with very bad bows made of grass. and stone arrow heads made of soft sandstone. And the british archers should be on their side of the channel, then they will win any battle with the french.
"Archers! Prepare the Napalm arrows!" "Sire, this is the Battle of Agincourt! Napalm won't be invented for another 527 years!" "Bugger. Well, use the regular Frenchman-penetrating arrows instead, then." "Yes, my lord!"
"Terrific range arrows, and they're so penetrating! They penetrate into the Frenchmen and do them in. And that's what we like about arrows." -someone at Agincourt 1415
I much prefer water arrows. Though not as impressive, if you enemy stays outside for too long after getting hit in the hair, according to my mom, they will catch a cold. Then the siege can begin! Disclaimer: Might not work on the hair impaired.
Well, you might not have won the siege, but you killed a nice German lady who was reading this comments while eating dinner - she had to laugh so hard that she choked (might not be true though - Germans don't have any humor).
Okay, fire-arrows are a stupid idea, but what about a really strong young lad with a torch that runs to the enemy walls and throws the torch over the walls and then runs back to pick another torch?
“In the 20th century, you see, bazookas were really awesome, commanders would make sure to arm their elite troops with bazookas because bazookas make an awful lot of damage when you fire them at the enemy soldiers, right, right?”
One of my favourite “Mock the Week” bits was ‘The answer is 45 years, what is the question?’ ‘At what point in the 100 Years War did the generals say, “Buck up lads, nearly halfway there!” ‘
After an hour long dissertation about why it’s unrealistic and you can’t set the structure on fire with fire arrows: “Ok, ok. Scratch that. We are going to cast fireball....”
It is my dream that one day we English will invent a bow which can let fly an arrow capable of penetrating a Frenchman from across the English Channel.
Apparently they put smoldering pieces of coal inside those cages. And it was almost always for sieges and naval warfare. It doesn't matter if only 2 percent of the arrows set fire to something. Also many buildings in medieval and ancient times had straw roofing. If an arrow with a piece of smoldering coal landed on such a roof, it would likely set fire to it.
@@BlueRaven893 well this whole video is about how ineffective fire is, but if you actually live with fire you find out it's different properties. Like how a hot coal can smolder for days (in certain circumstances) and start a fire when you put wood on it.
@@ambrose788 Yes, but I don't think it's about having a connection. You can utilize it every-so-often and experience nearly all it has to offer in a adequate time frame.
@@BlueRaven893 there are diminishing returns. I just think this video misses because of inexperience. There's something to be said about a woodsman who can get a fire going under nearly any circumstances and I don't think there's many alive today who could rig and make sail like an expert ship of the line crew in 1800. Experience has value.
Katanas? Fire arrows? What scrappy weapons! At the second Battle of Stampford Brige us vikings used drunkjards with picnic baskets! ^^ (It should be said that one of our guys held your entire army at bay for half an hour...)
I think the concept of fire arrow more so fits as a “tool” rather then a weapon. Most roofs were thatched during medical times and putting fire to most buildings in the lower Bailey in a siege could cause a lot of chaos and ending up being a perfect opportunity to begin an attack or even against tents, etc.
To 3 yr post. Most of the time the defenders would already wetted all thatched roofing in case of it catching fires. A lot of battlements and casement have wooden roofs, railings and wooden shields (All rotted away from any surviving castles so people today think that bare stone castles is what it looks like before. Forgetting also most castle walls are plastered white so the enemy can't use the cracks of the stones to climb it, and it protects the wall from the weather.)
Legit people don’t know how difficult it is to start fires until they’ve tried to and wait like 10 minutes with candles lit under a piece of wood for it to final spread around enough to show a flame. Then in films people just spontaneously combust.
yep , and you need to get very close to the target to do that , the fire arrow in history could be listed as siege and anti siege ammunition instead of anti personal ammunition. How close ? just somewhere right under the castle wall where enemy could turn you into a human porcupine even with all the shield unit to protect you ... ofcourse you can try to set the siege ram on fire in the case of anti siege ... if the enemy forgot to cover their battering ram with fresh skinned hides And ofcourse , none fired them when trying to seige a castle at night like tons of hollywood films did The fire arrow were an important tactic used in a siege. As important as the need of water buckets , firefighter team and inflammable materials to counter it (ofcourse , they were used to counter lots of other weapon , not only fire arrow)
Romans used to throw with catapults clay balls filled with oil and "greek fire" and they did not lit it by the catapult because they broke many times, and mostly snuffed out in the start. They threw them into the enemy and then after that (or just seconds before) they shot the fire arrows that ignited the oils planted there by catapults. Was quite terrifying in a forest when it hit high up in trees and sprayed on a large area. As seen in gladiator. Except they lit them at the catapult in the movies. and that is just wrong.
Yen the smiling dinosaur but even then the things he listed like the fire being blown out and the logistics of it cancel it out as being even a somewhat useful tool
@@diskeyes i've seen people saying they put burning lumps of coal in the arrow head. that would make sense. it doesn't have an actual flame because most coals smolder. look at a bbq for example. and flying through the air won't "put it out" because there is no flame. it just has a lot of heat.
Maybe not in battles, but in sieges, the fire arrow were used a lot. Mongols were constantly using fire arrows, to burn cities, because they did not care about owning them. The conquest wars usually do no use fire, if you want to take a city and have it more or less in good shape, but the motivation of the Mongols was different, they were OK to own territory without owning a city.
He apparently confused their specific uses as some challenge to arrows generally, like they were in competition. His whole improvisational bit about the inventor of the fire arrow easily demonstrates this flawed fanboy rewrite of history. Because it doesn't seem to *him* that the flaming arrow is "better" than a regular arrow, he skipped the part where he bothered to look it up on Wikipedia and realize that they were of great use. In fact, specifically in the way he keeps snarking about. They were like laser beams. In times when simply throwing fire around was terrifyingly hellish already. The psychological effect is half the utility....alongside the more obvious part where everyone's houses were firetraps. This video amounts to a person in the year 3000 announcing that handheld weaponry was never used in the 21st century because bombs obviously kill better. It's just a very narrow definition of logic, applied to events that actually happened as if they're a single scene from a movie. But hey, random youtube commenter: keep representin' reality on random chunks of internet with me. It's kinda fun-furiating :-D
A. You're wrong, 2, he already mentioned their uses, Γ, who cares about bombs, 四, regular arrows are very efficient and scary enough. Especially when there are 2000 of them in the air at any point in time.
You are absolutely right and I was about to make the same comment, but then I remembered what this video was from, which was that horrendous movie about Troy, and how they used fire arrows mid-battle. The problem is that he only glancingly mentions the movie, in fact if you had not seen the first video than you wouldn't have much of an idea what he was talking about.. It isn't until 9:48 that he finally does mention sieges, when he says they would be very effective.
i doubt this guy even knows or at least wants to admit the Mongols dominated mid Medieval age. even in his Horse archery is useless video, he doesnt mention how the Mongols totally didnt conquer half the world with such a useless technique such as mounted archery.
*"Sir sir sir!"* What is it? "I got a new form of arrow that can not only go straight but also more Lethal" Oh? Then what is it? We've always admire a brilliant Craftsman! *_"iTs CaLlEd A bUlLeT"_*
Just came across this while doing some research. From the report on the siege of Rhodes, 1480, by the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller of St John at the time, Pierre D’Aubusson, translated in John Taaffe, The History of the Holy, Military, Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Vol 3, Hope and Co, London, 1852, pp. 59-60: "The enemy made use too of another sort of horror - globes of fire, and fiery arrows thrown from the cross-bow or sent off whirling from catapultas, that the houses may be set on fire. We on the other hand, whose duty it was to save the city, chose consulters from persons of the art [experienced in the art of fighting fires], to remain most attentive; and they, as soon as ever the incendiary matter fell, applied themselves with the fleetest caution to extinguish the flames. By such remedies we were able to preserve the Rhodians from many mishaps."
@@TheGloriousLobsterEmperor It seems in this particular attack they weren't successful because the city had good firefighters, now imagine that wasn't the case.
Yeah, even today, what portion of the population do you think actually understand the difference between putting out a wood fire and a grease fire? They might get lucky and use the right fire extinguisher. But if they don't have a fire extinguisher, you'd be amazed how many people would end up just letting (or making) the fire get out of hand. Even with all the access we have, that's still an issue. Imagine back then when almost no one had that access, apart from word of mouth if something happened nearby.
Yes, this is what frustrates me. So many people are quick to say "Oh but physics and science and such!" for their reasoning as to why it won't work. But they did. Except that they were never used to kill, only to lower morale and set fire to buildings and anything made of wood. That's why you really only hear about them during sieges. They did use them, just not for firing at the infantry.
+Rebypox Fuck no they aren't. Best thing in a bladed weapon review out there is to find a pommel joke in the comnent. Literally one of the few things in a comnent section that make me laugh
“Sometimes cotton, tow, or the like substance, previously mixed with pitch, rosin, oil, or naphtha, was wrapped on the end of an Arrow, in the form of a ball”.“Which ball, when in use, was fired, and the Arrow directed towards the wooden towers and engines of the enemy; where sticking firmly, communicated a flame to every part near it. This was used with great success in naval expeditions” -Walter Moseley, _An essay on Archery_ ,1792
Okay, this from memory and I can’t exactly remember the source so bear with me. I once saw an illustration of a fire arrow design, it was supposedly also effective against infantry, but particularly at setting fire to buildings and ships. So it had no metal head, instead there was a small ceramic jar at the head, about 2-3 inches in diameter. This would then be half filled or full filled with oil. At the front of the jar there was a little compartment with a lid (separate from the main jar) where a small bit of oil would be lit. The lid would be put on and then the arrow would be fired. So it worked something like a molotov cocktail. It had less range than a normal arrow but apparently it was highly effective at attack large bodies of infantry as the jar would create a small explosion at whatever it hit. It would also have been highly effective at killing morale, I would think. Say you were an infantry man standing in line with your fellow soldiers, when the guy next to you is hit by an arrow and suddenly bursts into flames. Then you see a barrage of these arrows bearing down on your position. Then small fiery explosions erupt across the field before you, on the men behind you. So don’t ask me for a source, I just remember seeing it somewhere, an illustration with a description. Apparently it was used sparingly in conflicts (in Ancient China I think).
Exactly. What Lindy is failing to understand, is that there is such a thing as shifting your aim for the added weight. Any competent archer can shoot 2 different arrows in weight, close to each other. It's a simple process of, oh I dunno, aiming slightly more up? Whilst he's right, it wasn't used to kill, like the movies portray, there have been recorded instances of them being used to not only set alight siege equipment and other fortifications and buildings, but to lower the morale of the infantry. I'd be more scared, seeing a volley of fire come flying down at you, than regular arrows.
@@alibryant8588 Romans had arrows, scorpion and ballistae bolts, all designed with setting things on fire in mind. And it worked, seeing as they used them consistently. Basically, people should do some historical research, or at least a little reading, before believing they were a hoax, where only movies used them. I mean, for gods sake, half of Romes war paintings have literal fire arrows in them.
I definitely don't get the point of fire arrows against humans (the human body is surprisingly resistant to fire), but in any sort of siege I see them being practical. I also vaguely remember reading up on something where fire arrows (or maybe it was fire ballistae) were shot into castles, villages, etc in sieges. It'd definitely easily light up thatch roofing, which would act as good kindling for spreading the fire even more.
THAT is the idea, look at the episode "profit and loss" of Vikings where the boats are hit with jars of pitch then shot with flammable arrows...with predictable result.
They do work as a good way to demoralize the enemy forces: When you're already shitting bricks because you have a cloud of arrows flying towards you, them being on fire adds a nice fear factor.
Instead of an fire arrow, is much more effective in lobbing a projectile, like a pot filled with thick oil, or tar. The speed of the projectile is lower, so chances of the fire getting put out by the woosh are significantly lower and on the other end, the projectile shatters, spilling its contents and catching fire - much more harder to contain. So yes, historically, most fire projectiles were things lobbed over, not arrows.
It's written in the chronicles that in the Kingdom of Asturias, soldiers would shoot fire arrows at Viking raider boats in order to sink them. The northmen would cover the hull of their ships with fresh pelts to avoid catching on fire so easily. But yeah I couldn't agree more that the way they use them in Hollywood movies is pretty stupid
yes, but that was likely at shorter ranges than in an open field battle, meaning you could have an arrow that burns really hot with a big blaze of pitch even for like 30 seconds and it'd still probably set fire to something. I can imagine 30 arrows like that getting hammered into the mast and throwing the pitch inside them all over the sails from the force of impact would be disastrous.
