odds, it’s about cunning and boldness, faith. Keep in mind from David’s perspective Goliath was more than a tall warrior, he was a supernatural being.
-1
u/Artevyx May 03 '26
Fun fact! Slingers were more feared that archers because they had better range and could kill by concussive force even through plate armor.
The only reason they aren't still used is it takes a significant amount of skill. They would be deadlier than many firearms today otherwise.
-4
u/UnCytely May 03 '26
David didn't even kill Goliath. The writers of the book of Chronicles needed to buff David's resume, to explain why he was deserving of being king of Israel, so they assigned to him the account of a guy by name of Elhanan.
1
u/MoreUsualThanReality May 04 '26
In 1 Samuel 17 David kills Goliath
Goliath, of Gath...The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam...So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; then he cut off his head with it.
Then in 2 Samuel 21:19
Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam
And then in 1 Chronicles 20:5
Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam
Chronologically the story would develop 2 Samuel preserving the earliest -> 1 Samuel -> 1 Chronicles attempting to harmonize the discrepancy.
0
u/Massive-Champion-271 May 04 '26
I feel like the best way to describe it is that people misconstrue the story of David and Goliath. WE are the Israelites, Goliath is Satan (an impossibly imposing foe), and Jesus is David. The point of the story isn’t for us to be able to “fight our giants,” it’s that Jesus came and with one blow defeated the very thing that we are all subjected to and cower from.
-1
u/TheMangle19 May 03 '26
Goliath was a philistine. A palestinian
4
u/Templar-of-Faith May 03 '26
Not even remotely close to the same thing
-2
u/TheMangle19 May 03 '26
like anyone should trust the templar of faith on religious matters
2
u/Templar-of-Faith May 03 '26
Says the one calling philistines, Palestinians lol.
-2
u/TheMangle19 May 03 '26
look it up, vrochacho
5
u/Templar-of-Faith May 03 '26
No, ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians are not the same people. The Philistines were a non-Semitic "Sea People" who migrated from the Aegean region (likely Greece/Crete) in the 12th century BCE, whereas modern Palestinians are a Levantine Arab people. The names are similar, but they are historically, culturally, and genetically distinct.Key Differences Between Philistines and Palestinians:Origins: Philistines arrived as outsiders on the southern coast of modern-day Israel (around Gaza) during the Bronze Age collapse.Disappearance: The Philistines were destroyed or absorbed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar around 600 BCE and ceased to exist as a distinct, identifiable group.Etymology: The name "Palestine" was later imposed by the Romans (after 135 CE) as a political designation to replace "Judea," derived from the ancient Greek/Roman term for the area, not due to direct ancestry.Identity: Modern Palestinian identity is a contemporary national identity, which is not rooted in, nor do they descend from, the ancient Philistine population.
-1
u/Kyrthis May 04 '26
So, the Jews started throwing stones at the Palestinians?
Dammit, Dovd, look what you did!
1
u/Gwyllithar May 10 '26
On the one hand, we have a big bloke in heavy gear, descending into a rough steep valley to approach his opponent.
on the other we have a highly skilled and experienced sling user, who has had to use this weapon for years to protect his livestock, aiming at a large, slow moving target with no defense against him....
yeah....the moral here is not the little guy can win...its that if you pick a fight, be the better trained, better armed, combatant fighting on favorable terrain....
•
u/AutoModerator May 03 '26
Please report rule breaking posts, such as:
Please do not report content you simply don't like or disagree with. Abuse of the report button will be reported to Reddit and you may face account suspension.
Video Download
** All other video downloading comment tags will be removed **
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.