mewolf1
Gold Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 12,368
Well done.:thumbup:
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Atlatl
- Thread starter penvisser
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 9,871
Thanks. It's my first one, so I kept it pretty simple. Now I need to sand, finish, fletch and mount points on the darts...
22-rimfire
Bows may shoot further now(with flight arrows).. but they still lack the power(including compound bows) of the sling and im guessing the Atlatl as they use the same mechanics.
A sling is more powerful(energy and momentum) then even compound bows so I assume Atlatl are too.
Bows may shoot further now(with flight arrows).. but they still lack the power(including compound bows) of the sling and im guessing the Atlatl as they use the same mechanics.
A sling is more powerful(energy and momentum) then even compound bows so I assume Atlatl are too.
Starting with the Turkish composite bows and the Welsh longbows the range of the Atlatl was outdistanced. And that would have been with war arrows. The longbows were self bows so it is conceivable that a bow could have been made millennia ago that would outdistance the atlatl. The composite bows were made from all natural materials so it also conceivable that they could have been made millennia ago. But, I have not heard of any examples of either in prehistoric times. Although the iceman did have a flatbow.
While the atlatl and sling provide more momentum, the arrows effectiveness rests with its ability to penetrate to vital organs. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the bow and atlatl to measure the relative effectiveness of each. The slings effectiveness rests with blunt force trauma so I consider it a different class of weapon.
Bot
I wasnt stating atlatl could fly further then arrows.. I said energy and momentum.
As far as slings only being blunt force trauma and a different class.
Celsius, a medical writer from Greek and roman times, wrote in "De Medicina".
"There is a third kind of missile which at times has to be extracted such as a lead ball or a pebble, or such like, which has penetrated the skin and become fixed within unbroken. In all such cases the wound should be laid open freely, and the retained object pulled out by forceps the way it entered. But some difficulty is added in the case of any injury in which a missile has become fixed in bone, or in a joint between the ends of two bones. When in a bone, the missile is swayed until the place which grips the point yields, after which it is extracted by the hand, or by forceps; this is the method also used in extracting teeth. In this way the missile nearly always comes out, but if it resists, it can be dislodged by striking it with some instrument. The last resort when it cannot be pulled out, is to bore into the bone with a trepan close by the missile, and from that hole to cut away the bone in the shape of the letter V, so that the lines of the letter which diverge to either side face the missile; after that it is necessarily loosened and easily removed. If the missile has forced its way actually into a joint between the ends of two bones, the limbs above and below are encircled by bandages or straps, by means of which they are pulled in opposite directions, so that the sinews are put on the stretch; the space between the ends of the bone is widened by these extensions, so that the missile is without difficulty withdrawn. In doing this care must be taken, as mentioned elsewhere, to avoid injury to a sinew, vein or artery while the weapon is being extracted by the same method which was described above."
I wasnt stating atlatl could fly further then arrows.. I said energy and momentum.
As far as slings only being blunt force trauma and a different class.
Celsius, a medical writer from Greek and roman times, wrote in "De Medicina".
"There is a third kind of missile which at times has to be extracted such as a lead ball or a pebble, or such like, which has penetrated the skin and become fixed within unbroken. In all such cases the wound should be laid open freely, and the retained object pulled out by forceps the way it entered. But some difficulty is added in the case of any injury in which a missile has become fixed in bone, or in a joint between the ends of two bones. When in a bone, the missile is swayed until the place which grips the point yields, after which it is extracted by the hand, or by forceps; this is the method also used in extracting teeth. In this way the missile nearly always comes out, but if it resists, it can be dislodged by striking it with some instrument. The last resort when it cannot be pulled out, is to bore into the bone with a trepan close by the missile, and from that hole to cut away the bone in the shape of the letter V, so that the lines of the letter which diverge to either side face the missile; after that it is necessarily loosened and easily removed. If the missile has forced its way actually into a joint between the ends of two bones, the limbs above and below are encircled by bandages or straps, by means of which they are pulled in opposite directions, so that the sinews are put on the stretch; the space between the ends of the bone is widened by these extensions, so that the missile is without difficulty withdrawn. In doing this care must be taken, as mentioned elsewhere, to avoid injury to a sinew, vein or artery while the weapon is being extracted by the same method which was described above."