Also, a fire blazing on ship's bridge is quite easily dealt with (you just need some buckets with ropes tied to the handles); a fire blazing on the sails, on the other hand...
"There must be a better way of doing the credits." "Every time they make a Robin Hood movie, they burn our village down!" "Leave us alone, Mel Brooks!"
@@dannydevito7584First of all, chinese "fire arrows" are actually arrows with a gunpowder payload that activates when it hits the hull of the ship, and unlike these fire arrows, have their own oxygen supply which allows them to create a fire on deck much easier. Even a lucky hit could put a fire onto a spot where sailors couldn't actually reach and put out, and sink a ship by itself. Also, you can't just put salt water on every surface of a sail, since the junk boats of china had big sails with no good way to douse the sails effectively, since only a small part of the sails could be doused before combat, since the sails were too big and too hard to get on top of to douse them with water. It would take multiple trips with a bucket to get a quarter of it doused lightly, and even if, a gunpowder arrow could easily spark a fire in a lightly doused sail near the base where the water can't reach easily.
But my grandpas uncle had a barber, whos grandfathers friend fought in WW2 against japan and said all Katanas cut though hardened diamonds like butter!!!!
It'll be nice to not just dismiss the katana has being overhyped/mediocre. Did the katana make sense given how the Japanese fought? Why did the Japanese fight the way they did (limited resources, geography, etc.)?Every weapon you talk about is always going to be obsolete or inferior in a different context. It's stupid to talk about weapons being the best or worst. It's more interesting to talk about the context.I think it's sad that you basically have two groups of people praising and dismissing the katana about being the "best", and neither really just talk about what it actually was.
That's a really good point actually: technically superior weapons can almost always be defeated by some combination of skill/circumstances and/or user error. Most people will tell you that the Spitfire was a brilliant fighter aircraft, and it was, under favourable circumstances. Ask a squadron of Spitfires to escort your bombers to Berlin and back however, and you're going to have a lonely and very dangerous flight. That's what Mustangs are for....
@@Sanroxem If both sides have archers (a reasonable assumption in a pitched battle) then it matters quite a bit. Of course it's a silly situation to begin with, standing armies would never engage in pitched battles at night.
Like tracers from assault rifles. At first fire arrows make sense, then you think about it long enough and it not practical. If you think even deeper though fire arrows could have their benefits.
Just a thing about the start of the video with the large line of archers in Kingdom of heaven, I could think of an ancient tech that communicates faster than any known method to date, light, have two becaons at each end of the firing line, one man lights the flame on one end, the other sees this, lights his and the whole line can see that now is the time to light it. It even seems that way somewhat as the two ends of the line appear much sooner than the majority, this might not have been what happened but its just a thought.
Not so fast. There a lot of ways this can go wrong or not go at all. First of all, signaling to loose fire arrows with....fire could be problematic. The means to light both is...in fact fire. So you can imagine how a bunch of dudes are looking around at night for someone to light a fire to signal them....all it takes is someone kicking over a fire source, or a bellow lighting up a fire source more than usual and it looks like a signal. At night its going to be difficult to know exactly where the ends of the line are. Somebody fucks up 1/4 of the way from the end of the lines and its just as good as the end of the line to someone waiting for a fire to be lit in the dark. That is without talking about how chaotic, and nerve racked a bunch of peasant archers will be during a night attack. That's without talking about how much training and drilling has gone into night fire arrow signaling. That's without talking about how rare night battles have been because of all these reasons. That's without talking about how rare good training was for Medieval soldiers, let alone for night fighting (non-existent). Not to mention, most Medieval armies were utter shit at signaling in general. As far as I understand, pretty much no European military during the middle ages was able to develop and maintain the art of signaling to anything resembling what the Romans were doing hundreds of years before them. Hypothetically though...it's not inconceivable to do what you are talking about. You could drill it into soldiers, practice light discipline at night, and then pray for no errant horseman or bumbling archer to knock over a fire source prior to the first volley. But there would have to be a pretty good reason to want to make your fire arrow volley happen instantaneously rather than take 20 seconds for everyone to get on the same page. I'm sure if i sit here long enough I can think of a hypothetical reason for this...maybe. (I'm not saying English archers weren't well trained archers, because they were pretty good at putting arrows in the air, especially when you had veteran mercenary companies selling themselves across Europe during the Hundred Years War, but in general, archers were peasants with little prior training or experience. Peace time English longbow training was also ambiguous with varied enforcement when it was legally required. There's target practice and then there is application of archery on a battlefield.)
your telling me that waiting around and looking for a signal fire is better than having a signal transmit to your phone/watch that tells it to vibrate? As soon as you feel the vibration, you fire. That seems way faster than looking for a signal fire that is adequate at best and extremely misleading at worst? I don't think so
Militaries used drums to send loud rhythmic signals for miles at the speed of sound. Which actually works *faster* than radio communication for such short ranges. Not because the radio's slower, of course, but because humans are very good at quickly recognizing rhythmic drumbeats, so we respond faster instinctively, and it improves with training.
Tod made some of the high - late medieval fire arrows with the oxidisers, one thing that stood out was the smoke, nasty and can force people from the walls or from a chunk of a ship, choking and blinding sometimes laced eith arsenic and other nasty stuff like potentialy lime Also in a town the straw or fodder is going to be very flammable, can get started fast and spread, even if it doesn't spread it burns supplies in which defenders are in short supply of, in genral it causes loads of little problems even once the big ones are taken care of
Magnesium tipped arrow heads. Reacts with or without oxygen present, can withstand the winds of an arrows velocity and will react extremely violently when the gasses of the magnesium burning reacts with the h2o in your blood causing an pretty large explosion. It's also pretty easy to light on fire soooo. It also burns at 2200C, THATS 4000 degrees 'Merican units.
I think this is also a bit of the "Total War" effect. Shooting fire arrows in open battle in those games had very little penalty, but would often set fire to the enemy AI in a glorious fireball. Strangely you could never really use fire arrows during sieges to set fire to buildings. It could have been an interesting game mechanic to force the defender to use units to extinguish burning buildings, or risk the settlement burning to the ground. Their only use was to the defender in setting fire to the battering rams and siege towers. Anyone know of a mod for any of the Total War games that re-balances arrows? Maybe ups the firing rate for normal arrows, or gives a huge penalty to fire arrows?
Well they are far more inaccurate than normal arrows and takes longer to reload. So no, they actually have pretty big penalty. The upside was that they give moral loss to the enemy and as far i can tell does more damage. So i mostly use fire arrows to heavily armored enemies. Light units: normal arrows ftw.
Gr8humanilation9TV The inaccuracy thing worked both ways though, as it took 2 or more arrow hits to put down even mildly armoured units, but one shot with a bow seemed to make everyone burst into flames. I didn't really notice a reload penalty, it's a few seconds if at all.
The accuracy of the unit makes a huge difference for sure. Also what total war we are talking about. Like in Rome you might want to use fire arrows but like in shogun 2 normal arrows kills in 1-2 shots so using flaming arrows is not as useful.(talking about light infantry). The most important thing about fire arrows for me is the moral penalty AND that is they point of them. The strategy part of them. Risk and reward. Do less damage (in general) but lessen moral. Its great. Btw favorite Total War?
Gr8humanilation9TV It's mainly Rome and Medieval 2 that I've noticed it in. As for favourite, I think it has to be original Rome. On steam alone I have about 400 hours in it and I bought it on disk when it first came out. I can't get on with the newer ones, I don't know what they did to them, but I hate my cavalry being stopped by skirmishers like their brick walls, or units glitching 500 feet through terrain to perform one of their finishing moves. What about you? I've never gotten into the Shogun's, they seemed far more complicated than "build army- smash!" with the whoring of the daughters and the political backstabbing.
Original Rome and Medieval 2 here too but i prefer rome because the time period. Far more interesting for me. I had it on disk too. Just because the fucking awesome hand to hand combat. Its perfect. The moment when you flank enemy infantry and just charge to them. The hit of the charge is just awesome or just charging head to head with infantry and no fucking kill moves... Its killing the hand to hand combat and killing the series. Like you said "hitting a brick wall". Yup that's how it is in the new ones. There is simply no unit collision. It's so ugly and i know... its on shogun 2 but the polish on that game is the best of all of them. Played all of the total wars expect the newest one.
BonDieu617 Depends on the time period with sails. Either way they would be damp. And would probably be so thick they'd glance off. They kept pitch in barrels of some kind. They wouldn't have pitch all over their deck because its a huge safety hazard, especially considering how slippery it would be.
Max Anthony Not all over the deck of course, but they used it to plug leaks and holes as well as ridges between planks. It wasn't _everywhere_ of course, but there was a lot of it.
Probably depends a helluva lot on the circumstance as well. A designate battleship who are ready & have chance to prepare themselves vs fire arrows using specially crafted sails could probably shrug them off. A civilian, commercial or lower quality ship on a sunny day however might be very vulnerable to fire arrows.
For those of you coming to this video after Tod's Fire Arrow video, keep in mind that this was filmed 8 years ago when most people thought fire arrows were dumb and or very niche, and the fire arrows that Tod made didn't behave like the ones we see in media.
@BuzzingGoober Anything in history has the potential to be proven correct or wrong in a few years, within reason of course. The thing is Lindy does make some speculations on what would have to be done to make fire arrows work we see some of them in Tod's video. Another point I would like to add is that for most of the video, Loyde is talking about fire arrows being used on the battlefield. Now, he does state near the end that it was most likely used for siege warfare. Tod mentions that they are a situational weapon for naval and siege warfare. I don't think Loyde was disproven or proven correct entirely as I believe he was about 50/50 or 40/50 on his points.
The basics are pretty simple. You'd fire projectiles such as arrows, javelins or stones, and maybe have a ballista if you were lucky. Alternatively you would try and hook the ship, pull them close and engage physically or ram them. Obviously there is more to it than that on a strategic level, but that's the gist.
Maybe a pyrophoric chemical would work. Such a chemical could be contained in a glass arrow head that would shatter on impact exposing the chemical to air allowing it to self ignite. However, manufacturing such a system would be extremely difficult even with todays technology, and totally impossible during the middle ages.
Well, that is essentially the concept of a naphtha grenade, which was actually used in the middle ages. That said, one would not use it in an arrow since you need it to spread all over you target. As Lindybeige said, there is no merit in the arrow burning if not used against structures. Not going to incinerate any people who get hit.
actually, it wouldnt be that hard to make, but you cant get too much fire out of it... a cool thing would be to put an arrow drenched in some thick oil or tar that burns slowly and put a criystal tip with phosforus inside... so it will break and ignite the oil that will splatter arround... at least some oil would still be there for sure...
Gerben van Straaten. because an arrow is easier to aim. and id say 1,000 arrows will make more small fires then the few dozen moderate to large fires the catapult or scorpio make. or for maximum effect you do both and make sure you burn shit down.
A few points; 1 fire arrows weren't for 'killing frenchmen'. They were for setting terrain, such as grass, on fire causing confusion with your enemy and hopefully setting war machines ablaze. Imagine trying to fight in a flaming field... 2 Most buildings were thatched with reeds...dry flammable reeds. Do the math. 3 Arrows were not heat treated anyway. Far too expensive for something you throw away and were generally mild steel as they were pointed (bodkin), but rarely sharpened, except for hunting which is entirely different. 4 The fire was made with pitch and gum soaked canvas that acted more like napalm than fire so that when it hit, it threw flaming stickyness at whatever it hit. 5 (optional) Ship sails, being made of sun bleached dry linen or canvas burn quite well. Again, do the math.
1 Yes that sounds very difficult to do for either side. 2 yes... 2% ignition rate when shot into dry flammable things... Warning, sarcasm alert, sarcasm incoming 3 ... yeah it's not like there were large groups of people re-collecting them or anything and it is just so expensive to heat something up and then cool it down again. 4 because stuff like that doesn't go out when shot at high speeds. 5 sails that arrows would 100% not go through.
Math /= real world. To take one of your points, Thatch, which was often laid very thick, not what you see in movies, this thickness reduces the amount of oxygen available and penetration depth so it would be like shooting fire arrows at solid wood. Maybe take less physics lessons from DnD. Watch more Lindybeige!
