This is about the Biblical account of David v. Goliath. David had a ranged weapon while Goliath had a melee weapon and apparently armor. I don’t know how well an expert can aim a sling and reasonably be expected to hit the unarmored head, nor the lethality of such a hit but it seems reasonable that unarmored David could have prevented Goliath from closing and being able to use his melee weapon at all while David could have continued to just pelt Goliath with stones, or if they ran out, simply ran and could most likely easily out ran Goliath weighted down by his armor. At the very least just continue to avoided Goliath and wore him out. While Goliath certainly had a strength, size, superior armaments and the intimidation factor, did David actually have the advantage in this fight?
When you really do have God on your side, it pays off.
Depends a bit on your definition of success.
If the goal is David surviving, you’re right that he could have evaded being closed on and captured essentially indefinitely. But if success is defined as “one survivor of a decisive battle”, then David now has a much harder task, while Goliath’s has gotten easier.
I’d argue that the larger set-up, with them as single champions doing combat on behalf of their respective backing forces, moves the definition of success to the latter. Goliath is totally the one to bet on in that scenario. Which is why the Biblical story has such staying power: man bites dog and all that.
Lastly, David’s primary weapon needs consumable ammunition; Goliath’s weapon(s) do not. Yes, stones are often easier to find in the wild than e.g. NATO 5.56mm ammunition, but each stone is different, making each shot taken a guess as to that stone’s flight characteristics.
In a battle of attrition, Goliath will be trying to herd David towards a stone-free patch of ground. David has little countervailing ability to herd Goliath towards anywhere advantageous to David. IMO part of the reason the story is one-shot-one-kill is the ever-decreasingly likelihood of David’s success after additional shots are taken and missed.
I’m not a biblical scholar but this was basically a duel that David volunteered for. It wouldn’t have made sense for him to run away indefinitely. Reviewing wikipedia, it also says that he selected 5 stones, so he had a limited supply.
In IMHO territory, Goliath would probably have had a shield that he could simply raise to protect his head. Slings seem effective against unsuspecting animals, or in the fracas of two armies meeting each other, but it seems a poor choice for single combat.
First of all, its a bible story. So its a story showing how with faith in God and the favor of God you can achieve great things. David had faith and was favored by God (despite quite a few of David’s shortcomings in later life). End of story.
It was all a work. Goliath took a dive.
I found this on Google: " Mind, a powerful slingshot can indeed be lethal… Any of the potent “wrist rocket” type devices with strong rubber bands can deliver a projectile at perhaps a couple hundred feet per second. That’s enough to kill someone, if it hits in the right place."
It is a long range weapon and, assuming David was agile and crafty enough to maintain distance, he would have an opportunity to do the big guy in. One would have to think that Goliath, being the “big bad”, was over confident and may have walked directly towards David without taking any kind of evasive action whatsoever.
Of course, David used a shepherd’s sling, not a Whammo Wrist-Rocket. For a ranged weapon it is middling accurate in the hands of a skilled user and can obviously deliver a killing blow if it strikes the right spot.
For clarification, Scripture states David merely stunned Goliath with the stone (i.e., maybe a concussion.) The actual death was caused by him cutting off Goliath’s head with a sword.
Ancient slingers were renowned as deadly as bowers. They fired stones ( or lead pellets) in a straight line at short range or in a parabolic at longer range, each with high velocity, able to stun a warrior trough a helmet, or break bones in unarmored arms.
And yes it’s a bible story designed to teach a lesson on the faith. But coulda been from a true story…
Big bad brute versus smaller, nimble guy noted for fighting at range? Ali-Foreman, right?
Bet on the little guy.
j
Yeah, rope-a dope, I know. It’s a joke! 
Regardless of his weaponry or skill, David had a massive advantage over Goliath. The guys who wrote the story knew he would win. That was the point of the story. Goliath could have used cruise missiles, and it wouldn’t have mattered. David had to win, or the story doesn’t work. David could have used a pea shooter, and he would have killed Goliath just the same.
Kinda like choosing your parents is the most important life decision you’ll ever make, when you’re a character choosing your author is really really important.
Get it right you’re Capt. Kirk. Get it wrong and you’re Red Shirt #3. If you’re lucky. Henchman #12 is usually an even worse fate, dying slowly & messily.
This is the thing I am questioning, was that really the story, or was it about wisdom, which the Bible states is a gift from God.
Let’s not forget that Goliath taunted the Israel forces for quite a long time, if David didn’t get that first lucky shot in, David could have made a fool of Goliath running him all over the field.
Also I doubt that Goliath could have blocked all David’s stones as they don’t generally fall in the same place, and yes easier to find new ones in nature then NATO 5.56.
David did seem to have more the faith but what would be called to day a relationship with God. Though I don’t see how that David using wisdom, and even refusing the King’s armor offer, diminished God in any way, not David’s faith. As I pointed out the Bible states Wisdom is a gift from God, and perhaps for having such faith God gave him a true shot, however David seemed pretty capable in this respect.
I disagree with this, if David took up the offer of Saul’s armor I would say his chance of winning would be greatly reduced. It seems to be David following God and ignoring advice of others that played a part here theologically speaking.
Agree. Reading the Biblical account in 1 Samuel 17, my distinct impression is that David won because he fought on his own terms. Goliath was expecting, and would have been able to handle, a warrior coming against him with armor and military weapons, but he wasn’t expecting a shepherd boy with a shepherd’s sling.
Something like this?
I came in to mention that very few people today have any conception of deadliness of slingers.
I don’t know how widespread this was, but in some areas, slingers were trained by having somebody place food on top of a pole. The young slingers were told to knock the food off the pole by using their sling–and they did not get to eat until they had done so.
Malcolm Gladwell makes a good case that Goliath was a sitting duck.
In short, a sling is a formidable weapon in the hands of a shepherd, who uses it against lions before they can get to his flock.
Goliath’s vulnerability relies on a medical interpretation of ancient text, but I find it compelling. The giant suffered from acromegaly. As a result, he rather lumbering and had poor vision. In close combat, his height, strength, and arm length gave him an unsurmountable advantage. At long range, against a high-velocity projectile, he was a goner.