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,745
Comparative effectiveness is a bit pointless I think. Each is going to have advantages from construction to use. In general the bow is going to have advantages from its compactness of use, say from cover, or differing positions. However the atlatl is much simpler, can be made without being a master craftsman, and from materials that are unsuitable for bows.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 9,871
I agree that comparing the two is apples and oranges.
And I agree with gadgetgeek that one advantage of the atlatl is the ease of construction versus a bow. Bows definitely require more specialized knowledge to build properly, though this knowledge was also probably a lot more widely known than it is today.
But from the point of view of the evolution of weaponry/hunting implements, one huge advantage that bows offered early hunters over the atlatl is in the amount of motion required to launch a projectile. There's no getting around the fact that an atlal requires a a very noticeable, exaggerated movement to deploy, while a bow offers much more stealth in order to draw and shoot, and you can do it from a lot of different positions, in a tree, etc. Which then means that animals might be much closer before you shoot, and not in the process of spooking as your projectile is being launched.
And I agree with gadgetgeek that one advantage of the atlatl is the ease of construction versus a bow. Bows definitely require more specialized knowledge to build properly, though this knowledge was also probably a lot more widely known than it is today.
But from the point of view of the evolution of weaponry/hunting implements, one huge advantage that bows offered early hunters over the atlatl is in the amount of motion required to launch a projectile. There's no getting around the fact that an atlal requires a a very noticeable, exaggerated movement to deploy, while a bow offers much more stealth in order to draw and shoot, and you can do it from a lot of different positions, in a tree, etc. Which then means that animals might be much closer before you shoot, and not in the process of spooking as your projectile is being launched.
Last edited:
The atlatl dart and the arrow both kill through penetration, blood loss and shock. So comparing the penetration of the two isn't really apples to oranges. I agree the method of delivery is far different. I was considering the idea presented that the atlatl would be more effective at killing large game. And as far as prehistoric primitive bow and arrow go that is probably correct. However, the possibility exists that some primitive cultures may have been more advanced than we know. So, looking at the height of primitive bow development (the English/welsh longbow) it can be seen that the effectiveness of the 4 oz. clothyard arrows could easily been better than the atlatl dart. The momentum is certainly on par but due to a lower sectional density the penetration would be better. The sling has similar momentum but the lack of penetration relative to the dart and arrow would cause it to be less effective at killing through blood loss.
Phoynix, my discussion on the effective range of arrows was a reply that 'flight arrows' would exceed the range of the atlatl darts. It appears that, using similar materials, the heavier 'war arrows' will as well.
Phoynix, my discussion on the effective range of arrows was a reply that 'flight arrows' would exceed the range of the atlatl darts. It appears that, using similar materials, the heavier 'war arrows' will as well.
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,745
I would agree that comparing the projectiles would be an appropriate discussion, but at the end of the day, its all down to mass vs. velocity, which doesn't have much to do with the propulsion method as such. I think we can safely assume that both are effective in trained hands. I honestly don't even know what the argument is at this point.
The way I understand the mechanics of the atlatl, bows and slings is that there is going to be a limit to how fast you will be able to get a projectile to move, ie. a bows limbs can only recoil so fast, the arm can only flex so fast. Within that limit, there is a curve of how much projectile weight can be moved at that speed. As I understand it, Fred Bear found that his long heavy bows could throw a very large, heavy arrow very near the speed that they could shoot a lighter one. So while velocity matters more in the force equation, if you can keep most of the velocity, and add much more mass, it makes sense. I could have that all wrong, but spear-throwers in general are just a way to add leverage to gain a bit more speed, same as with a sling, longer lever, more force. All of these technologies rely on separate resources, hence why they have areas of influence, both geographically, and in time. I would agree that the mechanics of a bow are going to have a much higher potential velocity, but it is going to take much more care and craftsmanship to get all of that potential, not to mention resources.