Ari Lunarium No it isn't and it's obvious you've never seen it up close. Thatching burns, hence why when Museums of Canada restored the 'huts' in Upper Canada Village, there was a debate about replacing them with modern building materials, or spraying with fire retardant on a schedule. They replaced them BTW, in 2002. Big news in the Seaway Valley which is what they call the St. Lawrence area where I live. It's funny, but even as Deadly0Night (another armchair historian) figures that setting fire to grass is a 2% ignition rate, (a number pulled from deep within his arse), farmers all over the continent are clearing scrub with nothing but a book of matches. Imagine that. As for the pitch/gum going out...mix some and light it, then throw water on it. Better still, take the leaf blower to it at full tilt. After your yard burns away you can tell me how long it took to go out. Or research greek fire, which is what they were trying to recreate, but instead were making a rudimentary form of napalm which doesn't suffer the same failings as a lit hanky.
antagonizerr So they shot flaming arrows at the huts? Of course thatch burns, but not as easily as you might think. So pitch/gum can easily be applied to the end of an arrow without causing weight or flight problems? I have cleared scrub with a flame thrower, grass often burns at a low temperature, not enough to light most trees. Hotter burning brush is what is worried about, and I doubt they would just leave it laying against their buildings. It's not just it burns or it doesn't, composition matters a lot. How many LindyBeige videos have you watched? It seems like you don't know that he travels, visits historical sites and participates in reenactments.
Ari Lunarium I think you severely underestimate the potential of a scrub fire. I also think you underestimate the flammability of a sun baked and dry thatched roof. It's just bundled reeds that are years, if not decades old. Damn right it burns, and burns well. I like LindyBeige, and have seen all his vids, but I don't consider him to be the consummate pro on all things iron age. This just happens to be one of those things he got wrong. You seem to be concerned about weight but how much does a bit of tar and canvas weigh? You don't need a massive arrow for the job either as I highly doubt these arrows were held fast for more than a minute before being fired. I doubt anyone was worried about the shaft burning up as fueled fires don't burn that way. You must have played with lighter fluid in your life, right? You know you can hold it a long time without being burned? I'm not going to claim pro status here, too many people try and do that, but if you want my resume, look me up. Tho I don't make vids I do post to instructables under the same name. I'm what I like to call a lithic artist. If you're curious where I learned it, just ask, but I don't want to be 'that guy' that claims crap without proof.
I remember some show (Deadliest Warrior?) tested them out, and found that the flame doesn't necessarily get snuffed BUT 1) in order to stick enough cloth/pitch on them for the flames to stay on, it means they suddenly can't penetrate very far, or even penetrate at all 2) they don't tend to set the target on fire 3) if they actually do penetrate, it just cauterises the wound There are definitely historical cases of people spreading (for example) oil on the ground before a battle then using fire arrows to ignite it when the other guy walks across it, but they're rare and seemed to be of mixed success.
It's more efficient to shoot a baguette with a Colt .45 or a Luger or any side arm for that matter. Quicker and cleaner and you still eat the baguette.
How were siege defenders able to overcome the problems you mentioned in the video? Did they probably use method #1 (big end, low penetration/range/etc.)?
Probably they just didn't draw the arrow fully. Shot from a warbow at a 28" draw, even a 32" burning arrow will go a considerable distance. The range and lower penetrating power will still be be worse than a standard arrow though....
Tods workshop did a great video on fire arows. They are pyrotechnics and there is an actual book on many diferent recepies used. The recreation burns around 2 minutes and gets hot enough to make metal glow red. Another point seems to be that they where not only for seeting things on fire as the original contained things that would make the smoke poisounes and noxious. Oh and they cant be put out by water nor can they be fully nutralized snuffing them out
They did use fire arrows in some situations. However, they were usually used against cities, siege works, ships, etc... But yeah, they weren’t ancient long-range flame throwers.
I found this excerpt in Arab Archery which is a manuscript from around 1500 AD (English translation). It’s about how to make a fire arrow that should actually work. “ The third is the shooting of flaming arrows, which are called spindle-shaped, and are used for incendiary purposes, to set fire to the place where they fall. Such arrows are made by constructing a hollow arrowhead consisting of a number of tubes the ends of which are brought together. The interior of the arrowhead should be hollow, like the interior of the spindles women use. This is why it is called spindle-shaped. It should also have a cylindrical extension into which the shaft is inserted. You mix some straw and cotton together and make them into a ball. Then you saturate the ball with tar and insert it into the hollow of the arrowhead. Then you bring it next to a flame, and shoot it as soon as it begins to burn. It will spring into a flaming projectile and will start a fire wherever it falls. You may also take some otter fat, wax, black sulphur, bdellium gum [Webster's International Dictionary: "A gum resin obtained from Cammiphora africana, similar to myrrh and used for the same purposes."], the pith of fresh cherry seeds-if you cannot obtain this, you may use coconut milk, and if this is not to be found, you may use the sap of wild figs-and a piece of quicklime untouched by water; you then grind the whole together, knead the mass with pure oil of balsam, roll it into small, pebble-like granules, and dry them. When you wish to shoot, sprinkle the granules with powdered black sulphur and shoot them with a stiff, strong bow, at night or by day, without bringing them next to a flame or fire. As each travels through the air it springs into flame. Al-Ṭābari has declared this to be true and that it has been practiced by experts in Egypt”
Don't worry. Whike the english certainly shot the french a lot with arrows in the 100 years war, the french responded by shooting the english to pieces with cannons at Castillon. Which I'd argue is significativelly more unpleastant.
I read in the art of war the way the Chinese would use fire arrows is by preparing an area first they were soaking and sesame oil and use the arrows to light the oil that’s what made them effective because bizarrely enough no one wants to be in an area that’s on fire it would also scare animals like horses and elephants
I noticed you had a picture of Jeor Mormont on your wall there, and I was wondering if fire arrows could've been used as effectively as they were in the battle of the wall. At night time, couldn't they be used as tracers and be useful for the both the attackers and defenders?
Good idea, the tracing, but that does not compensate for the loss of range and armor piercing. Well... I could picture some arrangement in which a bow master shots an fire arrow, looks at how it flies and how the wind affects it and then tell the rest of the archers in which arc and which direction to fire. Like how modern snipers do it, with the DOPE book and stuff. But that is just a wild idea, I don't know much about archery.
anouther one i recently thought of would be defencive. Armys were rather large and quite obvious. Sow the land around the walls with pitch wate for the attack to happen......toasty attackers
We used to make fire arrows out of practice arrows when we were kids...... Wrap the tip in cloth, You simply dip it in oil, light it on fire, wait for it to get hot enough that it wont go out (or relights after it hits target) after you fire it. It's not really that complicated.. You don't really have to worry about the wood of the arrow burning up because it takes too long to weaken the arrow.. SO you light it,wait about 15 seconds for the cloth to get really heated internally, then fire it. We caught the bank on fire in the backyard... Not our best day..
I´d wager there weren´t that many professional kid archers in medieval times though...;-) Seriously, this video is about real combat. A war bow is something quite different from what you (and any other kid I guess) uses. Speed and range are what makes all the difference. Shoot with a bow and arrow for kids, range maybe, what, 30 meters if you´re being generous? It´s the details that matter, and this is what´s being looked at in this video...;-)
Try and do that with a 100 pound warbow, which is, on average, what they used back then. Not only it will snuff the fire out instantly, no matter how big it is, it will also break the arrow due to weakness within the wood. Have you ever seen medieval longbow arrows, and how thick they used to make them? They are like that for a good reason.
I used an 80'lbs Compound bow, I probably couldn't have done a 100lbs at age 13-14, as I struggled with 80.. I still have it in my gun cabinet. A 100 lbs bow wouldn't have made a difference, considering the mechanics of what we did. The cloth, after burning for about 10-15 seconds, gets hot cinders.. That's all it takes.. once it lands, it relights almost instantly. As for breaking the arrow, You also have to take into consideration that an arrow fired at long distance loses it's momentum.. It's not going to be hitting it's target with 100 lbs of pressure, as if it was just fired. If you're firing an arrow over a wall into a castle, it's got plenty of time to burn off that initial pressure before it hits.
Arcane Turbulence As note to the weight, if you were shooting 80# from a relatively modern compound bow, the arrow would be going a hell of a lot faster than the ones shot from the 100# longbow. So the difference would go opposite, it would work better with the longbow than with your compound. Edit: Just curious, as it's difficult to come across compounds higher than 70# now, do you remember which bow it was?
I recall several sieges where the defenders would use heated arrows to set the enemies siege engines on fire (happened to a crusader siege tower during the siege of Jerusalem). I don't think they would have any use in a battle though. I personally think fire arrows are so frequently used in movies for the visuals. Either because they look cool or because they're easier to see than a bunch of tiny flying sticks.
I love how worked up he gets. I had a professor in university like him ... it was a joy paying thousands of dollars in tuition to hear-watch his passionate dramatic performances (aka lectures).
A classic sight in movies is on the eve of battle, one army will pour oil all over the line the enemy needs to cross, and then shoot it with flaming arrows during the battle to create a wall of fire to prevent the enemy's escape. I don't know how realistic that is considering the enemy would probably either see or smell the oil as they were walking over it and would instantly realize it was a trap.
Dr Shaym It has often been mentioned that the prophet Muhammad used that tactic successfully. I have no sources to quote, but his followers probably do.
Preventing enemy escape isn't a good idea either. You force them to fight to the death like cornered rats which might as well end up in a defeat for you.
@@Kerendips Muhammad was know for great acts of mercy in war, such as not murdering every captured soldier, and raping and enslaving women and children which was common practice at the time. So backing someone into a corner then offering them mercy might cause your enemy to surrender rather than fight a battle they know they'll die in.
Fire arrows were used. And are possible. Just not in massive numbers. But were only effective in certain situations like Lindy said as you can't fully draw a bow with a flaming arrow at the end! For example I read somewhere that the Romans tried to use flaming arrows to try and burn shields to help diminish the defensive capability of a phalanx. But I'm not entirely convinced that it would be easy to use such weapons on an open battlefield.
Well firstly, any shield fronted with leather would be mostly immune for the few seconds it would take to pull the arrow out, even if it was a miniature inferno. Secondly, the Romans already _had_ a really effective weapon for that job, the pilum, which actually _benefited_ from its relatively short range, as it meant the other guys had less time to either extract the pilums, or get more shields out before the Legionaries were on them.
I doubt it actually worked, but it was attempted it is recorded. Which would suggest the arrows themselves can be lit, and stay lit through the air. It would probably still terrify the enemy, and hot pitch would cause pain and damage certain things.
Oh, and they most certainly didn't look like how Hollywood depicts them :) But wild, silly, slow to load, shorter range, inaccurate things with a little bit of smoke coming from them don't look as cool.
Wouldn't it be nice to have guys with spandaus shooting flaming ponmels? I reckon if the guys had some katanas for self defence in a melee combat, they would be unstoppable warriors capable of penetrating frenchmen quite well.
You're doing it all wrong... We need spandaus shooting flaming katana pommels! And every soldier should have a bikini made out of studded leather armour. Compleate protection achieved!
Both the Assyrians and the Judeans used fire arrows at the siege of Lachish in 701 BC. More sophisticated devices were developed by the Romans which had iron boxes and tubes which were filled with incendiary substances and attached to arrows or spears. These arrows needed to be shot from loose bows, since swift flight extinguished the flame; spears could be launched by hand or throwing machine. Flaming arrows required the shooter to get quite close to their desired target and most will have extinguished themselves before reaching the target. In response, another form of fire arrow was developed which consisted of curved metal bars connecting a tip and hollow end for the shaft. The resulting cage was be filled with hot coals or other solid object which could be fired from a much stronger bow or ballista without fear of extinguishing and would be used to ignite straw or thatch roofs from a safer distance. Flaming arrows and crossbow bolts were used throughout the period. Fifteenth-century writer Gutierre Diaz de Gamez witnessed a Spanish attack on the Moorish town of Oran in 1404 and later described how "During the most part of the night, the galleys did not cease from firing bolts and quarrells dipped in tar into the town, which is near the sea. The noise and the cries which came from the town were very great by reason of the havoc that was wrought."
LordVader1094 That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I’m far more confident in the word of an informative entity that regulates and fact checks all their data and information every day and is able to provide sources for their information than some ranting Brit on RUclips.
I dunno. Weight may still be an issue. And it wouldn't catch things on fire so much as just burn a clean hole right through them. Perhaps better to just stick with laser guns?
And certainly knowledge over making all sorts of fire weaponry was transmitted orally or documented in hundreds of secret military manuals, but lost over the centuries and millenia - like 99.9% of knowledge/information anyway.
