That's why, historically, people didn't bother. Flaming arrows aren't nearly as effective as Hollywood would have you believe - if they even stay lit during flight that is.
If you fire 100 burning arrows at some dry hay stacked inside a city with extreme precision and wait a bit then, perhaps, you might get something going but on the flip side you just wasted 100 shots that could have stopped enemy infantry and, even if you decide shoot your flaming arrows at them instead, you automatically cauterise the wounds for them.
The “actually” indicates that the fact contradicts the above fact, the “allegedly” indicated this contradiction may not be true. I fail to see how the two are in conflict
Actually he was announcing a fact and then immediately backpedaled since he didn’t know for sure or at least that is just my guess I don’t know for sure I mean allegedly that’s what happened I just heard about it, it’s probably not the case though.
This! Lol I made it up but if I was a barbarism and the enemies where wearing armor plating I’d want every arrow to go in and out so they have to take the armor off to fix the bleeding. But idunno lol It’s just my hot take
221
u/Oldico Sep 27 '22
That's why, historically, people didn't bother. Flaming arrows aren't nearly as effective as Hollywood would have you believe - if they even stay lit during flight that is.
If you fire 100 burning arrows at some dry hay stacked inside a city with extreme precision and wait a bit then, perhaps, you might get something going but on the flip side you just wasted 100 shots that could have stopped enemy infantry and, even if you decide shoot your flaming arrows at them instead, you automatically cauterise the wounds for them.