As to comparison to wound potential, a dart or arrow or spear are all going to come down to mass and impact velocity, plus the tip. Since there are a great many factors involved in that, I don't know that you can directly compare them. while an english clothyard arrow may be considered the penultimate development in the technology, one could argue that the roman javelin is "more effective" due to its simplicity and the added benefit that now your target has several pounds of awkward leverage stuck to it. If you only look at one or another factor, any missile weapon can be considered "best" hence why a great many have been developed over time.
From a group hunting standpoint, it would be all about getting as many projectiles into the target animal as possible. I don't think that a typical "heart lung" shot was the goal with most of this hunting. It more about keeping the animal from getting away, and then being able to close the gap and deliver a killing blow.
As for slings, you range from the small and highly accurate to much larger examples that may have been effective against a large group of targets, more along the lines of the bowling with cannonballs idea. A large rock to the shins with any kind of speed is going to have at least some effect on ones fighting effectiveness.
If I had to build a weapon today, from materials I can find where I am, I would build a spear-thrower of some sort. Any straight-grained wood that maybe useful for a bow is going to be rare, and therefor much more valuable for making arrows.
The way I understand the mechanics of the atlatl, bows and slings is that there is going to be a limit to how fast you will be able to get a projectile to move, ie. a bows limbs can only recoil so fast, the arm can only flex so fast. Within that limit, there is a curve of how much projectile weight can be moved at that speed. As I understand it, Fred Bear found that his long heavy bows could throw a very large, heavy arrow very near the speed that they could shoot a lighter one. So while velocity matters more in the force equation, if you can keep most of the velocity, and add much more mass, it makes sense. I could have that all wrong, but spear-throwers in general are just a way to add leverage to gain a bit more speed, same as with a sling, longer lever, more force. All of these technologies rely on separate resources, hence why they have areas of influence, both geographically, and in time. I would agree that the mechanics of a bow are going to have a much higher potential velocity, but it is going to take much more care and craftsmanship to get all of that potential, not to mention resources.
As to comparison to wound potential, a dart or arrow or spear are all going to come down to mass and impact velocity, plus the tip. Since there are a great many factors involved in that, I don't know that you can directly compare them. while an english clothyard arrow may be considered the penultimate development in the technology, one could argue that the roman javelin is "more effective" due to its simplicity and the added benefit that now your target has several pounds of awkward leverage stuck to it. If you only look at one or another factor, any missile weapon can be considered "best" hence why a great many have been developed over time.
From a group hunting standpoint, it would be all about getting as many projectiles into the target animal as possible. I don't think that a typical "heart lung" shot was the goal with most of this hunting. It more about keeping the animal from getting away, and then being able to close the gap and deliver a killing blow.
As for slings, you range from the small and highly accurate to much larger examples that may have been effective against a large group of targets, more along the lines of the bowling with cannonballs idea. A large rock to the shins with any kind of speed is going to have at least some effect on ones fighting effectiveness.
If I had to build a weapon today, from materials I can find where I am, I would build a spear-thrower of some sort. Any straight-grained wood that maybe useful for a bow is going to be rare, and therefor much more valuable for making arrows.
Argument seems to be BOT thinks I said Atlatl are faster then bows.
When I said slings are more powerful then bows, and Atlatl are likely too.
and just to murky the waters.. slings can be made to fire bladed darts.
I was just thinking.. slingers could use shields... can people sling Atlatl darts easy while carrying a shield?
As its a survival forum.. and how fatal animal bites can be without modern medicine(then even with) I was thinking of more was wild animal attacks like dogs... After the fall of Rome people let there dogs go wild instead of killing them, and they were known to wipe out entire small villages.
I dont know about other people but I cant shoot arrows very fast maybe 1 every 6 seconds if I am luckly and everything goes smoothly....... but a animal like a dog can cover the effective distance of a recurve easily in the time it takes to shoot one and notch another arrow.. projectile weapons wouldnt actually provide much defense except after climbing a tree.. and there may not be one nearby.
When I said slings are more powerful then bows, and Atlatl are likely too.
and just to murky the waters.. slings can be made to fire bladed darts.
I was just thinking.. slingers could use shields... can people sling Atlatl darts easy while carrying a shield?