A mix of potassium nitrate(main ingredient in black powder) and sugar burns really hot, and for a decent amount of time. it feels like that could possibly be what they were using on their arrows. but i don't really know anything about stuff like this, so they may very well have used something completely different. hey, i'm a pyrotechnic, not a historian.
what about red hot coals? after a bbq i can often reignite the fire by blowing on the coals. shooting a cage arrow filled with them would have a similar effect in that they would glow hotter as they fly, right?
And coals when being fanned get smaller very rapidly, and fall out of the cage. To set light to something, the coal has to be held against the thing, so how would you do that?
+Lindybeige if it was shot in a high arc over a wall onto a thatched roof I imagine that the arrow wouldn't need much to penetrate and stick in place and so long as the coal gets there it doesn't matter if it's in the arrow or not. I guess the the solution would be to design a cage arrow like the one you had with small holes at the back and if the big hole for loading the coals is at the front then the air pressure would keep the coal at the back of the cage and prevent it coming out before impact.
Well, sure. I wasn't implying the arrow would bounce off. I meant the arrow/coal only needs to survive the air "blow" of the 5 second flight. After it hits the thatch the whole arrow could burn up for all the archer cares.
Everyone knows most medieval battles were fought by first blanketing the battleground in moss and sneaking into the enemy camp while they were sleeping.
Instead of having a fire arrow maybe it’ll be better to put the gunpowder explosive onto the arrow with a little mini fuse that you lit just before you launched it that mean when the arrow landed near a Frenchman it would explode.
Two substances mixing to ignite the arrow or something like white phosphorus could theoretically have been discovered a very long time ago. Would need to ask a chemist, if arrow heads that ignite on impact could have been invented 500, 1000, 2000 years ago or earlier. Such techniques would probably have been transmitted orally or documented in secret military manuals - and lost over the centuries like 99.9% of all knowledge/information anyway.
Houses (not defenses) inside walled cities were probably roofed in thatch; that 2% success rate probably gets upped quite a bit, and lack of penetration would be an advantage. A lot of tar was used in ship construction and operation; I don't know how that increases flammability.
History says that the very first thing that was done during upcoming siege was breaking down those roofs (by defenders), or wetting them or placing soaked leather onto them. Thatched roof is easier to rebuild than douse. It's not like any siege defender would miss such easy way to get into serious trouble.
At least during XVII to XIX century they used to heat cannonballs till they where red to cause fires on the wooden ships, and if they got you using unauthorized candles you can expect a very harsh punishment, so I'll say quite flammable
If you can get tar stop stop burning by lightly patting on it you should start a religion around yourself. Ships were constantly burning down for stupid reasons because of how flammable they were.
the American 'fire bats' were pretty unsuccessful. compared to old fashioned firebombing they were worthless, and just generally had a pretty low successrate. // they were also used in an anti-shipping role, which the ship they succeeded in setting light to was an American transport. whoops
Finally, and im not dissapointed:) But it would be possible, with oil impregnated cloth, inside of one of those firearrow laces. Ive tried similar with my compound bow, and orange oil. The wind will blow out the fire imediatly, as you said, but if the inflammation temperature, is low enough, it will lighten up again, as it reaches its target.;)
Possibly but there's still the question of why you'd want to, in battle at least. You strike someone with a flaming arrow and inflict no more damage than a normal arrow, probably less if they're wearing any armour because you have a bigger arrowhead. In sieges, the first design would work fine if you wanted to set a stationary, flammable object on fire at a distance.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
As a frenchman I can say that the extra long, extra thick fire arrows are much better choice for English archers.
oh lewd
Je suis francais moi aussi
with very bad bows made of grass. and stone arrow heads made of soft sandstone. And the british archers should be on their side of the channel, then they will win any battle with the french.
For some reason as I read your comment I heard a frenchman in my head
I dunno why, maybe the accent
"Archers! Prepare the Napalm arrows!"
"Sire, this is the Battle of Agincourt! Napalm won't be invented for another 527 years!"
"Bugger. Well, use the regular Frenchman-penetrating arrows instead, then."
"Yes, my lord!"
Greek fire
@@jakefitzsimmons1213 Ancient napalm *
@Khaki Shorts You mean the natives that lived like cavemen for 50000 + years without any evolution 🤔?
@@bloodangel19 yeah because ancient Americans totally weren't capable of building pyramids, mathematics,and astronomy
@@ln7929 Yes
1000 degree arrow vs frenchmen
"Terrific range arrows, and they're so penetrating! They penetrate into the Frenchmen and do them in. And that's what we like about arrows." -someone at Agincourt 1415
The best arrows, really the greatest, it's amazing really how great they are, possibly the greatest ever, I'm not sure
4444 1414 Trump?
If fire arrows don't work surely their polar opposite ice arrows must be awesome!
Yolo Swaggins freezin doze breastplates
That's an additional D6 of frost damage.
Ice arrows, melt inside the victim's body to leave no trace
of course, it's for movement speed -60% effect
pretty effective!
"Polar opposite, ice arrows"
That was a cool pun.
Why didnt they enchant thier bows with flame lol
Ikr such nubs
@@allofthiswasanexperimentlo9641 so cringe
@@dagothur76839 ikr, i crigedd zoo hard wen dey lit the arros insted of enchting them hahahahahahehehehahahahhohohaha
@@allofthiswasanexperimentlo9641 like bro shoot ur arrows thro lava with a automatic dispensir lol so cring
>not just making a rocket launcher by firing rockets from a crossbow
I much prefer water arrows. Though not as impressive, if you enemy stays outside for too long after getting hit in the hair, according to my mom, they will catch a cold. Then the siege can begin!
Disclaimer: Might not work on the hair impaired.
Will not work on bald dudes.
@@nugasred4484 bald dudes are op
@WaluigiShrek Or if they start WEARING towels?
Well, you might not have won the siege, but you killed a nice German lady who was reading this comments while eating dinner - she had to laugh so hard that she choked (might not be true though - Germans don't have any humor).
@@veyd3lveyeel520 That's why Julius Caesar was so successful.
Bro why penetrate armor
W H E N Y O U C A N
P E N E T R A T E
F R E N C H M E N
would have wrote it if you wouldnt have already done so, :)
@@bebanxd1074 yes because that’s
FUCKING UNORIGINAL AND COPIYING COMMENTS! :)
@@IsraelCountryCube indeed.
And that's how Canada was born
why penetrate frenchman when you can
P E N E T R A T E S T E P S I S
Okay, fire-arrows are a stupid idea, but what about a really strong young lad with a torch that runs to the enemy walls and throws the torch over the walls and then runs back to pick another torch?
they might shoot him with arrows
@@cooorsbanq4226 But you don't get it... This is a really strong and agile young lad
Is he strong and agile enough to penetrate the Frenchman?
@@benjaminmarks8765 He is indeed my friend, this lad is at least! Twice stronger and more agile than the most strong and agile frenchman
@Ma Boi Scotty My good sir! He is the youngest lad I have seen in ny entire life
I wanna see what kind of crazy depictions of WWII they're gonna come up with 500 years from now
"It turned out to be a poor idea to build the Sherman tank out of wood, because the German lasers would immediately ignite them."
“In the 20th century, you see, bazookas were really awesome, commanders would make sure to arm their elite troops with bazookas because bazookas make an awful lot of damage when you fire them at the enemy soldiers, right, right?”
"You see, the most popular bombs used in WW2 were small sized Nukes."
Panzerkampfwagen III Ausfhürung L Ah there you are Kommandant, I was wondering where you were during Barbarossa
That would be fun
When he did the 'phhhh' on the candle, I was expecting the candle to explode. I was very surprised by the results!
I was expecting the fire to phhhh him back, or tell him that blowing it without consent is offensive...
precious
Physicists hate him! Click here to find out why!
*”What have the French ever done to you?”*
“How long have you got?”
*”A hundred years.”*
Hmm?
Yeah It was kind of the British to blame for that One. They just started to own everything, which the french King didnt like.. so yeah...
One of my favourite “Mock the Week” bits was ‘The answer is 45 years, what is the question?’ ‘At what point in the 100 Years War did the generals say, “Buck up lads, nearly halfway there!” ‘
Well okay.
What about water arrows?
avatar-arrows?
Moss arrows are more useful.
I prefer lightning arrows
Or rope arrows! Immagine, if you use them offensively against Frenchmen, you can tie the entire army!
Air arrows?
Oh wait, all arrows went through air. O well.
Playing RPG with this guy as DM must be fantastic.
...but in the book says that fire arrows do +1 dmg
@@vontheevil but by his rules it would be +1 dmg if the arrow is still lit by the time it hits lmao
Magic items exist in fantasy RPG's.
After an hour long dissertation about why it’s unrealistic and you can’t set the structure on fire with fire arrows:
“Ok, ok. Scratch that. We are going to cast fireball....”
It is my dream that one day we English will invent a bow which can let fly an arrow capable of penetrating a Frenchman from across the English Channel.
yeah it will be called the railgun crossbow.
so your dream is shooting and killing people? woah, cringe
@@andreniki8864 it's a joke dummy
V-3 cannon but the shot came from a different direction ;)
As an American, we already have that capability.
If you can call an ICBM an arrow.
This guy speaks incredibly fluently without any editing or stoppage. Salute
"Fire arrows..... they must have used them right? Right? RIGHT???....No!"..................."here's a reconstruction of a fire arrow"
The Butler Did It
He said, that they must have used them *in battles* like they always do in movies, which they didn't.
@@paulbenedict1289
Ok, but did Vikings use them to set floating pyres on fire?
@@paulbenedict1289 Battle of Pressburg.
Shane Wolfe
Very unlikely.
I thought they just set the boat on fire like with their hands when it was in front of them instead of using an arrow
5:48 1000 degree arrow challenge Vs. Frenchmen
I'm french and i volunteer.
Apparently they put smoldering pieces of coal inside those cages. And it was almost always for sieges and naval warfare.
It doesn't matter if only 2 percent of the arrows set fire to something. Also many buildings in medieval and ancient times had straw roofing. If an arrow with a piece of smoldering coal landed on such a roof, it would likely set fire to it.
It's amazing how disconnected from fire we are. I heat my house with a wood burner. Coals are stubborn as hell.
@@ambrose788
Why does that matter in the slightest?
@@BlueRaven893 well this whole video is about how ineffective fire is, but if you actually live with fire you find out it's different properties. Like how a hot coal can smolder for days (in certain circumstances) and start a fire when you put wood on it.
@@ambrose788
Yes, but I don't think it's about having a connection. You can utilize it every-so-often and experience nearly all it has to offer in a adequate time frame.
@@BlueRaven893 there are diminishing returns. I just think this video misses because of inexperience. There's something to be said about a woodsman who can get a fire going under nearly any circumstances and I don't think there's many alive today who could rig and make sail like an expert ship of the line crew in 1800. Experience has value.
"Sir I got a great idea, lets put gunpowder to arrows!"
Commender who's cleaning his musket: "What?!"
"Haha we're gonna set them on fire with fire arrows !"
"sir, it rained 3 days ago."
"darn."
I was at the Battle of Agincourt and we all used katanas and fire arrows mate
we had fire katanas at the battle of Crécy
I used fire armor
I was at the 7h Battle of the Isonzo and I can confirm that all of our guns fired flaming pommels and our sidearms were katanas and buster swords.
George Perakis the 7h was the nastiest one. All those flaming pommels were merciless.
Katanas? Fire arrows? What scrappy weapons! At the second Battle of Stampford Brige us vikings used drunkjards with picnic baskets! ^^
(It should be said that one of our guys held your entire army at bay for half an hour...)
I think the concept of fire arrow more so fits as a “tool” rather then a weapon. Most roofs were thatched during medical times and putting fire to most buildings in the lower Bailey in a siege could cause a lot of chaos and ending up being a perfect opportunity to begin an attack or even against tents, etc.
Medieval, not medical.
... medical times?
Ah, yes, i love studying medical times, Dr Henry V was amazing
To 3 yr post. Most of the time the defenders would already wetted all thatched roofing in case of it catching fires. A lot of battlements and casement have wooden roofs, railings and wooden shields (All rotted away from any surviving castles so people today think that bare stone castles is what it looks like before. Forgetting also most castle walls are plastered white so the enemy can't use the cracks of the stones to climb it, and it protects the wall from the weather.)
I fear you’ve neglected to mention most medieval warriors fought dowsed in petroleum. Fire arrows were devastating, like a scene from zoolander.
Legit people don’t know how difficult it is to start fires until they’ve tried to and wait like 10 minutes with candles lit under a piece of wood for it to final spread around enough to show a flame.
Then in films people just spontaneously combust.
Don't make jokes about that. It's so tragic to lose your friends in a freak gasoline-fight accident. It could happen to anyone!
