Just how deadly is bow and arrow?

[Nightmare798]

In movies, getting hit by arrows usually means swift death (usually does not mean always), despite the one being hit wearing armor.

My question is, were bow and arrow (excluding longbows) really such deadly weapons that instakilled anything they hit, or are they hollywood overrated?

[Miwiw]

Would you survive getting an arrow in your eyes?

[pepejul]

HE SAYS : "LIAR !!!!!"

[musketer]

Here is the answer: http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/


His conclusion is this one:


Conclusion

Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have had an advantage. Although even with plate, I only tested the impacts to major protected areas. The joints and gaps would all still be vulnerable being mostly of maille until the 16th century. Without significant metal to withstand the energies of an arrow or excessive padding to spread out the force, arrows of the 1400’s would have been deadly.

[Leesin]

Realistically I think that most people that died from being hit by an arrow did not die instantly, they most likely either bled out, were finished off by a melee weapon, or perhaps even died days after the battle due to infection etc.

[Nightmare798]

Would you survive getting an arrow in your eyes?

Of course I did not meant weakspot hit such as eyes, mouth, throat (head in general), more like shoulders, legs and chest, over armor.

Here is the answer: http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/


His conclusion is this one:


Conclusion

Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have had an advantage. Although even with plate, I only tested the impacts to major protected areas. The joints and gaps would all still be vulnerable being mostly of maille until the 16th century. Without significant metal to withstand the energies of an arrow or excessive padding to spread out the force, arrows of the 1400’s would have been deadly.

I specifically stated excluding longbow, for it is one of strongest bow types ever made, and I already know that getting hit by longbow could be deadly regardless what armor the one being hit would wear.

Realistically I think that most people that died from being hit by an arrow did not die instantly, they most likely either bled out, were finished off by a melee weapon, or perhaps even died days after the battle due to infection etc.

That might be the case for those who were unarmored, or wore leather armor (as whole, not certain type). I am more interested about those who wore mail, scale and plate armor.

The point of the question is, that I have seen many situations in movies in which people wearing steel cuirass (along with other armor) were killed by one shot from a bow that certainly was not longbow, fired right in the middle of their chest, which I find hard to believe.

[Leesin]

Well yeah thats Hollywood for ya, even at close range I doubt an arrow would penetrate a chest plate enough to instantly kill someone ( a heart shot for instance ).

[Latvian]

well in movies if main hero takes arrow he keeps fighting but if some random bad guy gets shot it is one shot kill

[Nightmare798]

Well yeah thats Hollywood for ya, even at close range I doubt an arrow would penetrate a chest plate enough to instantly kill someone ( a heart shot for instance ).

So unless the person wearing plate armor would get hit by long bow (and similar kind of bows), or in weakspot (armpit, throat, eye) they would probably survive being hit by few arrows.

[Leesin]

So unless the person wearing plate armor would get hit by long bow (and similar kind of bows), or in weakspot (armpit, throat, eye) they would probably survive being hit by few arrows.

I don't think any bow whether it's a Long Bow or not is going to instantly kill someone in plate armour if the arrows hit the chest plate centre like in the movies, not only do they wear plate armour they have different kinds of protective layers underneath, meaning if the arrow does manage to penetrates the chest plate, the arrow would have lost so much energy that the layers underneath will absorb the rest of the lethal force.

 Do I think someone could survive a few arrows? yes of course, if they're armoured properly and the arrows don't penetrate and hit a vital organ, flesh wounds, fractures and bruises are all survivable so long as you don't get a bad infection. Multiple arrows could cause someone to die via them being to wounded to fight or even move properly, leaving them to be finished off with a nasty weapon.

These plate armours and such ended the golden age of the bow for a reason. The problem is you're also referring to Hollywood, where you see knights wearing full plate armour before full plate even existed.

[Nightmare798]

I don't think any bow whether it's a Long Bow or not is going to instantly kill someone in plate armour if the arrows hit the chest plate centre like in the movies, not only do they wear plate armour they have different kinds of protective layers underneath, meaning if the arrow does manage to penetrates the chest plate, the arrow would have lost so much energy that the layers underneath will absorb the rest of the lethal force. Do I think someone could survive a few arrows? yes of course, if they're armoured properly and the arrows don't penetrate and hit a vital organ, flesh wounds, fractures and bruises are all survivable so long as you don't get a bad infection.

These plate armours and such ended the golden age of the bow for a reason. The problem is you're also referring to Hollywood, where you see knights wearing full plate armour before full plate even existed.

Thanks for making it clear to me, I think I get the idea of how much is bow effective against full plate.

[engurrand]

My buddy got shot with a compound bow one time... in the leg..

It was a compound bow, with a broad head tip..

Let me just say that the penetration and slicing act was not the only "force" at work.

It was like... an explosion.

[Fredom]

In movies, getting hit by arrows usually means swift death (usually does not mean always), despite the one being hit wearing armor.

My question is, were bow and arrow (excluding longbows) really such deadly weapons that instakilled anything they hit, or are they hollywood overrated?

They just overrated arrows and bows a little bit. They really have been deadly weapons which can take out a whole unit of e.g. Spearmen. Well deadly, yes! I think most of us (all) would not survive an arrow in our chest or stomach or especially in our head. Wearing an armor reduces the speed it is coming into your body so also reduces the damage you take and sometimes they really can save your life. But I would not say Hollywood totally overrated them.

[Rumblood]

In movies, getting hit by arrows usually means swift death (usually does not mean always), despite the one being hit wearing armor.

My question is, were bow and arrow (excluding longbows) really such deadly weapons that instakilled anything they hit, or are they hollywood overrated?

Let me shove a long shaft of wood into your gut and see if you don't pass out right away, then die of internal bleeding, or sepsis. Does hollywood exaggerate how quickly you would die? Sure. But whether or not you would die? If it is in your thorax or abdomen, I don't think it is exaggerated at all if any organ is penetrated and without modern medicine you are all but certain of dying.

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/05/battle-wounds-never-pull-an-arrow-out-of-a-body/

The most complete and detailed account of arrow wounds and treatments is Dr. Joseph Howland Bill’s “Notes on Arrow Wounds,” which is considered the “definitive work on American arrow wounds.”[1]
 Bill was originally from Philadelphia and attended Jefferson Medical College. After graduation he joined the U.S. Army, was commissioned 1st Lieutenant, and in 1860 was assigned to Fort Defiance, New Mexico. There he wrote his 22-page essay, “Notes on Arrow Wounds,” published in the American Journal of Medical Sciences, 1862.
Bill states arrows inflict wounds “with a fatality greater than that produced by any other weapons — particularly when surgical assistance cannot be obtained.”[3]
Unlike a gunshot wound, the arrowhead must be located and extracted.  Arrowheads were rough and sharp. No tissue around the arrowhead could heal and in the body’s attempt to rid itself of the foreign object infection would rage forming an abscess.   Every time the victim moved the arrowhead’s rough edges would inflame and aggravate the injury and eventually lead to a fatal infection or amputation.[10]  In contrast a 18th century bullet did not have the sharp edges and could become encysted in tissue or encased in bone and safely remain in the body.

[Osiris]

For pitched battles they also stuck the arrows into the ground so you are getting shit, mud and whatever else going deep into the wounds.