Weapons and Realism Part 1: Flaming arrows

[Saint of M]

This might be better in the Role Playing thread, but it is something good all around, and I am board and like listening to the different weapon guys on youtube or history channel, as well as books, so might as well give my two cents and have others put in their's as well.

So fire is awesome, and using it in warfare is probably one of the older tricks in the human arsonal.

However, much of the time to light a field on fire you need to be close to it and if you put in the flammable cocactions might be dangerous for you. Yeah, yeah, people do burnings all the time, but if you weaponize it you want it to spread fast and burn hot and fire tends to do what it wants, catch her outside.

So the fire arrow might be nice.

Essentially you have a wad of cloth soaked in a flammable substance and lit on fire. You would then loose it over the air and into the area you want, say like one of the battle scenes from Brave Heart.

The problem with this is going to be three fold. One, keeping it alight. A good gust of wind could blow it out, and the arrow might as well going through a gust of it as fast as its going.

Trajectory is another. I am sure archers would have trained for this, so would have adjusted, but it will mess with their aim. After a certain distance this would happen anyways, but a heavier weight on the business end probably doesn't help.

Third is if you wait too long you will burn a perfectly good arrow and more importantly a bow. That bow, especially say something like an English Long Bow, was as much a prized weapon for the peasant wielding it as much as the sword or warhorse the knight goes into battle with.

It also wouldn't work well against humans as a direct killing weapon. The wadding would have stopped the arrow from going too far in the flesh. While the penetrating arrow would hurt a hell of alot, and given that bacterial infection would have been a secondary killer, but not the main one. THe flames would also cauterize the wounds.

However they could be effective in some scenarios

In the case of a battlefeild you planned ahead in to face your enemy, soaking it with flammable oils and other noxious chemicals could be a good way to deal with a large grouping of enemy soldiers. Assuming it works, it could be a fast way to kill a bunch of enemy troopers quickly. If the intense heat, the flames eating up all the oxygen, and any toxic fumes that are bound to be produced doesn't kill them right away, it will leave them in a slow agonizing death and effectively useless. Think ancient white phosphorus.

This would also have a psychological impact. A wall of hellish flames, your comrades screaming in agony. Even battle hardened warriors would be willing to run back to camp to get their brown pants.

More so with the animals as they have a natural fear of fire. There is a good chance this would cause even the most testosterone filled war stallion to panic.

A mass of flaming flaming arrows at night might also do the trick. Accuracy might not be a problem when shooting en mass, and well, that might also cause a group of soldiers to panic. Even if a few get past the mail and gambinson, a few men would have a keen enough mind to knock the arrows off their shirt and stop drop and roll. The rest, not so much.

So if I were to use flaming arrows, it would either be enchantments for a more magical scinarior, but more mundane function as well in the same or in a realish one. I would mostly use it to scare off cavalry, maybe a few monsters or elephant sized critters. Definitely tree people. Maybe once or twice for the burning field. Might be a little cliched, but still works.

SO what I get right, what I get wrong, what I miss, and how would you do this?

 

[SckizoBoy]

No, you're pretty much spot on. Though I would add that suffocating the enemy is stretching it a bit far given that they'd have to hand you that opportunity on a platter for it to be even something to contemplate.

Flaming arrows were used more for psychological effect than practical/physical damage. Flaming projectiles cast from slings were more useful on that count, unless whoever in command had the foresight to bring along catapults/ballistae/trebuchets or what have you with pitch (or equivalent) filled ammunition to either follow up on targets where the flaming arrows had hit (or vice versa). But so far as flaming arrows are concerned in fictional/media representation: rule of cool before all else. 'Cos it looks neat, and night battles would be boring without 'em. Best thing to stick on the end of an arrow to make things worse when archery was relevant, was shit or rotting meat. Typically more freely available, easier to apply (cos it could be done long beforehand), easier to set up and easier to re-deploy and the effect was usually way more horrifying.

Anecdotal evidence: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, when I did archery myself, the club, for shits n giggles, nominated our longbow specialist to light the Halloween bonfire with a flaming shot. So he cold fired to get the right aim (range approx. 80 yds) with arrowhead plus wrapping and intended flammable substance of choice. Hot firing was a colossal failure as every fuel resulted in it going out before impact. The eventual solution was sparklers... -_-

 

[Terminal Blue]

You're correct in that keeping an arrow alight in flight is going to be a huge problem.

As I understand it, flaming arrows were impractical as battlefield weapons for the reasons you've cited. That whole movie moment where someone gets hit with a burning arrow and immediately bursts into flame just wouldn't happen, and as such its really just an arrow. Instead, flaming arrows were used in sieges to attack wooden structures. The chances of any individual arrow causing a fire would have been quite low, but big groups of archers firing flaming arrows could, through sheer numbers, cause a lot of damage.