I thought the main reason to shoot fire arrows is to light the enemy’s fortress or house on fire instead of enemies themselves?
yep , and you need to get very close to the target to do that , the fire arrow in history could be listed as siege and anti siege ammunition instead of anti personal ammunition. How close ? just somewhere right under the castle wall where enemy could turn you into a human porcupine even with all the shield unit to protect you ... ofcourse you can try to set the siege ram on fire in the case of anti siege ... if the enemy forgot to cover their battering ram with fresh skinned hides
And ofcourse , none fired them when trying to seige a castle at night like tons of hollywood films did
The fire arrow were an important tactic used in a siege. As important as the need of water buckets , firefighter team and inflammable materials to counter it (ofcourse , they were used to counter lots of other weapon , not only fire arrow)
Olga Kost yeah I always see the fire arrows as a longer range torch, more like a tool than a weapon imo
Romans used to throw with catapults clay balls filled with oil and "greek fire" and they did not lit it by the catapult because they broke many times, and mostly snuffed out in the start. They threw them into the enemy and then after that (or just seconds before) they shot the fire arrows that ignited the oils planted there by catapults. Was quite terrifying in a forest when it hit high up in trees and sprayed on a large area. As seen in gladiator. Except they lit them at the catapult in the movies. and that is just wrong.
Yen the smiling dinosaur but even then the things he listed like the fire being blown out and the logistics of it cancel it out as being even a somewhat useful tool
@@diskeyes i've seen people saying they put burning lumps of coal in the arrow head. that would make sense. it doesn't have an actual flame because most coals smolder. look at a bbq for example. and flying through the air won't "put it out" because there is no flame. it just has a lot of heat.
Yeah, yeah. It's all fun and Frenchmen until they start flinging cows from the battlements.
* flashbacks to the good old days *
RUN AWAY!
... What if a swallow carried the fire arrow?
What if they launched flaming cows?
@@sike2399 what do you mean, an african or european swallow?
Maybe not in battles, but in sieges, the fire arrow were used a lot. Mongols were constantly using fire arrows, to burn cities, because they did not care about owning them. The conquest wars usually do no use fire, if you want to take a city and have it more or less in good shape, but the motivation of the Mongols was different, they were OK to own territory without owning a city.
He apparently confused their specific uses as some challenge to arrows generally, like they were in competition. His whole improvisational bit about the inventor of the fire arrow easily demonstrates this flawed fanboy rewrite of history. Because it doesn't seem to *him* that the flaming arrow is "better" than a regular arrow, he skipped the part where he bothered to look it up on Wikipedia and realize that they were of great use. In fact, specifically in the way he keeps snarking about. They were like laser beams. In times when simply throwing fire around was terrifyingly hellish already. The psychological effect is half the utility....alongside the more obvious part where everyone's houses were firetraps.
This video amounts to a person in the year 3000 announcing that handheld weaponry was never used in the 21st century because bombs obviously kill better. It's just a very narrow definition of logic, applied to events that actually happened as if they're a single scene from a movie.
But hey, random youtube commenter: keep representin' reality on random chunks of internet with me. It's kinda fun-furiating :-D
A. You're wrong, 2, he already mentioned their uses, Γ, who cares about bombs, 四, regular arrows are very efficient and scary enough. Especially when there are 2000 of them in the air at any point in time.
You are absolutely right and I was about to make the same comment, but then I remembered what this video was from, which was that horrendous movie about Troy, and how they used fire arrows mid-battle. The problem is that he only glancingly mentions the movie, in fact if you had not seen the first video than you wouldn't have much of an idea what he was talking about.. It isn't until 9:48 that he finally does mention sieges, when he says they would be very effective.
that's exactly what he said in the video
i doubt this guy even knows or at least wants to admit the Mongols dominated mid Medieval age. even in his Horse archery is useless video, he doesnt mention how the Mongols totally didnt conquer half the world with such a useless technique such as mounted archery.
*"Sir sir sir!"*
What is it?
"I got a new form of arrow that can not only go straight but also more Lethal"
Oh? Then what is it? We've always admire a brilliant Craftsman!
*_"iTs CaLlEd A bUlLeT"_*
But bullets don't go straight
@@Markus-8Muireg BuT bULLeTs DoN't Go StRaiGhT
You just had to be a smartass, didn't you?
@@arianas0714 :)
"Now then Sir, how do we use these bullets?"
"uhhhh...."
"Jenkins?"
"Well about that sir... just give it a few... decades?"
@@jordray5823 how about a few centuries
Just came across this while doing some research.
From the report on the siege of Rhodes, 1480, by the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller of St John at the time, Pierre D’Aubusson, translated in John Taaffe, The History of the Holy, Military, Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Vol 3, Hope and Co, London, 1852, pp. 59-60:
"The enemy made use too of another sort of horror - globes of fire, and fiery arrows thrown from the cross-bow or sent off whirling from catapultas, that the houses may be set on fire. We on the other hand, whose duty it was to save the city, chose consulters from persons of the art [experienced in the art of fighting fires], to remain most attentive; and they, as soon as ever the incendiary matter fell, applied themselves with the fleetest caution to extinguish the flames. By such remedies we were able to preserve the Rhodians from many mishaps."
So, they didn't even do their job well?
The way he describes the fire department kills me
@@TheGloriousLobsterEmperor It seems in this particular attack they weren't successful because the city had good firefighters, now imagine that wasn't the case.
Yeah, even today, what portion of the population do you think actually understand the difference between putting out a wood fire and a grease fire? They might get lucky and use the right fire extinguisher. But if they don't have a fire extinguisher, you'd be amazed how many people would end up just letting (or making) the fire get out of hand. Even with all the access we have, that's still an issue. Imagine back then when almost no one had that access, apart from word of mouth if something happened nearby.
Yes, this is what frustrates me. So many people are quick to say "Oh but physics and science and such!" for their reasoning as to why it won't work. But they did. Except that they were never used to kill, only to lower morale and set fire to buildings and anything made of wood. That's why you really only hear about them during sieges. They did use them, just not for firing at the infantry.
They needed pommel arrows. To end them rightly of course
The "end them rightly" jokes are getting really old man.
Perhaps we should end the rightly jokes rightly...
Capn Clawhammer
Oh god, shoot me now.
I wonder if anyone was ever ended...leftly?
+Rebypox Fuck no they aren't.
Best thing in a bladed weapon review out there is to find a pommel joke in the comnent. Literally one of the few things in a comnent section that make me laugh
“Sometimes cotton, tow, or the like substance, previously mixed with pitch, rosin, oil, or naphtha, was wrapped on the end of an Arrow, in the form of a ball”.“Which ball, when in use, was fired, and the Arrow directed towards the wooden towers and engines of the enemy; where sticking firmly, communicated a flame to every part near it. This was used with great success in naval expeditions”
-Walter Moseley, _An essay on Archery_ ,1792
Nice 👍
Excactly what I thought too!!
Thanks for bringing this up
Okay, this from memory and I can’t exactly remember the source so bear with me. I once saw an illustration of a fire arrow design, it was supposedly also effective against infantry, but particularly at setting fire to buildings and ships. So it had no metal head, instead there was a small ceramic jar at the head, about 2-3 inches in diameter. This would then be half filled or full filled with oil. At the front of the jar there was a little compartment with a lid (separate from the main jar) where a small bit of oil would be lit. The lid would be put on and then the arrow would be fired. So it worked something like a molotov cocktail. It had less range than a normal arrow but apparently it was highly effective at attack large bodies of infantry as the jar would create a small explosion at whatever it hit. It would also have been highly effective at killing morale, I would think. Say you were an infantry man standing in line with your fellow soldiers, when the guy next to you is hit by an arrow and suddenly bursts into flames. Then you see a barrage of these arrows bearing down on your position. Then small fiery explosions erupt across the field before you, on the men behind you.
So don’t ask me for a source, I just remember seeing it somewhere, an illustration with a description. Apparently it was used sparingly in conflicts (in Ancient China I think).
Exactly. What Lindy is failing to understand, is that there is such a thing as shifting your aim for the added weight. Any competent archer can shoot 2 different arrows in weight, close to each other. It's a simple process of, oh I dunno, aiming slightly more up? Whilst he's right, it wasn't used to kill, like the movies portray, there have been recorded instances of them being used to not only set alight siege equipment and other fortifications and buildings, but to lower the morale of the infantry. I'd be more scared, seeing a volley of fire come flying down at you, than regular arrows.
The byzantines used catapults to throw containers with greek fire to the enemy and that's the closests that it gets
Roman scorpions could light their bolts
@@alibryant8588 are you quoting Age of Empires right now?
They also used Greek fire in their navy. Setting enemy ships ablaze.
@@alibryant8588 Romans had arrows, scorpion and ballistae bolts, all designed with setting things on fire in mind. And it worked, seeing as they used them consistently.
Basically, people should do some historical research, or at least a little reading, before believing they were a hoax, where only movies used them. I mean, for gods sake, half of Romes war paintings have literal fire arrows in them.
@@kingstormysky3978 you are dumb
Ha, just stick a fire.jpeg image on the tip of an arrow.
Lol you thought this was a fire arrow
But it was me
Dio
I'll beat your static fire.jpg arrow with an actively burning fire.gif arrow!
@@EricSon_akuma You fool! I posted a flame gif on Pornhub then put it onto the arrow, which improves its penetration
BRACE YOURSELVES, IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
FIVE MINUTES AGO TOO
IT'S HAPPENING!!!
IT HAPPENED!!!!!!
It is a sign, the end is coming!
YOU FORGOT TO USE CAPS!
I definitely don't get the point of fire arrows against humans (the human body is surprisingly resistant to fire), but in any sort of siege I see them being practical. I also vaguely remember reading up on something where fire arrows (or maybe it was fire ballistae) were shot into castles, villages, etc in sieges. It'd definitely easily light up thatch roofing, which would act as good kindling for spreading the fire even more.
THAT is the idea, look at the episode "profit and loss" of Vikings where the boats are hit with jars of pitch then shot with flammable arrows...with predictable result.
They do work as a good way to demoralize the enemy forces: When you're already shitting bricks because you have a cloud of arrows flying towards you, them being on fire adds a nice fear factor.
yes but at this distance they can just throw a torch so...
It's almost like he talked about that at the end of the video.
Instead of an fire arrow, is much more effective in lobbing a projectile, like a pot filled with thick oil, or tar. The speed of the projectile is lower, so chances of the fire getting put out by the woosh are significantly lower and on the other end, the projectile shatters, spilling its contents and catching fire - much more harder to contain.
So yes, historically, most fire projectiles were things lobbed over, not arrows.
It's written in the chronicles that in the Kingdom of Asturias, soldiers would shoot fire arrows at Viking raider boats in order to sink them. The northmen would cover the hull of their ships with fresh pelts to avoid catching on fire so easily.
But yeah I couldn't agree more that the way they use them in Hollywood movies is pretty stupid
yes, but that was likely at shorter ranges than in an open field battle, meaning you could have an arrow that burns really hot with a big blaze of pitch even for like 30 seconds and it'd still probably set fire to something. I can imagine 30 arrows like that getting hammered into the mast and throwing the pitch inside them all over the sails from the force of impact would be disastrous.
Also, a fire blazing on ship's bridge is quite easily dealt with (you just need some buckets with ropes tied to the handles); a fire blazing on the sails, on the other hand...
"There must be a better way of doing the credits."
"Every time they make a Robin Hood movie, they burn our village down!"
"Leave us alone, Mel Brooks!"
Fire-katanas video in two years time. Can't wait.
Hey Lindy, could you do a video on battering rams/ways to penetrate defenses?
More penetration, eh?
No-one does penetrating analyses like Lindy.
lmao, that bait. I'm impressed you managed to change the subject with such ease, though.
Regardless of what I think about the refugees/(whatever you want to call them) this comment was absolutely hilarious, my good sir.
Also, boobs analyses!
I always thought fire arrows were used exclusively for shooting over city, fortress walls and lighting fields or houses on fire.
That's the point of this whole video, didn't you even watch it?
@@CDStoner yeah and I learned a lot.
They were also used in naval warfare a lot
@@brianlam5847 which I don’t understand for like you could just pour water on the sails or whatever and there is no point in shooting a soggy boat
@@dannydevito7584First of all, chinese "fire arrows" are actually arrows with a gunpowder payload that activates when it hits the hull of the ship, and unlike these fire arrows, have their own oxygen supply which allows them to create a fire on deck much easier. Even a lucky hit could put a fire onto a spot where sailors couldn't actually reach and put out, and sink a ship by itself. Also, you can't just put salt water on every surface of a sail, since the junk boats of china had big sails with no good way to douse the sails effectively, since only a small part of the sails could be doused before combat, since the sails were too big and too hard to get on top of to douse them with water. It would take multiple trips with a bucket to get a quarter of it doused lightly, and even if, a gunpowder arrow could easily spark a fire in a lightly doused sail near the base where the water can't reach easily.
