In past people used to use arrows during battles. The Hollywood movies show that they fire arrow in the sky at 45 degree angle and when it reaches enemy soldiers far away the arrows pierce their amours and kill them.

Normally if we throw something when anything is near then the force will be very high but more distance means the speed decreases and it will not have much damage. shooting arrow to someone standing right in front of me can hurt him severely but those who are afar away how will they get hurt. Arrows are also not heavy like spears. 2409:40E1:1075:838A:F867:C146:EE95:3B4A (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe what you see in Hollywood movies, or any other movies. An arrow is designed to travel a significant distance and still inflict damage. See arrow. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow article doesn't seem to address anything about effect at distance. Without giving even a hint of credence to anything from movies, Archery#Physics has an interesting note regarding the higher velocity of an arrow vs a spear. That could offset an effect of reduced weight for a fixed distance, or allow at least some damage at a greater distance. Any projectile has an effective range. "Far away" is not a well-defined term. Someone skilled in using a bow and arrow as a weapon would know its range against specific types of targets. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much scholarly research into the use and effects of medieval archery; see English longbow#Use and performance and associated links for details. The main sources for researchers are a large haul of well preserved 16th-century longbows recovered from the Mary Rose and Toxophilus, a contemporary treatise on military archery by Roger Ascham. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a filmmaking perspective, artistry is more important than historical fact. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An arrow can travel way much faster than a thrown object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an arrow is fired at a 45-degree angle, it converts kinetic energy into potential energy as it ascends, slowing down while gaining height. On the descent, potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy, increasing speed as height decreases. Some energy is also lost to air resistance. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (ignoring air resistance) the total energy (sum of kinetic and potential energy) remains constant throughout the arrow's flight, demonstrating the principle of conservation of energy. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting is that under ideal conditions (the arrow projected from a fixed-velocity at a level target and air resistance is negligible) a 45-degree angle maximizes the product of the projectile's vertical and horizontal velocity components, resulting in the greatest range. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, arrows fired at a 45 degree angle have the longest range. Technically, a medieval arrow could have a range of 300m or more if fired at a 45 degree angle.  But war is not about how far your arrow can shoot. Your arrows must be fast and accurate enough to penetrate enemy armor. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient wars, archers usually fired arrows directly at enemies about 50 meters away. If the distance exceeds this distance, there will not be enough kinetic energy to penetrate the enemy's armor. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At battles like Agincourt and Crécy, English longbowmen used massed volleys to devastating effect, a precursor to "fire for effect" (FFE).^[1] Thanks to conservation of energy: what goes up, must come down -- with the same energy as when fired, minus only that from air resistance. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise others' responses — (1) Assuming no strong winds and no obstructions requiring specific angles, a 45-degree angle generally produces the maximum range. (2) The farther an arrow goes, the more energy it loses to air resistance, so it can do less and less damage to its target. (3) Not specified by others, but the specific point at which a target is hit can vary the effects significantly — a slow arrow at an unprotected point can do more damage than a fast arrow at a strong point. Consider a passage near the end of the biblical book of I Kings: But a man drew his bow without taking special aim and struck the king of Israel through the joints of his armor. So he said to his charioteer, "Turn around and take me out of the battle, for I am badly wounded!" In this setting, the archer was shooting at a group of enemy soldiers (probably at a long distance, since at a short distance he'd have a better effect if he aimed at a specific soldier), and the king was badly wounded because the arrow happened to hit him at a weak point. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A safe assumption to make: fictional movies, are not documentary depictions of pre-modern combat and how it "really worked". Historian Bret Devereaux on armor and ranged combat: [2] [3] From the latter, initial emphasis mine:

In fictional depictions, armor tends to veer towards the completely useless, enough that TVTropes has a page called Armor Is Useless. Well-armored combatants having attacks just glance off their armor doesn't make for very compelling viewing. And, our plucky heroes being slaughtered because they lack the resources to get their hands on effective armor or weapons capable of landing blows against armored foes, is challenging to craft narratives around.

But in reality, armor was incredibly useful, and you wanted to have as much of it as you could manage to get, and people in fact generally did just that. Ranged fire at extended range had little effect aside from psychological—and fire with that in mind was employed sparingly, as ammunition and muscle power to propel the projectiles were things both in limited supply. No belt-fed crew-serviced automatic weapons powered by chemical explosives here I'm afraid. --Slowking Man (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making movies is to present a good story.  Audiences love tragedy and comedy.  It is difficult to make a war scene into a comedy, but it is relatively easy to make it into a tragedy.  A group of brave soldiers, wearing useless armor and carrying crudely designed bows and arrows, fight against the invaders with powerful weapons. From a storytelling perspective, it's a great scene. Stanleykswong (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]