Tree people would probably be safer than you think. Living wood isn't particularly flamable because it typically contains a lot of water. It will burn if it gets up to the right heat, but being exposed to a tiny arrow likely isn't going to cut it.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

iirc, one of the few times flaming arrows were actually used in warfare was against ships. Turns out, using a large amount of pitch and tar to waterproof your ship made it fairly flammable. However, the explanation was less using the flaming arrows to set the ship on fire (you could pull it off with a bit of luck and a large number of archers, but it was never a really high chance), but more to undermine the enemy on their ship. The chance of a fire breaking out in the sails and rigging meant you needed to scramble a fairly significant portion of your crew around to put out and flame spots before they could spread. Not only did that leave you fewer sailors to help repel any boarders that could be heading your way, but it could cause fairly large amounts of confusion and disorder on board ship. If you were truly determined to set the ship ablaze, you floated rafts towards it covered in a large bonfire to hit the hull and set it alight.

Speaking of which, anyone got any marshmallows? Sounds like we need to make some smores.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

This is just conjecture, but way I see it, if you wanted to set things on fire at range, it would probably be more reliable to simply throw a container of burning tar, resin, pitch or some other flammable stuff with a catapult, trebuchet or even a sling. Maybe oil was also used, kind of like a molotov cocktail.

I know the Ancient Greeks used something called Greek Fire in naval warfare that they launched at enemies with catapults and some kind of flamethrower. It's described as igniting on contact with air and basically functioning like napalm. I'm guessing other cultures also knew how to weaponize incendiary chemicals.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Flaming arrows aren't remotely practical for most circumstances. You've gone to a lot of mucking about to drastically reduce your range and accuracy for a vague chance of setting something on fire. Usually that's a really bad trade off. Not absolutely always, but then people around the world have used arrows loads and loads of times throughout history, flaming arrows rather rarely. There's good reasons for that.

 

[Agema]

Flaming arrows are an absurd non-starter except perhaps at short range in very specific circumstances (mostly sieges and naval warfare).

Arrows move through the air very fast, which is likely to put a small fire out. So it would need probably quite a lot of wadding, plus an accelerant, which will play hell with the flight of the arrow (both in terms of range and accuracy). Even then, to usefully set something on fire, it would have to be very flammable in the first place. Straw perhaps, or something doused in oil. Neither of which are remotely common on the average battlefield.

Nor - in terms of battlefields - can I really envisage a unit of archers carrying a load of braziers onto the battlefield to light their arrows with, never mind that there's pretty much nothing to easily burn, plus the loss of range, accuracy, rate of fire.

* * *

I feel similarly about siege machines. There's a hint in the name there. Trebuchets, catapults and even ballistae have virtually no place on a pitched battle. You build a catapult that basically can't move (when moving tends to be a pretty big part of battles), and every few minutes it chucks a stone weighing several kilos that's going to kill... a couple of people at best. Offhand, I can think of only one occasion where siege machines were usefully employed in battlefield warfare, which was where Alexander the Great apparently used some ballistae to help cover his troops whilst forcing a river crossing.

I know the Ancient Greeks used something called Greek Fire in naval warfare that they launched at enemies with catapults and some kind of flamethrower.

That was the Byzantines: so medieval Greeks rather than ancient Greeks.

 

[Saint of M]

Good points all around.

A couple misconceptions.

Most seige weapons, while primarily for a city or fort seige, were meant to the battlefield. Accuracy might be a problem for some, but against a mass of troops, it didn't matter. THey were not sniper weapons, artillery was meant for the groupings.

For taking down walls, you often needed special ones like the trebuchet Warwolf (you name you warmachines, tradition). Even then taking down the wall might not be your primary job as you might want that once you take over. Also you turn the wall to rubble...how are you going to get through that?

SPeaking of which, I can't see a trebuchet having burning ordinance. Unlike other stone throwing weapons like say the Roman Onager, the Treb needs a leather or cloth throwing apparatus to add a little extra length to its throwing arm. It was literally a giant sling shot, and do you want intense heat cracking or burning that?

 

[Squilookle]

You're overthinking it. Flaming arrows have minor advantages, and minor disadvantages next to reg arrows. Like most ammo choices.

BTW they won't go out. They're more like a torch than a candle. And you can wave a torch around like crazy without it coming close to going out

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I know the Ancient Greeks used something called Greek Fire in naval warfare that they launched at enemies with catapults and some kind of flamethrower.

That was the Byzantines: so medieval Greeks rather than ancient Greeks.

Indeed it was. I know Archimedes had invented a whole bunch of war machines (tho some probably mythical), and I always just assumed Greek Fire was one of them.

 

[Satinavian]

I feel similarly about siege machines. There's a hint in the name there. Trebuchets, catapults and even ballistae have virtually no place on a pitched battle. You build a catapult that basically can't move (when moving tends to be a pretty big part of battles), and every few minutes it chucks a stone weighing several kilos that's going to kill... a couple of people at best. Offhand, I can think of only one occasion where siege machines were usefully employed in battlefield warfare, which was where Alexander the Great apparently used some ballistae to help cover his troops whilst forcing a river crossing.

There are many other instances. But it depends a bit on where you draw the line for "Siege weapon". Things like a Polybolos and similarly sized ones were used in field battles regularly. If you have the time to set it up and it is made to fight people not buildings, you would want to use it even in a field battle.

