This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Seven Seals: Given the ubiquity of this trope, I'm quite surprised that the entry can state with such certainty that flaming projectiles "don't work" in real life. (Greek fire, anyone?) I'm not saying most of it wasn't invented by the trope makers, but a mention of a source discrediting it would be nice.
dkellis: The entry for Trick Arrow has the following line:
- Characters who use flaming arrows don't fall under this, unless the arrows are otherwise complex and/or unlikely.
BT The P: Flaming arrows are different than other trick ammo because they really did exist. In a time when everything your opponents cared about was kept in a building made of wood or straw, the ability to set things on fire from a distance was extremely valuable. As to accuracy, since fire is very self-reproducing, of the whole volley of flaming arrows, only one or two needed to score a hit to set off the process. For the most part arrows weren't shot at specific targets like snipers in the old days anyway, they were shot to kill at random in tight formations, more like modern artillery. So, even the non-flaming version weren't for the most part accurate.
Ununnilium: Pulling out: "This just doesn't work in real life: it sacrifices speed, range and accuracy and you can't hit anything. But it allows the viewer to actually see the arrows during the night."
Mechalith: I would argue with the idea that an arrow moves too fast for a soldier to dodge it, as expressed in the article. Direct fire is one thing, but speaking from personal experience it is quite possible to dodge an arrow fired at you from far enough back that they were forced to use a ballistic arc. The main problem is really a matter of getting out from under the cloud of the blasted things, since they're pretty much never firing just a few.
Carcer: To add to the above, you can see the arrows move upwards during their arc if thier on fire, allowing you to get under cover of some sort or at the very least raise your sheild and pray.
NightHaunter: The cloth you lit on fire was wrapped aroud the shaft behind the arrowhead. You wanted the arrow to stick to the wooden buildings you tried to lit on fire. Changed that sentence.
Jetman123: "Professional soldiers"? Professional soldiers were rare in Midevial Europe. Most soldiers were peasants with basic training in how to handle a spear and shield. The professionals were the knights and heavy archers such as longbowmen. Back in those days, battles were NOT won usually by eliminating the entire enemy force, but by morale - causing them to "rout", turn tail and run. Generally battles were about who broke the enemy force's morale first and caused them to flee, not who could kill each other first. Yes, flaming arrows were inaccurate, but they had a morale effect. Watching your buddy burn to death next to you while you're standing in a line formation with nothing but a shield to protect you (A shield made of WOOD) is pretty unsettling.
ArcTan: This whole article is kind of a mess. It seems to only have been listed as a trope in the first place by someone with the 100% historically false idea that flaming arrows are a silly Hollywood contrivance and never used in real life, when in fact they were pretty damn common in medieval battlefields. We *could* rewrite this whole article to instead be an article about the seemingly gratuitous use of flaming arrows in fantasy or faux-medieval pop culture where they're inappropriate, but I think that would require a ground-up rewrite — as it is right now the article is one long argument between people who think the whole concept is stupid and silly and people who think it isn't (and I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the latter people are correct).