As its a survival forum.. and how fatal animal bites can be without modern medicine(then even with) I was thinking of more was wild animal attacks like dogs... After the fall of Rome people let there dogs go wild instead of killing them, and they were known to wipe out entire small villages.
I dont know about other people but I cant shoot arrows very fast maybe 1 every 6 seconds if I am luckly and everything goes smoothly....... but a animal like a dog can cover the effective distance of a recurve easily in the time it takes to shoot one and notch another arrow.. projectile weapons wouldnt actually provide much defense except after climbing a tree.. and there may not be one nearby.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
I couldn't resist the urge to throw in my .2 cents. I tried but just couldn't.
I've built a few atlatls, bows and slings, and more darts and arrows than I can count. I've also been to a few national and world atlatl competitions, not as a competitor they were just being held at the place I was at for another reason.
Atlatls from what I understand were for hunting of herd animals with groups more than single hunters. They take a lot more movement to use but thro a much heavier dart, up to half a pound, except there is usually a foreshaft with the point attached to that and then slid into the dart shaft. That way once the animal was struck the longer shaft would detach and all you would have to do is slide another foreshaft into the dart shaft. Kinda like reloading a bullet. It was the long dart shaft that was the hard part to make correctly, the foreshaft would just have the point on it and stay in the animal to cut and cause more damage as the animal ran away. At least that's the way I understand the archaeological evidence.
As for the sling, I'm not a religious person but everyone knows the David and Goliath story, the miracle wasn't that Goliath was killed by a fist size rock to the forehead, it was the fact that David hit him in the head at all. I've seen a few people get some accuracy out of one but nothing really repeatable like an atlatl or a bow. From all the stuff I've read it was more of a area weapon than anything else.
20 or 30 guys on a ridge slinging 3 oz rocks or shot at a mass of people would have been pretty effective. I built a few slings, and spent a few hours standing on a creek bank throwing rocks at a RR bridge and only hit the thing about five times and never in the place I was aiming, could have just been me but I'm not sure, maybe I should have prayed more I don't know.
As far as archery goes (just my opinion) the idea that the English longbow being the pinnacle of archery equipment in any way is kinda funny. It was the best thing they had at the time, yes, but, almost 7 feet long, 100-120 pound pull, no arrow shelf, no permanent nock point on the string, and dependant on a specific wood to make.
Now the Turkish horn bow or even the short mongol bows made with composites of horn and wood and silk strings that was badass and around for a few centuries before the English longbow. hell even those clumsy Japanese bows (yumi) they were harder to shoot but pretty amazing compared to the English longbow.
I've shot English longbows more than a few times, from 85 to 110 pound pull, I've shot horn bows and Yumi made by Yumi and those were great to shoot once you get the hang of the thumb ring release.
It's also my guess that the way people hunted back in the day is a bit different than the way people hunt with a bow today, probably a lot more trapping and pushing game to other people than now. When done for survival huntings an easy way to starve to death. I've been out to many times and not seen anything, and there are more deer in my area now than there were pre contact. When it comes down to the people that were using these things to live they weren't playing at survival it was just their job, not fun just work.
To finish this, I am glad as hell I don't need an atlatl to live because I'd end up eating earthworms more than deer.
I've built a few atlatls, bows and slings, and more darts and arrows than I can count. I've also been to a few national and world atlatl competitions, not as a competitor they were just being held at the place I was at for another reason.
Atlatls from what I understand were for hunting of herd animals with groups more than single hunters. They take a lot more movement to use but thro a much heavier dart, up to half a pound, except there is usually a foreshaft with the point attached to that and then slid into the dart shaft. That way once the animal was struck the longer shaft would detach and all you would have to do is slide another foreshaft into the dart shaft. Kinda like reloading a bullet. It was the long dart shaft that was the hard part to make correctly, the foreshaft would just have the point on it and stay in the animal to cut and cause more damage as the animal ran away. At least that's the way I understand the archaeological evidence.
As for the sling, I'm not a religious person but everyone knows the David and Goliath story, the miracle wasn't that Goliath was killed by a fist size rock to the forehead, it was the fact that David hit him in the head at all. I've seen a few people get some accuracy out of one but nothing really repeatable like an atlatl or a bow. From all the stuff I've read it was more of a area weapon than anything else.
