Props to the movies that shout the "Loose!" command
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
973 points (99.4% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2321 readers
1005 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As I understand it, that's still not very historically accurate. It was not really a thing for archers to nock and loose together like they do in the movies.
Never really made sense to me, loose all the arrows at once and then give a break between volleys? Gives everyone a chance to hide behind their shield, and then advance when it's clear. Unless volleys are perfectly timed between multiple rows of archers.
Random arrows flying constantly never gives the enemy a chance to feel safe since it's a constant barrage, and there's no wasted time for the archers needing to wait for the command to fire.
Archers were strategic weapons, not the main crux of killilng. They were used to do things like keeping an enemy division pinned down so that your cavalry can move around them or one of your own divisions can reach a more advantageous position. A well placed concentrated barrage could force an enemy to move in a direction that is more advantageous to you, etc...
They weren't the primary means of killing people. They were the means of steering the battle where the general wanted it to go.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That's why I use a staff and just unleash a huge lightning strike to destroy my enemies
load more comments
(4 replies)
Quite right and why make your fastest, best archers wait for your slowest ones?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Actually, it worked pretty much exactly this way in the first stages of battle.
In the opening moves of a medieval battle, archers were essentially like the "creeping fire" that they used in World War 1; it's purpose is to keep the enemy immobile behind their shields and unable to advance as fast as they would like. Your army can't rush to take an advantageous position if they're constantly having to stop and hide under their shields.
In WW1, in the Somme especially, the artillery would lay down what they called "creeping fire" to keep the enemy huddled in their trenches while their own soldiers advance behind the wall of firepower. Archers basically played the same role.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Or that they're holding the bow drawn for a long period of time, waiting for the order to "fire".
Long bows averaged a 200lb draw weight. Try holding that for 5 minutes.
Archers of the day:
Literally - you can pick out English longbowman bodies from the shape of their skeletons
Now I'm imagining a swole skeleton with buff bones
It's mostly their twisted spine, as far as I'm aware.
You just have to ruin everything, don't you?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I never blamed the archer on the walls of Helms Deep. Waiting for the enemy to get all the way up to your walls was dumb enough, but waiting while having drawn your bow for what must've felt like ages for a human archer, is fucking rediculous. Terrible leadership.
You don't want your archers to be excausted before the battle even starts, just so you can look really unbothered on top of your wall.
I agree, but it’s obviously done for the tension in the movie. It wouldn’t be as exciting, if the archers were just chillin’ while the Uruk-hai were charging. 😄
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Loose!
They weren't calling your mom
Nocked em
Still incorrect. You wouldn't have archers sitting there pulling thier bows getting tired until ordered to release
Who said anything about holding the bow nocked all the time?
Generally they would yell “DRAW!” And the soldiers would nock their arrows and take aim, then they’d yell “LOOSE” to release the arrows in one big salvo.
load more comments
(15 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
i usually complain to the wife when horrible tactics are used in medieval battles.
like... why is everyone always doing a full frontal assault, have the wrong weapons, not use fire appropriately, never flank, use cavalry inappropriately.....
miltary tactics in movies is usually abhorrent.
I loved the battle of Winterfell, where everyone took up defensive positions OUTSIDE THE CASTLE WALLS.
And then charged in to total darkness
Against monsters that turn corpses into monsters
That battle caused a mass-extinction event among the Total War community.
-
Frontal cavalry charge without any follow up
-
Siege engines positioned outside the fortifications against a mobile enemy
-
Projectile forces unsupported outside the fortifications
-
Melee infantry inside the castle, watching and picking their noses
My wife told me to shut up multiple times during that episode as I was screeching like a monkey. The wrong side won that battle that night.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Given the fact that any language used in such a movie is going to be wildly unlike the language spoken in the time and place of the movie, I think that's a mild anachronism
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you were commanding a mass of archers "Spaff!" was the correct command.
The best part was when they said "ITS SPAFFFIN' TIME" and spaffed all over those guys.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
for the haters :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire#Bows
The co-ordination and timing could probably be resolved with musical instruments, which were used to relay orders, messages etc.
EDIT : Also, what did OP expect, for all the characters to speak Old English?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yeah, or a sequence of "nock, draw, fire/loose/shoot" commands. Warbows cannot be held that long ffs.
More likely they didn't shoot in volleys at all. When you can only hold the bow for a second or two even with lifelong training you can't really have volleys.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I never gave it a single thought. But now I have been cursed with this knowledge and will fly into a fury every time I hear it now.
But thanks anyway.
Often times, I think of movies or stories as the story teller as translating for the audience. You don't watch Troy and think it's odd the characters are speaking English.
It's acceptable to complain if the work is nonfiction and meant to be for education.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Something I dislike in movies is when a movie is set in a non-English-speaking country, but all the characters are speaking English. I would rather have the characters speak the proper language for the country, with English subtitles. But I guess the movie execs have calculated that subtitles will make the movie less profitable.
Even worse in my opinion is when they use a generic British accent as a stand-in for literally any time and place in history. Ancient Rome? British accent. Ancient Greece? Also British accent. Ancient Persia? British accent again! Ancient Egypt? You guessed it! British accent! Even when the actors aren't even British, the accent is. It makes no sense. It's lazy and arrogant.
If I had a billion dollars, I'd make the most painstakingly realistic movie about Samurai in feudal Japan, and have all Japanese actors using a SoCal Chicano accent. Or maybe a hyper realistic Viking epic with a full Nordic cast, but they all talk like surfer bros.
The audience needs to be forced to see how insulting that shit is.
load more comments
(17 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
One of a few movies that could've used a "Fire!" was the intro of Robin Hood: Men in Tights (fire arrows, get it?), AND THEY DON'T EVEN DO IT!
Archers also didn't usually shoot upwards to arc their shots. It loses power, reduces accuracy, and makes it more likely for them to hit armor, not less.
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›