Good points all around.

A couple misconceptions.

Most seige weapons, while primarily for a city or fort seige, were meant to the battlefield. Accuracy might be a problem for some, but against a mass of troops, it didn't matter. THey were not sniper weapons, artillery was meant for the groupings.

I think we are talking pre-guns (or even pre-gunpowder to exclude some other weird stuff). You will rarely find any of the big catapults set up in field battles. Precision is one problem, but far from the only one. There is also ridicolously low cadence, the fact that the projectiles are slow and evasion is possible, the fact that you usually don't hit several people even if you do hit and the fact that it takes a lot time to set up a catapult while the area you can actually hit is quite narrow.

 

[Agema]

Most seige weapons, while primarily for a city or fort seige, were meant to the battlefield. Accuracy might be a problem for some, but against a mass of troops, it didn't matter. THey were not sniper weapons, artillery was meant for the groupings.

There are many other instances. But it depends a bit on where you draw the line for "Siege weapon". Things like a Polybolos and similarly sized ones were used in field battles regularly. If you have the time to set it up and it is made to fight people not buildings, you would want to use it even in a field battle.

Outside sieges and naval warfare there are virtually no battles on record where artillery were employed or served any much purpose until the cannon in the 15th century.

The Romans certainly had small bolt-throwers that could be used as field artillery, but again the historical record overwhelmingly indicates their use in sieges. Where not, usually only battles involving a fortified position. It could be used offensively in sieges because its range enabled the besieging force to shoot at the defenders on the wall without getting shot at back, or could potentially penetrate light palisades that some less advanced defences might involve.

 

[Saint of M]

I feel similarly about siege machines. There's a hint in the name there. Trebuchets, catapults and even ballistae have virtually no place on a pitched battle. You build a catapult that basically can't move (when moving tends to be a pretty big part of battles), and every few minutes it chucks a stone weighing several kilos that's going to kill... a couple of people at best. Offhand, I can think of only one occasion where siege machines were usefully employed in battlefield warfare, which was where Alexander the Great apparently used some ballistae to help cover his troops whilst forcing a river crossing.

There are many other instances. But it depends a bit on where you draw the line for "Siege weapon". Things like a Polybolos and similarly sized ones were used in field battles regularly. If you have the time to set it up and it is made to fight people not buildings, you would want to use it even in a field battle.

Good points all around.

A couple misconceptions.

Most seige weapons, while primarily for a city or fort seige, were meant to the battlefield. Accuracy might be a problem for some, but against a mass of troops, it didn't matter. THey were not sniper weapons, artillery was meant for the groupings.

I think we are talking pre-guns (or even pre-gunpowder to exclude some other weird stuff). You will rarely find any of the big catapults set up in field battles. Precision is one problem, but far from the only one. There is also ridicolously low cadence, the fact that the projectiles are slow and evasion is possible, the fact that you usually don't hit several people even if you do hit and the fact that it takes a lot time to set up a catapult while the area you can actually hit is quite narrow.

They wouldn't be used in mass, but they would be used. Remember, soldiers still marched in blocks in this time, and while it might be hard to hit fast moving knights, a shieldwall with spears or even a phalanx of pikemen would deal with that, if not your own knights (not that most of them are not going to be ransomed off for a pretty penny).

As for the men at arms, they were only peasants.

THey were not used in every fight, as a pitch battle was rare. Sieges and skirmishes were more common.

 

[Agema]

They wouldn't be used in mass, but they would be used. Remember, soldiers still marched in blocks in this time, and while it might be hard to hit fast moving knights, a shieldwall with spears or even a phalanx of pikemen would deal with that, if not your own knights (not that most of them are not going to be ransomed off for a pretty penny).

As for the men at arms, they were only peasants.

THey were not used in every fight, as a pitch battle was rare. Sieges and skirmishes were more common.

There are definitely not going to be artillery in medieval pitched battles except in the most exceptional circumstances.

Medieval artillery - ballistae or catapults - was not mobile. It was built as and when required by carpenters - a process that would take anywhere from days to weeks or even months for the largest trebuchets. The baggage train often wouldn't even have the wood - they'd rely on chopping down timber from the local area.

This is all completely inconsistent with the process of pitched battles. Armies move, and then should they encounter another army will need to manoeuver to a battlefield, and then on the day of battle move again - to deploy from camp and then once on the battlefield to move into engagement. There is absolutely no way in this process there is time for carpenters to knock up field artillery, not least that a general could not accurately predict where the artillery would need to be sited to be useful. Consequently, outside sieges, it's an absolute non-starter.

Field artillery has to be mobile. The Romans at least had some which could be deployed (even if there's negligible record of them using it in pitched battles), and we don't see it again in Europe until the age of gunpowder.

 

[Satinavian]

Field artillery has to be mobile. The Romans at least had some which could be deployed (even if there's negligible record of them using it in pitched battles), and we don't see it again in Europe until the age of gunpowder.

Yes, i mostly meant the Romans. I think the Chinese used some oversized stationary crossbows as well some field battles, but their records are a bit less trustworthy.