20 or 30 guys on a ridge slinging 3 oz rocks or shot at a mass of people would have been pretty effective. I built a few slings, and spent a few hours standing on a creek bank throwing rocks at a RR bridge and only hit the thing about five times and never in the place I was aiming, could have just been me but I'm not sure, maybe I should have prayed more I don't know.
As far as archery goes (just my opinion) the idea that the English longbow being the pinnacle of archery equipment in any way is kinda funny. It was the best thing they had at the time, yes, but, almost 7 feet long, 100-120 pound pull, no arrow shelf, no permanent nock point on the string, and dependant on a specific wood to make.
Now the Turkish horn bow or even the short mongol bows made with composites of horn and wood and silk strings that was badass and around for a few centuries before the English longbow. hell even those clumsy Japanese bows (yumi) they were harder to shoot but pretty amazing compared to the English longbow.
I've shot English longbows more than a few times, from 85 to 110 pound pull, I've shot horn bows and Yumi made by Yumi and those were great to shoot once you get the hang of the thumb ring release.
It's also my guess that the way people hunted back in the day is a bit different than the way people hunt with a bow today, probably a lot more trapping and pushing game to other people than now. When done for survival huntings an easy way to starve to death. I've been out to many times and not seen anything, and there are more deer in my area now than there were pre contact. When it comes down to the people that were using these things to live they weren't playing at survival it was just their job, not fun just work.
To finish this, I am glad as hell I don't need an atlatl to live because I'd end up eating earthworms more than deer.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 9,871
I'm glad you didn't resist. You make a number of excellent points.
And this is getting off-topic, but I fully agree with the point about the English longbow. As someone who is a big fan of shorter, reflex-deflex longbows, I get really tired of hearing from people saying that they aren't "true" longbows, simply because they aren't 70" long and D-shaped. Anyone who says this has a very poor understanding of the history of archery, or has selectively decided to focus on just one example of it, to the exclusion of a large amount of evidence to the contrary. There are tons of examples of short r/d longbows in use by Native Americans, the Japanese, ancient Egytpians, etc. Many of which pre-date the heyday of the English longbow. I've seen some Egyptian chariot bows that look uncannily similar to my new 58" heavily r/d longbow. Clearly, these design advantages were figured out a long, long time ago...
Ok, /rant off/
As far as the atlatl goes - I really just built one because I'm fascinated with ancient weapons/hunting implements, and I wanted to experience one first-hand, rather than just reading about it. But when it comes to hunting, I'll take my bow any day over trying to down an animal with an atlatl, and it seems like the jury of history decided the same thing a long time ago. Still, they're fun to play around with.
heresthedeal slings are the most accurate non rifled projectile weapon humans ever invented(that we know of so far).
From Shepards that can bounce rocks off a multiple goat horns at 50m to Colonial British in Afganastan reports stating the slings were more dangerous and accurate then the poor quality firearms the afganis were using to pacific islands where Smooth bore firearms of the spanish were outclassed in range and accuracy by the slings and lastly classical Greece where slingers were put on horses at the edge of the battle to target enemy commanders in the thick of it, and who could target what part of the face they wished to hit.
Im not trying to say OMG slings are so awesome, just trying to put the facts out there because alot of misinformation that they are ineffective.
Slings also have a fatal flaw it seems slingers had to start training daily with the sling from about the age of 2 to be proficient with it.
From Shepards that can bounce rocks off a multiple goat horns at 50m to Colonial British in Afganastan reports stating the slings were more dangerous and accurate then the poor quality firearms the afganis were using to pacific islands where Smooth bore firearms of the spanish were outclassed in range and accuracy by the slings and lastly classical Greece where slingers were put on horses at the edge of the battle to target enemy commanders in the thick of it, and who could target what part of the face they wished to hit.
Im not trying to say OMG slings are so awesome, just trying to put the facts out there because alot of misinformation that they are ineffective.
Slings also have a fatal flaw it seems slingers had to start training daily with the sling from about the age of 2 to be proficient with it.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
"The most accurate non rifled projectile weapon humans ever invented" that is a bold statement, even with the "(that we know of)" part.
