Nate

nategm.bsky.social

29 April 2025 23:35

Basically any time you find a non-historian (especially a non-military historian) talking about some super weapon of the pre-modern battlefield it’s a safe bet they have no idea what they’re talking about (and have completely negated the roles of training and discipline)

And all of this misses the point as to why David wins. It’s because the story needs David to win. It’s made up. It’s like this great Stan Lee response to those questions about who’d win in a fight between two characters

"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux

bretdevereaux.bsky.social

29 April 2025 23:35

Next up we have Goliath wearing "100 pounds of armor." And 1 Samuel 17:5 does say his armor weighs 5,000 shekels; I can't engage with the original Hebrew (I don't read that), but I feel very safe taking this as an exaggeration or - perhaps - a statement of monetary value (worth, not weighed). 18/

"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux

bretdevereaux.bsky.social

29 April 2025 23:35

He's treating slings like super-weapons, but these were the poor man's weapon (or the poor tribe's weapon) - dangerous in skilled hands, for sure, but if you could fight basically any other way, you did. 17/

"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux

bretdevereaux.bsky.social

29 April 2025 23:35

Slingers were valuable auxiliary troops, but they weren't battle-winners. Infantry with armor and shields could and regularly did march straight through sling volleys into contact - slingers could not prohibit a heavy infantry advance. They often couldn't prohibit *light* infantry. 16/