"I want arrows that go a long way and penetrate Frenchmen"
what, arrows that work like German soldiers?
You dont get the point, the ultimate arrow *_IS_* a german soldier
Given your name, I'm surprised at that comment. lol.
+Stalins moustache We need bows that fire Germans then now. I'd pay to see that.
Jonathan E It's about killing two birds with one stone.
Back in the day these weapons were used there was no Germany, so wouldn't it make it somewhat difficult to find many Germans?
WHAT?? No fire arrows? Next you will tell us the Katana is NOT the bestest sword ever!
Ah, yes about that...
But my grandpas uncle had a barber, whos grandfathers friend fought in WW2 against japan and said all Katanas cut though hardened diamonds like butter!!!!
It'll be nice to not just dismiss the katana has being overhyped/mediocre. Did the katana make sense given how the Japanese fought? Why did the Japanese fight the way they did (limited resources, geography, etc.)?Every weapon you talk about is always going to be obsolete or inferior in a different context. It's stupid to talk about weapons being the best or worst. It's more interesting to talk about the context.I think it's sad that you basically have two groups of people praising and dismissing the katana about being the "best", and neither really just talk about what it actually was.
Or that the Spandau was not the best MG in WWII! :P
That's a really good point actually: technically superior weapons can almost always be defeated by some combination of skill/circumstances and/or user error. Most people will tell you that the Spitfire was a brilliant fighter aircraft, and it was, under favourable circumstances. Ask a squadron of Spitfires to escort your bombers to Berlin and back however, and you're going to have a lonely and very dangerous flight. That's what Mustangs are for....
fire arrows at night = thanks for revealing their location and trajectory
... Why does it matter? You're going to catch them?
That's actually a good idea. Free ammunitions to shoot back, even if crappy ones.
@@Sanroxem If both sides have archers (a reasonable assumption in a pitched battle) then it matters quite a bit. Of course it's a silly situation to begin with, standing armies would never engage in pitched battles at night.
Like tracers from assault rifles. At first fire arrows make sense, then you think about it long enough and it not practical. If you think even deeper though fire arrows could have their benefits.
if you're talking a medieval battle, it's not gonna matter a whole lot if their position is revealed, unless they're planning an ambush
"A little surprise for the French.. NIGHT ARROWS!"
Would studded leather armour be sufficient to stop fire arrows?
a common wool jacket would probably be enough...
Tristen Snyder I did, but my response is not that funny, now that I read it second time :-/
The wool jacket isn't enough. The key to the defense is a beige shirt with the corners of the collar rounded off.
Only if it's beige.
@bitemis
I assume lindy used an angle grinder to round the corners of his collar.
Just a thing about the start of the video with the large line of archers in Kingdom of heaven, I could think of an ancient tech that communicates faster than any known method to date, light, have two becaons at each end of the firing line, one man lights the flame on one end, the other sees this, lights his and the whole line can see that now is the time to light it. It even seems that way somewhat as the two ends of the line appear much sooner than the majority, this might not have been what happened but its just a thought.
Love the jumper btw
Not so fast. There a lot of ways this can go wrong or not go at all. First of all, signaling to loose fire arrows with....fire could be problematic. The means to light both is...in fact fire. So you can imagine how a bunch of dudes are looking around at night for someone to light a fire to signal them....all it takes is someone kicking over a fire source, or a bellow lighting up a fire source more than usual and it looks like a signal. At night its going to be difficult to know exactly where the ends of the line are. Somebody fucks up 1/4 of the way from the end of the lines and its just as good as the end of the line to someone waiting for a fire to be lit in the dark.
That is without talking about how chaotic, and nerve racked a bunch of peasant archers will be during a night attack. That's without talking about how much training and drilling has gone into night fire arrow signaling. That's without talking about how rare night battles have been because of all these reasons. That's without talking about how rare good training was for Medieval soldiers, let alone for night fighting (non-existent).
Not to mention, most Medieval armies were utter shit at signaling in general. As far as I understand, pretty much no European military during the middle ages was able to develop and maintain the art of signaling to anything resembling what the Romans were doing hundreds of years before them.
Hypothetically though...it's not inconceivable to do what you are talking about. You could drill it into soldiers, practice light discipline at night, and then pray for no errant horseman or bumbling archer to knock over a fire source prior to the first volley. But there would have to be a pretty good reason to want to make your fire arrow volley happen instantaneously rather than take 20 seconds for everyone to get on the same page. I'm sure if i sit here long enough I can think of a hypothetical reason for this...maybe.
(I'm not saying English archers weren't well trained archers, because they were pretty good at putting arrows in the air, especially when you had veteran mercenary companies selling themselves across Europe during the Hundred Years War, but in general, archers were peasants with little prior training or experience. Peace time English longbow training was also ambiguous with varied enforcement when it was legally required. There's target practice and then there is application of archery on a battlefield.)
your telling me that waiting around and looking for a signal fire is better than having a signal transmit to your phone/watch that tells it to vibrate? As soon as you feel the vibration, you fire. That seems way faster than looking for a signal fire that is adequate at best and extremely misleading at worst? I don't think so
Militaries used drums to send loud rhythmic signals for miles at the speed of sound. Which actually works *faster* than radio communication for such short ranges. Not because the radio's slower, of course, but because humans are very good at quickly recognizing rhythmic drumbeats, so we respond faster instinctively, and it improves with training.
Good point. But they still wouldn't have zippo's or matches to light their arrows.
Molotov arrows?
Charlie Crome HEAT arrows?
What about Ice arrows?
Knights of the Nine High Explosive Anti Tank or HEAT for short could be a good idea
Togira Ikonoka what would be the point...? It would literally be worthless.
How about Phosphorus?
Tod made some of the high - late medieval fire arrows with the oxidisers, one thing that stood out was the smoke, nasty and can force people from the walls or from a chunk of a ship, choking and blinding sometimes laced eith arsenic and other nasty stuff like potentialy lime
Also in a town the straw or fodder is going to be very flammable, can get started fast and spread, even if it doesn't spread it burns supplies in which defenders are in short supply of, in genral it causes loads of little problems even once the big ones are taken care of
Magnesium tipped arrow heads. Reacts with or without oxygen present, can withstand the winds of an arrows velocity and will react extremely violently when the gasses of the magnesium burning reacts with the h2o in your blood causing an pretty large explosion. It's also pretty easy to light on fire soooo. It also burns at 2200C, THATS 4000 degrees 'Merican units.
Brilliant!
@joanne chon yes i do
Idk if I've ever seen a comment that is both awesome and makes me want to invoke some war crimes statute
@joanne chon "alloy" Yep, feel pretty safe.
@KeanuBodypillo g thermite is better for that use ;)
I think this is also a bit of the "Total War" effect. Shooting fire arrows in open battle in those games had very little penalty, but would often set fire to the enemy AI in a glorious fireball. Strangely you could never really use fire arrows during sieges to set fire to buildings. It could have been an interesting game mechanic to force the defender to use units to extinguish burning buildings, or risk the settlement burning to the ground. Their only use was to the defender in setting fire to the battering rams and siege towers.
Anyone know of a mod for any of the Total War games that re-balances arrows? Maybe ups the firing rate for normal arrows, or gives a huge penalty to fire arrows?
Well they are far more inaccurate than normal arrows and takes longer to reload. So no, they actually have pretty big penalty. The upside was that they give moral loss to the enemy and as far i can tell does more damage. So i mostly use fire arrows to heavily armored enemies. Light units: normal arrows ftw.
Gr8humanilation9TV The inaccuracy thing worked both ways though, as it took 2 or more arrow hits to put down even mildly armoured units, but one shot with a bow seemed to make everyone burst into flames. I didn't really notice a reload penalty, it's a few seconds if at all.
The accuracy of the unit makes a huge difference for sure. Also what total war we are talking about. Like in Rome you might want to use fire arrows but like in shogun 2 normal arrows kills in 1-2 shots so using flaming arrows is not as useful.(talking about light infantry). The most important thing about fire arrows for me is the moral penalty AND that is they point of them. The strategy part of them. Risk and reward. Do less damage (in general) but lessen moral. Its great. Btw favorite Total War?
Gr8humanilation9TV It's mainly Rome and Medieval 2 that I've noticed it in. As for favourite, I think it has to be original Rome. On steam alone I have about 400 hours in it and I bought it on disk when it first came out. I can't get on with the newer ones, I don't know what they did to them, but I hate my cavalry being stopped by skirmishers like their brick walls, or units glitching 500 feet through terrain to perform one of their finishing moves.
What about you? I've never gotten into the Shogun's, they seemed far more complicated than "build army- smash!" with the whoring of the daughters and the political backstabbing.
Original Rome and Medieval 2 here too but i prefer rome because the time period. Far more interesting for me. I had it on disk too. Just because the fucking awesome hand to hand combat. Its perfect. The moment when you flank enemy infantry and just charge to them. The hit of the charge is just awesome or just charging head to head with infantry and no fucking kill moves... Its killing the hand to hand combat and killing the series. Like you said "hitting a brick wall". Yup that's how it is in the new ones. There is simply no unit collision. It's so ugly and i know... its on shogun 2 but the polish on that game is the best of all of them. Played all of the total wars expect the newest one.
Fire arrows on ships were often used to catch sails on fire. Hard to put those fires out and you immobilize a ship for boarding.
Capt Char
That's what I was thinking.
Weren't sails often treated with flammable oils? And the decks had loads of tar/pitch to plug any leaks. So yeah.
BonDieu617 Depends on the time period with sails. Either way they would be damp. And would probably be so thick they'd glance off. They kept pitch in barrels of some kind. They wouldn't have pitch all over their deck because its a huge safety hazard, especially considering how slippery it would be.
Max Anthony Not all over the deck of course, but they used it to plug leaks and holes as well as ridges between planks. It wasn't _everywhere_ of course, but there was a lot of it.
Probably depends a helluva lot on the circumstance as well.
A designate battleship who are ready & have chance to prepare themselves vs fire arrows using specially crafted sails could probably shrug them off.
A civilian, commercial or lower quality ship on a sunny day however might be very vulnerable to fire arrows.
For those of you coming to this video after Tod's Fire Arrow video, keep in mind that this was filmed 8 years ago when most people thought fire arrows were dumb and or very niche, and the fire arrows that Tod made didn't behave like the ones we see in media.
So in other words, everything this historian says is in jeopardy?
@BuzzingGoober Anything in history has the potential to be proven correct or wrong in a few years, within reason of course. The thing is Lindy does make some speculations on what would have to be done to make fire arrows work we see some of them in Tod's video.
Another point I would like to add is that for most of the video, Loyde is talking about fire arrows being used on the battlefield. Now, he does state near the end that it was most likely used for siege warfare. Tod mentions that they are a situational weapon for naval and siege warfare.
I don't think Loyde was disproven or proven correct entirely as I believe he was about 50/50 or 40/50 on his points.
@@johnnywoods5549 I feel
edit: I accidentally clicked the reply button I will switch to a PC to make a proper reply
Lyndybeige make a video about naval warfare in medieval era.
THIS. Pre-gunpowder/cannon days.
But that's just regular melee on ship decks...
The basics are pretty simple. You'd fire projectiles such as arrows, javelins or stones, and maybe have a ballista if you were lucky. Alternatively you would try and hook the ship, pull them close and engage physically or ram them. Obviously there is more to it than that on a strategic level, but that's the gist.
Ryan McAllen like the fire arrows in the movies?
Yes that would be great! Pirates of baltic and mediterenian sea! Pre-gunpowder era!
4:30 something that goes a long ways and penetrates french people? So you want Benjamin Franklin then? ;P
I predict the candle fire will turn into a genie and give three wishes to you.
Dang it
So close!
that was a great joke!
Just saw the Tods Workshop video that debunks this debunking video - youtube has gobe full circle and it just took about half a decade
Maybe a pyrophoric chemical would work. Such a chemical could be contained in a glass arrow head that would shatter on impact exposing the chemical to air allowing it to self ignite. However, manufacturing such a system would be extremely difficult even with todays technology, and totally impossible during the middle ages.
So what your saying is it's unrealistic and irrelevant? Lol.