Well there you go, it must just be another of those things that we can't do today or atleast don't see on the youtube.
I've seen shepherds in Afghanistan throwing rocks at feral dogs, they had the distance but not the accuracy to scare them off but only hit 1 out of 10 from what I saw.
As far as classical Greece, propaganda is propaganda, even if its written in Greek.
all I'm saying is I've seen guys that were suppose to be good with them that weren't that good as far as archery goes.
Well there you go, it must just be another of those things that we can't do today or atleast don't see on the youtube.
I've seen shepherds in Afghanistan throwing rocks at feral dogs, they had the distance but not the accuracy to scare them off but only hit 1 out of 10 from what I saw.
As far as classical Greece, propaganda is propaganda, even if its written in Greek.
all I'm saying is I've seen guys that were suppose to be good with them that weren't that good as far as archery goes.
Note that I did qualify my statement by the inclusion of prehistoric primitive bows. The modern primitive longbow appears to have the Neolithic yew bow as its ancestor. Heck, I think the bows you cite, weren't developed until the sniff late bronze age or early iron age. Many of the Egyptian bows appear to be descended from a flat bow so that comparison is accurate. The prehistoric native American bows were frankly, anemic. (The Penobscot bow is an exception but I don't believe it was a prehistoric development). The prehistoric emphasis is my attempt to compare the two prehistoric tools (longbow and atlatl) to each other. Although the thread is wandering, I have learned quite a bit about the atlatl and have gained quite a bit of respect for it as a hunting tool. I think it would be neat if Phoynix were to start a thread regarding the sling as a hunting tool.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
Note that I did qualify my statement by the inclusion of prehistoric primitive bows. The modern primitive longbow appears to have the Neolithic yew bow as its ancestor. Heck, I think the bows you cite, weren't developed until the sniff late bronze age or early iron age. Many of the Egyptian bows appear to be descended from a flat bow so that comparison is accurate. The prehistoric native American bows were frankly, anemic. (The Penobscot bow is an exception but I don't believe it was a prehistoric development). The prehistoric emphasis is my attempt to compare the two prehistoric tools (longbow and atlatl) to each other. Although the thread is wandering, I have learned quite a bit about the atlatl and have gained quite a bit of respect for it as a hunting tool. I think it would be neat if Phoynix were to start a thread regarding the sling as a hunting tool.
OK, I'll throw in another .02 cents, this is actually kinda fun.
The thin width and thickness of the classic English longbow (a thick D, over an inch from belly to back and only about 1.5 wide) other than being bow shaped doesn't seem at all like a flat or self bow.
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence other than conjecture saying that the longbow came specifically from the flat or self bow.
I think,(just my opinion) that the varied archery equipment in use around the world in prehistoric times was more due to materials at hand, like the horn bow or composite bow.
Just because people used a flat or self bow before the longbow, again the "D" cross section doesn't seem to me at least to mean it is a direct descendant. I could be wrong though.
Many of the recovered prehistoric bows had a D cross section. But there was a Neolithic flatbow. The Welsh bow was purported to be a flatbow from elm. And just as non-clones descend from multiple ancestors, I'd hypothesize so did the English longbow. The Neolithic bows had the correct orientation with the belly towards the heartwood. All it took was some observant bowyer to note that a bow with sapwood at its back outperformed those without the sapwood back. The 14th and 15th century cross sections were probably optimizations using yew. The sapwood, stronger in tension and resistant to splitting against the heartwood stronger in compression made for a better bow than those before it. I'd guess early on the D cross section was flatter. Although that is conjecture. At any rate, I believe them all to be 'self' bows.
Note: most of the info I have is coming from the Traditional Bowers Bibles, Volumes 1,2,and 3.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
this conversation would be a lot more fun over a camp fire and a few bears, for me it all comes down to a lot of what we know is from someone elses conjecture, doesn't mean its wrong tho.
I have a copy signed by Glen, haven't read it in a while but they are good reference books to have around.
I do think (again) it was more about materials than anything else, if they would have had hedge apple it could have been completely different.