Modifying it would also detract from the ability to penetrate armour

This would make it much heavier, taking away from range and rate of fire

A fire-arrow would have to be longer, thicker, and have more metalwork

You’ve seen them in countless movies with a pre-gun battle scene – flaming arrows tearing through the sky, taking down enemies one by one.

But while it does make for exciting cinematics, it’s unlikely this tactic was actually used in open battle.

In a new video, YouTube historian Lindybeige explains that the properties required to keep an arrow ablaze would essentially counteract the motivations for using arrows in the first place.

Scroll down for video

In the Game of Thrones scene pictured above, Bronn draws back a flaming arrow before using it to set fire to Blackwater Bay. But while it does make for exciting cinematics, it’s unlikely this tactic was actually used in open battle

WHY THEY DON'T WORK To allow an arrow to carry a flame all the way to a target, the design would have to be altered. The shaft would have to be made longer and thicker with more metalwork added. This would make the arrow much heavier, detracting from its range, rate of fire, and ability to penetrate armour. Advertisement

Arrows can travel a long distance and quickly be reloaded for rapid firing.

And, they can pierce through an enemy’s armour.

In order to make an arrow that would carry a flame, however, these qualities would suffer.

Just as when you blow on a candle, a flaming arrow shot through the air would blow out immediately unless built correctly, Lindybeige explains.

To prevent this, the blaze itself would have to be very big – but, this poses the problem of burning yourself and setting your bow on fire when you draw it back.

So, the arrow would have to be made much longer, with more metalwork.

This, in itself, creates another problem.

‘If you shoot it, the shaft will break because you put so much extra weight on the end,’ Lindybeige explains.

‘And you made the shaft longer, which makes it bendier and easier to break.’

To counteract this, you would have to make the shaft thicker and stronger, which would then add a lot of weight to the arrow.

The additional weight would not only take away from the arrow’s range, but would also reduce its ability to penetrate armour.

‘If you’ve got an extremely heavy arrow, it’s not going to go very far,’ Lindybeige explains.

‘And if it’s got a big head on it that’s not specifically designed for penetrating armour, than it’s not going to be as good as one that’s, for instance, a lot smaller and specifically designed for penetrating armour.’

If the arrow did break through the armour, he points out, it would likely be a very shallow hit, meaning the person could easily remove the arrow and stamp out the flame.

The historian also proposes other possible solutions, including heating the arrow to an extremely hot temperature before shooting it, and even using chemistry to create a flame that would not blow out right away.

Just as when you blow on a candle, a flaming arrow shot through the air would blow out immediately unless built correctly, Lindybeige explains. Above, an arrow is seen losing its flame just after launch

But, heating the arrow would require a lot of time and manpower.

Lindybeige points to a past study which attempted to determine which chemicals could make for an effective fire-arrow.

They found, however, that this type of weaponry had a 98 percent failure rate when the targets were actually hit.

There may have been instances where fire-arrows would be used, such as a siege or naval battle.

In this case, the flaming arrows could present a distraction to the enemy, delaying their response time as they attempted to put out fires (unknowing that the small flames would probably fizzle out on their own).