Well, that is essentially the concept of a naphtha grenade, which was actually used in the middle ages. That said, one would not use it in an arrow since you need it to spread all over you target. As Lindybeige said, there is no merit in the arrow burning if not used against structures. Not going to incinerate any people who get hit.
actually, it wouldnt be that hard to make, but you cant get too much fire out of it... a cool thing would be to put an arrow drenched in some thick oil or tar that burns slowly and put a criystal tip with phosforus inside... so it will break and ignite the oil that will splatter arround... at least some oil would still be there for sure...
promatt5 Wow imagine all the Frenchmen we could penetrate.
Gerben van Straaten. because an arrow is easier to aim. and id say 1,000 arrows will make more small fires then the few dozen moderate to large fires the catapult or scorpio make. or for maximum effect you do both and make sure you burn shit down.
A few points;
1 fire arrows weren't for 'killing frenchmen'. They were for setting terrain, such as grass, on fire causing confusion with your enemy and hopefully setting war machines ablaze. Imagine trying to fight in a flaming field...
2 Most buildings were thatched with reeds...dry flammable reeds. Do the math.
3 Arrows were not heat treated anyway. Far too expensive for something you throw away and were generally mild steel as they were pointed (bodkin), but rarely sharpened, except for hunting which is entirely different.
4 The fire was made with pitch and gum soaked canvas that acted more like napalm than fire so that when it hit, it threw flaming stickyness at whatever it hit.
5 (optional) Ship sails, being made of sun bleached dry linen or canvas burn quite well. Again, do the math.
1 Yes that sounds very difficult to do for either side.
2 yes... 2% ignition rate when shot into dry flammable things...
Warning, sarcasm alert, sarcasm incoming
3 ... yeah it's not like there were large groups of people re-collecting them or anything and it is just so expensive to heat something up and then cool it down again.
4 because stuff like that doesn't go out when shot at high speeds.
5 sails that arrows would 100% not go through.
Math /= real world.
To take one of your points, Thatch, which was often laid very thick, not what you see in movies, this thickness reduces the amount of oxygen available and penetration depth so it would be like shooting fire arrows at solid wood.
Maybe take less physics lessons from DnD.
Watch more Lindybeige!
Ari Lunarium
No it isn't and it's obvious you've never seen it up close. Thatching burns, hence why when Museums of Canada restored the 'huts' in Upper Canada Village, there was a debate about replacing them with modern building materials, or spraying with fire retardant on a schedule. They replaced them BTW, in 2002. Big news in the Seaway Valley which is what they call the St. Lawrence area where I live.
It's funny, but even as Deadly0Night (another armchair historian) figures that setting fire to grass is a 2% ignition rate, (a number pulled from deep within his arse), farmers all over the continent are clearing scrub with nothing but a book of matches. Imagine that.
As for the pitch/gum going out...mix some and light it, then throw water on it. Better still, take the leaf blower to it at full tilt. After your yard burns away you can tell me how long it took to go out.
Or research greek fire, which is what they were trying to recreate, but instead were making a rudimentary form of napalm which doesn't suffer the same failings as a lit hanky.
antagonizerr So they shot flaming arrows at the huts? Of course thatch burns, but not as easily as you might think.
So pitch/gum can easily be applied to the end of an arrow without causing weight or flight problems?
I have cleared scrub with a flame thrower, grass often burns at a low temperature, not enough to light most trees. Hotter burning brush is what is worried about, and I doubt they would just leave it laying against their buildings. It's not just it burns or it doesn't, composition matters a lot.
How many LindyBeige videos have you watched? It seems like you don't know that he travels, visits historical sites and participates in reenactments.
Ari Lunarium
I think you severely underestimate the potential of a scrub fire. I also think you underestimate the flammability of a sun baked and dry thatched roof. It's just bundled reeds that are years, if not decades old. Damn right it burns, and burns well.
I like LindyBeige, and have seen all his vids, but I don't consider him to be the consummate pro on all things iron age. This just happens to be one of those things he got wrong.
You seem to be concerned about weight but how much does a bit of tar and canvas weigh? You don't need a massive arrow for the job either as I highly doubt these arrows were held fast for more than a minute before being fired. I doubt anyone was worried about the shaft burning up as fueled fires don't burn that way. You must have played with lighter fluid in your life, right? You know you can hold it a long time without being burned?
I'm not going to claim pro status here, too many people try and do that, but if you want my resume, look me up. Tho I don't make vids I do post to instructables under the same name. I'm what I like to call a lithic artist. If you're curious where I learned it, just ask, but I don't want to be 'that guy' that claims crap without proof.
There's an upcoming Matt Damon movie... you ain't seen fire arrows until you've seen chinese CGI fire arrows.
Phil Chia tbf it's about a fantasy great wall of china that looks like something from Attack on Titan
hedgehog3180 BUILD THAT WALL
I watched that abomination of cinema recently. It was free, yet I felt like two hours of my life had been taken from me.
I agree. It was a pretty awful movie.
I'm a little disappointed that he didn't open with the beginning of Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
I remember some show (Deadliest Warrior?) tested them out, and found that the flame doesn't necessarily get snuffed BUT
1) in order to stick enough cloth/pitch on them for the flames to stay on, it means they suddenly can't penetrate very far, or even penetrate at all
2) they don't tend to set the target on fire
3) if they actually do penetrate, it just cauterises the wound
There are definitely historical cases of people spreading (for example) oil on the ground before a battle then using fire arrows to ignite it when the other guy walks across it, but they're rare and seemed to be of mixed success.
yep, found it: Deadliest Warrior S02, E10. They also found that the impact from the arrow hitting a target often extinguished the fire.
polymphus IIRC they were a psychological weapon mostly used to break cavalry formations, since animals tend to freak out over fire pretty easily.
...You always shoot the frenchmen...
Which brings me to the question: Could you shoot a baguette using a bow? How would it fly?
If you attached it to an arrowhead, sure. The weight would be a problem though and it isn't aerodynamic either
You can't, but you can make huge baguettes and use them as lances.
Baguettes are also very useful against watermelons barrage and can be suitable throwing weapons.
should rather shoot it from a bren gun, its better you know
It's more efficient to shoot a baguette with a Colt .45 or a Luger or any side arm for that matter. Quicker and cleaner and you still eat the baguette.
In the siege of Jerusalem in 1099 the defenders used flaming arrows to destroy one of the siege towers
Yes, and siege towers normally had defences against fire on them and in them. Fire arrows were used in sieges.
How were siege defenders able to overcome the problems you mentioned in the video? Did they probably use method #1 (big end, low penetration/range/etc.)?
well the arrow he is holding an fire arrow used in seiges to try and burn down siege weapons or burn houses behind walls
Probably they just didn't draw the arrow fully. Shot from a warbow at a 28" draw, even a 32" burning arrow will go a considerable distance. The range and lower penetrating power will still be be worse than a standard arrow though....
+Red Vodka The range and penetration thing is far less relevant if you're shooting something big and made of wood.
Tods workshop did a great video on fire arows.
They are pyrotechnics and there is an actual book on many diferent recepies used. The recreation burns around 2 minutes and gets hot enough to make metal glow red. Another point seems to be that they where not only for seeting things on fire as the original contained things that would make the smoke poisounes and noxious.
Oh and they cant be put out by water nor can they be fully nutralized snuffing them out
They did use fire arrows in some situations.
However, they were usually used against cities, siege works, ships, etc...
But yeah, they weren’t ancient long-range flame throwers.
So exactly what was said in the movie. Good for you.
..That's exactly what he said.. You didn't watch the whole video did you? -_-
what about those arrows they shoot boats with when there's a viking funeral ceremony, lets say. Or is that just a hollywood thing :(
@@DesiMcSheepxD more likely they pushed it out to sea and chucked a torch on it.
Flamethrowers was the Greek Fire
I found this excerpt in Arab Archery which is a manuscript from around 1500 AD (English translation). It’s about how to make a fire arrow that should actually work.
“
The third is the shooting of flaming arrows, which are called spindle-shaped, and are used for incendiary purposes, to set fire to the place where they fall. Such arrows are made by constructing a hollow arrowhead consisting of a number of tubes the ends of which are brought together. The interior of the arrowhead should be hollow, like the interior of the spindles women use. This is why it is called spindle-shaped. It should also have a cylindrical extension into which the shaft is inserted.
You mix some straw and cotton together and make them into a ball. Then you saturate the ball with tar and insert it into the hollow of the arrowhead. Then you bring it next to a flame, and shoot it as soon as it begins to burn. It will spring into a flaming projectile and will start a fire wherever it falls.
You may also take some otter fat, wax, black sulphur, bdellium gum [Webster's International Dictionary: "A gum resin obtained from Cammiphora africana, similar to myrrh and used for the same purposes."], the pith of fresh cherry seeds-if you cannot obtain this, you may use coconut milk, and if this is not to be found, you may use the sap of wild figs-and a piece of quicklime untouched by water; you then grind the whole together, knead the mass with pure oil of balsam, roll it into small, pebble-like granules, and dry them. When you wish to shoot, sprinkle the granules with powdered black sulphur and shoot them with a stiff, strong bow, at night or by day, without bringing them next to a flame or fire. As each travels through the air it springs into flame. Al-Ṭābari has declared this to be true and that it has been practiced by experts in Egypt”
Noice
Yes but it is not very extra usable, only perhaps when trying to ignite a building or scare a horse
@@gabor7524 but thats very useful to do those things
I mean he covered that...pretty sure the arrow he was showing was exactly what you had mentioned..
Tábri محمد الطبری is persian historian not arab, i dont blame you not knowing the difference but, just correct it.
I'm a Frenchman and I was triggered by that ending pannel. #GetLloydreplacedbyatransgenderblackwoman.
lol
I'm triggered by all these people triggering each other with their triggering...
Don't worry. Whike the english certainly shot the french a lot with arrows in the 100 years war, the french responded by shooting the english to pieces with cannons at Castillon. Which I'd argue is significativelly more unpleastant.
Were they loaded with katanas or pommels?
Capn Clawhammer
It is highly unlikelly they were loaded with katanas, but I can't prove it wasn't pommels.
I read in the art of war the way the Chinese would use fire arrows is by preparing an area first they were soaking and sesame oil and use the arrows to light the oil that’s what made them effective because bizarrely enough no one wants to be in an area that’s on fire it would also scare animals like horses and elephants
I noticed you had a picture of Jeor Mormont on your wall there, and I was wondering if fire arrows could've been used as effectively as they were in the battle of the wall. At night time, couldn't they be used as tracers and be useful for the both the attackers and defenders?
I saw Mormont too. It pleases me.
Jeremy M lol
Good idea, the tracing, but that does not compensate for the loss of range and armor piercing. Well... I could picture some arrangement in which a bow master shots an fire arrow, looks at how it flies and how the wind affects it and then tell the rest of the archers in which arc and which direction to fire. Like how modern snipers do it, with the DOPE book and stuff. But that is just a wild idea, I don't know much about archery.
the benefit of fire arrows during a seige would be the simple fact that most stuctures has thatched roofs, they burn rather nicely
Thank you!
anouther one i recently thought of would be defencive. Armys were rather large and quite obvious. Sow the land around the walls with pitch wate for the attack to happen......toasty attackers
Ian Mills
A true "scorched earth" policy!
*****
only the pessants.
Ian Mills late as fuck comment but Aldo burning enemy camps
We used to make fire arrows out of practice arrows when we were kids...... Wrap the tip in cloth, You simply dip it in oil, light it on fire, wait for it to get hot enough that it wont go out (or relights after it hits target) after you fire it. It's not really that complicated.. You don't really have to worry about the wood of the arrow burning up because it takes too long to weaken the arrow.. SO you light it,wait about 15 seconds for the cloth to get really heated internally, then fire it. We caught the bank on fire in the backyard... Not our best day..
flaming arrows were primarily used for sieges.
I´d wager there weren´t that many professional kid archers in medieval times though...;-) Seriously, this video is about real combat. A war bow is something quite different from what you (and any other kid I guess) uses. Speed and range are what makes all the difference. Shoot with a bow and arrow for kids, range maybe, what, 30 meters if you´re being generous? It´s the details that matter, and this is what´s being looked at in this video...;-)
Try and do that with a 100 pound warbow, which is, on average, what they used back then. Not only it will snuff the fire out instantly, no matter how big it is, it will also break the arrow due to weakness within the wood. Have you ever seen medieval longbow arrows, and how thick they used to make them? They are like that for a good reason.
