|
|
Post by Avenger on Nov 4, 2012 10:50:27 GMT
I've just been watching an instalment of Time Team, where they briefly mentioned the use of fire arrows as part of an attack on a medieval town.
If you see them being used in films and television, they whizz from a distance, thud into something that then immediately bursts into flames...
However, the people on Time Team thought differently. They reckoned that the arrows could only be used at short range due to the extra weight on the head of the arrow, and that even then they weren't very effective for immediate incendiary fire; the best chance of firestarting being one of a large barrage being overlooked, smouldering then catching hold some time later...
Perhaps this is something the MBs could look into..?
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 4, 2012 11:33:52 GMT
That's certainly going to vary depending on what sort of "medieval town" we're talking about. If you're talking about one where the primary building materials are brick, slate and stone then the fire arrows will have a much harder time than one in which the materials are wood and thatch. Even then, a thatched roof isn't quite the instant bonfire that movies would suggest.
As you say, the 'hollywood' version of the arrow keeps a strong flame going throughout its flight and instantly causes the material it impacts to ignite. In reality, the flame might not survive and the arrow would instead be delivering a shower of hot embers so I can see where the Time Team's idea could come from.
I'd also imagine that having a burning element at the arrowhead would change not only the gross weight but also the balance & stability of the arrow (and possibly affect the way it flexes on release), which could alter the flight characteristics. However, I assume that the definition of "at short range" in this context would still be a greater range than it's possible to throw an incendiary device.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2012 12:54:45 GMT
Medieval buildings tended to be wood, with a wattle and daub being the most common in Europe. Even 'stone' buildings tended to use rather a lot of wood in their construction, especially for the roof joists. This is one of the reasons most such buildings no longer exist.
Stone buildings, especially in cities, tended to be either higher status buildings, cathedrals or fortified structures - stone was harder to work and therefore more expensive and less common in most places. Naturally the specifics will vary depending on what was available locally, in some places workable stone would be easier to obtain and therefore cheaper than wood - but even here I can't recall of any large settlement using stone for more than a small percentage of its buildings.
As to 'short range', it would be logical to assume that an arrow that has cloth wrapped around the tip is not going to have the same range as a normal one. But 'short' would probably be relative to these normal arrows, as a fire arrow would have to have the range needed to not only get over the walls but reach the buildings on the other side...although *muses*
From what I can recall a well designed fortified town didn't allow buildings be to built directly behind the walls, rather the buildings had to be some distance from the wall. I also seem to recall that most fires in towns/cities that were under siege were the result of siege engines, rather than arrows. So this would seem to indicate both that fire-arrows were quite capable of starting fires, but that their range was such that they were only just capable of clearing the average city wall.
The other thing to consider, and which I have no knowledge of, is if fire-arrows were the same size as normal arrows. I wonder if they might not have been longer, so that the archer didn't risk burning their fingers or setting fire to their bow if asked to use them.
Last note; Every siege engine I can think of throughout history that was intended to get close to city walls - at least in the age of the archer - had some form of protection against fire arrows. Usually this was dampened animal hides, although metal sheeting was also an option on occasion. (It probably depended on what you could steal from the area). This would appear to contradict the idea that fire-arrows only smouldered and caused fires after some time had passed. Siege engines were constructed from wood cut down around the city/town being attacked - meaning they were using fresh wood with a high water content that would be a lot harder to ignite than dried wood used for buildings. If this type of wood was likely to be set on fire during attacks, it is fairly certain that the wood used in buildings would be at even greater risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avenger on Nov 4, 2012 13:01:24 GMT
It's not just buildings going up in flames in films, though...how many times has it been a stack of hay or a market stall awning that bursts into flames instead of a building...? How combustible are these really?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 4, 2012 13:13:04 GMT
I'd expect a haystack to be easily combustible, considering what grass fires can be like (and what is hay but dried grass?) . Thatched roofs might burn, or might not -- I've seen references to stuff growing on/in them, if the thatching straw is damp enough for plant life to grow it's probably damp enough to resist sparks.
My understanding is that the "daub" in wattle and daub walls was basically mud. Some friends of mine have been renovating a bathroom with plaster and lath walls, if the construction is similar I'd expect wattle and daub walls to need more of an ignition source before they burn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2012 13:20:00 GMT
Wattle and Daub can use various mixtures, but its base is usually wicker 'sheets' and it has exposed timber beams on the outside.
In other words a lot of wood is used.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 4, 2012 14:14:40 GMT
Medieval buildings tended to be wood, with a wattle and daub being the most common in Europe. Even 'stone' buildings tended to use rather a lot of wood in their construction, especially for the roof joists. This is one of the reasons most such buildings no longer exist. Firstly, that's a gross over-generalisation. Your problem is that "Medieval buildings" covers everything built anywhere in Europe from around the mid-11th Century to the end of the 15th. There was no single construction method that was common throughout that length and breadth geographically or temporally. Secondly, while timber was a common construction material, the bulk of it was not exposed externally. Thirdly, a solid timber beam or plank isn't an easy thing to set fire to with a simple surface flame. If the flammable material is wrapped behind a normal arrowhead, would the arrow penetrate far enough into the timber to expose the wood directly to the flame? I can't recall of any large settlement using stone for more than a small percentage of its buildings. I don't think anyone has specified that it has to be a large settlement. From what I can recall a well designed fortified town didn't allow buildings be to built directly behind the walls, How many medieval towns could actually be classed as a "well designed fortified town"? Care to name an example? ...the buildings had to be some distance from the wall. I also seem to recall that most fires in towns/cities that were under siege were the result of siege engines, rather than arrows. So this would seem to indicate both that fire-arrows were quite capable of starting fires, but that their range was such that they were only just capable of clearing the average city wall. Do you actually have some contemporary reference material that proves that buildings were set back from the walls purely because of the threat from fire arrows and not for any other reason? It seems unlikely to me, especially since you state "most fires in towns/cities that were under siege were the result of siege engines". I'd think that the logic for not building right up to the walls would be to allow troops to move easily to any part of the wall in order to defend a breech. Last note; Every siege engine I can think of throughout history that was intended to get close to city walls - at least in the age of the archer - had some form of protection against fire arrows. Your absolutely sure that this protection was purely to counter the threat from fire arrows and not from thrown incendiaries? |
|
|
|
Post by bikewer on Nov 26, 2012 16:36:09 GMT
When I was doing a lot of reading on historical archery, one article showed a woodcut (circa 1700s) of Amerind warriors shooting fire arrows into an enemy tribe's encampment. It was pretty obvious from the illustration that they were "lobbing" the arrows over the log wall the other group had constructed.
As well, one of those history-channel weapons shows from a few years ago showed a medieval arrowhead consisting of a "cage" affair into which were placed hot coals...
Obviously intended to stick into wattle or straw and smolder until it caught. The coal would only burn hotter in flight.
The Amerind fire arrows were reported to use pine-pitch soaked into fabric... Again, reports are that it would remain burning in flight.
|
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Nov 28, 2012 7:57:04 GMT
In the first incarnation of the Archimedes death ray, one of the things they tried to do was use fire arrows to get the trireme to ignite. Needless to say they were unsuccessful, and as pointed out above, stability in flight was an issue. Perhaps this could be an "evolution" idea to see what it would take to make flaming arrows successful - accounting for the heavier end, of course, but also determining what materials would be most effective in staying lit, in causing harm once arriving at the target, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 30, 2012 0:08:34 GMT
Everyone so far has assumed that you are talking about medieval Europe fortified towns. But, what about other regions? Although the middle east towns probably would not of been very vulnerable, I suspect that fire arrows would of been devastating tothe paper and wood buildings that the Japanese favored.
Also, as cyber pointed out, fire arrows might not of ever really been used as a siege weapon, but as a siege breaker. If you, under siege, could light a siege engine on fire it would very much hurt enemy attacks, and the threat of being lit on fire might keep the enemy at bay from attacking for longer, until their siege engines were setup to handle it. It would also encourage siege engines to stay far away, where their accuracy would need to be far higher, or to spend much reduced times close to the wall. The extra time bought by this might be enough for re-enforcements to be gathered and arrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 30, 2012 13:29:20 GMT
Fire could be a greater danger than the army outside the walls.
Fire kept people busy... dousing flames....
This is what I have learned from several archaeological programs that have researched.
A small team of archers could be a right pain in the backside by keep chucking over the occasion arrow storm that may catch on Thatched buildings.....
It was more of something they did during the night to keep the enemy occupied, and therefore, to knackered to fight during the day?....
It was more of a psychological weapon than one that intentionally caused mass damage.
Each arrow they fired had to be tracked down to make sure it hadnt done something serious....
Say 10 archers chucking a dozen or two each, possible 120 small fires to be checked out.
Thatched roofs were an immediate target, to the tune that certain chiefs banned Thatch inside a castellated wall.....
The fact they were chucking arrows over also had the effect of reducing the number of heads looking over the wall... we all remembered what had happened to Harold in 1066?... he had a small problem with arrows didnt he?...
|
|