I used an 80'lbs Compound bow, I probably couldn't have done a 100lbs at age 13-14, as I struggled with 80.. I still have it in my gun cabinet. A 100 lbs bow wouldn't have made a difference, considering the mechanics of what we did. The cloth, after burning for about 10-15 seconds, gets hot cinders.. That's all it takes.. once it lands, it relights almost instantly. As for breaking the arrow, You also have to take into consideration that an arrow fired at long distance loses it's momentum.. It's not going to be hitting it's target with 100 lbs of pressure, as if it was just fired. If you're firing an arrow over a wall into a castle, it's got plenty of time to burn off that initial pressure before it hits.
Arcane Turbulence As note to the weight, if you were shooting 80# from a relatively modern compound bow, the arrow would be going a hell of a lot faster than the ones shot from the 100# longbow. So the difference would go opposite, it would work better with the longbow than with your compound.
Edit: Just curious, as it's difficult to come across compounds higher than 70# now, do you remember which bow it was?
Watching Lindy is like a combination of the history channel and Monthy Python. Very entertaining. Keep it up!! Cheers ol chap!!!!
I recall several sieges where the defenders would use heated arrows to set the enemies siege engines on fire (happened to a crusader siege tower during the siege of Jerusalem). I don't think they would have any use in a battle though.
I personally think fire arrows are so frequently used in movies for the visuals. Either because they look cool or because they're easier to see than a bunch of tiny flying sticks.
Yup, that's basically what the video just finished explaining :).
So medieval tracers.
Am I the only person who's reminded of Hugh Laurie in Blackadder?
by what?
Thats exactly what i thought when he started impersonating :)
No I thought of him the first time I saw him ha.
In which series? Blackadder II, Blackadder the Third, Blackadder Goes Forth?
Yep
I am American of French- Welsh extraction. Who am I to shoot?
saxons*?
Everyone. We're Americans, remember?
Bman Chu
Almost cut myself on all that edge.
Dung?
The English, obviously.
I love how worked up he gets. I had a professor in university like him ... it was a joy paying thousands of dollars in tuition to hear-watch his passionate dramatic performances (aka lectures).
A classic sight in movies is on the eve of battle, one army will pour oil all over the line the enemy needs to cross, and then shoot it with flaming arrows during the battle to create a wall of fire to prevent the enemy's escape. I don't know how realistic that is considering the enemy would probably either see or smell the oil as they were walking over it and would instantly realize it was a trap.
Dr Shaym ayy you watch lindy?
I just reflexively like everything dr shaym comments
Dr Shaym It has often been mentioned that the prophet Muhammad used that tactic successfully. I have no sources to quote, but his followers probably do.
Preventing enemy escape isn't a good idea either. You force them to fight to the death like cornered rats which might as well end up in a defeat for you.
@@Kerendips Muhammad was know for great acts of mercy in war, such as not murdering every captured soldier, and raping and enslaving women and children which was common practice at the time. So backing someone into a corner then offering them mercy might cause your enemy to surrender rather than fight a battle they know they'll die in.
Fire arrows were used. And are possible. Just not in massive numbers. But were only effective in certain situations like Lindy said as you can't fully draw a bow with a flaming arrow at the end! For example I read somewhere that the Romans tried to use flaming arrows to try and burn shields to help diminish the defensive capability of a phalanx.
But I'm not entirely convinced that it would be easy to use such weapons on an open battlefield.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beneventum_(275_BC)
Yes, sieges, or "raiding", sabotage, arson, looting and burning, etc.
Well firstly, any shield fronted with leather would be mostly immune for the few seconds it would take to pull the arrow out, even if it was a miniature inferno. Secondly, the Romans already _had_ a really effective weapon for that job, the pilum, which actually _benefited_ from its relatively short range, as it meant the other guys had less time to either extract the pilums, or get more shields out before the Legionaries were on them.
I doubt it actually worked, but it was attempted it is recorded. Which would suggest the arrows themselves can be lit, and stay lit through the air. It would probably still terrify the enemy, and hot pitch would cause pain and damage certain things.
Oh, and they most certainly didn't look like how Hollywood depicts them :)
But wild, silly, slow to load, shorter range, inaccurate things with a little bit of smoke coming from them don't look as cool.
Wouldn't it be nice to have guys with spandaus shooting flaming ponmels? I reckon if the guys had some katanas for self defence in a melee combat, they would be unstoppable warriors capable of penetrating frenchmen quite well.
pommels*
Who placed n and m next to each other?
"Who placed n and m next to each other"
french (azerty) layout doesn't... and all lindy talks about is penetrating the french lol.
Katana pommels.
I rest my case.
Unless the Frenchmen wore studded leather armour.
You're doing it all wrong... We need spandaus shooting flaming katana pommels!
And every soldier should have a bikini made out of studded leather armour. Compleate protection achieved!
I love getting baked and watching Lindybeige videos
U know how to live
Fire arrows against armor is stupid. How about having a discussion about fire arrows against wooden ships with linen sails and caulked with pitch?
did you watch the second half of the video?
But boats live on the sea stuuupid
@@Resters52_official lol I sometimes write comments like that. Then delete it after I finish the video, because by then my comment is obsolete.
Both the Assyrians and the Judeans used fire arrows at the siege of Lachish in 701 BC.
More sophisticated devices were developed by the Romans
which had iron boxes and tubes which were filled with incendiary
substances and attached to arrows or spears. These arrows needed to be
shot from loose bows, since swift flight extinguished the flame; spears
could be launched by hand or throwing machine.
Flaming arrows required the shooter to get quite close to their desired
target and most will have extinguished themselves before reaching the
target. In response, another form of fire arrow was developed which
consisted of curved metal bars connecting a tip and hollow end for the
shaft. The resulting cage was be filled with hot coals or other solid
object which could be fired from a much stronger bow or ballista without
fear of extinguishing and would be used to ignite straw or thatch roofs
from a safer distance.
Flaming arrows and crossbow bolts were used throughout the period.
Fifteenth-century writer Gutierre Diaz de Gamez witnessed a Spanish
attack on the Moorish town of Oran in 1404 and later described how "During the most part of the night, the galleys
did not cease from firing bolts and quarrells dipped in tar into the
town, which is near the sea. The noise and the cries which came from the
town were very great by reason of the havoc that was wrought."
JD Tremblay i
They were used when attacking fortifications or siege equipment of wood.
+JD Tremblay
Nicely done, you copied directly from Wikipedia. Lol
LordVader1094 That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I’m far more confident in the word of an informative entity that regulates and fact checks all their data and information every day and is able to provide sources for their information than some ranting Brit on RUclips.
What lindybeige said agreed with what the Wikipedia article said was done.
EXPERIMENT 1000 degree glowing ARROW VS Frenchman
So Tod did something ya might need to respond too
Lightsaber tipped arrows would solve all these problems...
I dunno. Weight may still be an issue. And it wouldn't catch things on fire so much as just burn a clean hole right through them. Perhaps better to just stick with laser guns?
So Lindybeige, what are your thoughts on Greek Fire?
Fire arrows are referred to in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" tho
forkliftwizard it is asia tho
@@gabor7524 understandable.
And certainly knowledge over making all sorts of fire weaponry was transmitted orally or documented in hundreds of secret military manuals, but lost over the centuries and millenia - like 99.9% of knowledge/information anyway.
@Marry Christmas somebody never read Art of War After Dark ;)
@@DarkSkay gunpowder is integral in fire arrows in China.
It's 2020 and you've just shattered my dreams. Subscribed.
A mix of potassium nitrate(main ingredient in black powder) and sugar burns really hot, and for a decent amount of time.
it feels like that could possibly be what they were using on their arrows. but i don't really know anything about stuff like this, so they may very well have used something completely different.
hey, i'm a pyrotechnic, not a historian.
I always thought they used charcoal...
The question is: did they have access to sugar before they learned how to make cannons and muskets?
Greek fire most likely. Or burning pitch.
Not sure if they had much suger back then. And they might not knew the recipe
I think potassium nitrate is what was used to keep the wick burning on matchlock muskets.
I thought that they used oils that are flammable.
oil was pretty uncommon. only way to get crude oil was leakages that was rare af. animal oil / vedgi oil does not burn as hot and as easily.
Damn all those antivaxers with their essential oils can just be burnt to death with ease?
@@cia6862 They'll die off before we get the chance to test that, sadly
3:33
E X T R A T H I C C
Muppetlord fUnNy
i just love the specific and completly simplifeid pointers on this man + the sarcasm is hilarius XD
fire pommels
To burn him rightly.
and end him justly
do thou even pommel bretheren ?
belt fed, spandau's fire pommels
Made of GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL!
what about red hot coals? after a bbq i can often reignite the fire by blowing on the coals. shooting a cage arrow filled with them would have a similar effect in that they would glow hotter as they fly, right?
And coals when being fanned get smaller very rapidly, and fall out of the cage. To set light to something, the coal has to be held against the thing, so how would you do that?
+Lindybeige if it was shot in a high arc over a wall onto a thatched roof I imagine that the arrow wouldn't need much to penetrate and stick in place and so long as the coal gets there it doesn't matter if it's in the arrow or not. I guess the the solution would be to design a cage arrow like the one you had with small holes at the back and if the big hole for loading the coals is at the front then the air pressure would keep the coal at the back of the cage and prevent it coming out before impact.
or just make arrows with coal/charcoal tips, used specifically for igniting thatches, not combat. only needs to "live" for about 5 seconds or so.
Well, sure. I wasn't implying the arrow would bounce off. I meant the arrow/coal only needs to survive the air "blow" of the 5 second flight. After it hits the thatch the whole arrow could burn up for all the archer cares.
Yeah I see your point. (pun intended!)
Okay, but what about the famous Moss Arrow?
Is that a joke or do I have to google "Moss Arrow" now?
that's from Thief
Everyone knows most medieval battles were fought by first blanketing the battleground in moss and sneaking into the enemy camp while they were sleeping.
Yes, and they used water arrows to snuff out any lit torches or braziers :)
+Bladeshade7 In case there were any walls in the way, they could just use rope arrows to climb over.
Instead of having a fire arrow maybe it’ll be better to put the gunpowder explosive onto the arrow with a little mini fuse that you lit just before you launched it that mean when the arrow landed near a Frenchman it would explode.
option 4: Thermite Delivery System ignition on contact
Two substances mixing to ignite the arrow or something like white phosphorus could theoretically have been discovered a very long time ago. Would need to ask a chemist, if arrow heads that ignite on impact could have been invented 500, 1000, 2000 years ago or earlier. Such techniques would probably have been transmitted orally or documented in secret military manuals - and lost over the centuries like 99.9% of all knowledge/information anyway.
@@mattmichaels1181 Thermite can be ignited by burning magnesium or steel heated red hot.
Houses (not defenses) inside walled cities were probably roofed in thatch; that 2% success rate probably gets upped quite a bit, and lack of penetration would be an advantage.
A lot of tar was used in ship construction and operation; I don't know how that increases flammability.
History says that the very first thing that was done during upcoming siege was breaking down those roofs (by defenders), or wetting them or placing soaked leather onto them. Thatched roof is easier to rebuild than douse.
It's not like any siege defender would miss such easy way to get into serious trouble.
I think that was also pretty successful at setting fire to American vehicles as well
At least during XVII to XIX century they used to heat cannonballs till they where red to cause fires on the wooden ships, and if they got you using unauthorized candles you can expect a very harsh punishment, so I'll say quite flammable
If you can get tar stop stop burning by lightly patting on it you should start a religion around yourself. Ships were constantly burning down for stupid reasons because of how flammable they were.
the American 'fire bats' were pretty unsuccessful. compared to old fashioned firebombing they were worthless, and just generally had a pretty low successrate. // they were also used in an anti-shipping role, which the ship they succeeded in setting light to was an American transport. whoops
Finally, and im not dissapointed:)
But it would be possible, with oil impregnated cloth, inside of one of those firearrow laces.
Ive tried similar with my compound bow, and orange oil. The wind will blow out the fire imediatly, as you said, but if the inflammation temperature, is low enough, it will lighten up again, as it reaches its target.;)
Make a Video about it
Looking forward to do that;)
Possibly but there's still the question of why you'd want to, in battle at least. You strike someone with a flaming arrow and inflict no more damage than a normal arrow, probably less if they're wearing any armour because you have a bigger arrowhead.
In sieges, the first design would work fine if you wanted to set a stationary, flammable object on fire at a distance.
+Robert R
To burn buildings mostly
To burn siege equipment, and possibly shields. There's also a disorganization effect.
You are speaking so perfectly clear english, that my undertitle translate everything in perfect german