Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Questions concerning Rate of "fire" per minute
Ringeck85:
Hello all war bow enthusiasts!
As someone who's interested in building strength and getting into war bow shooting in the near future, I have a question. Well, I have several:
Is there a historical source that indicates how fast per minute medieval archers would ideally loose their arrows? I'm referring to this as "rate of fire" though I realize that there might be better ways of saying it. And how many at a time did they have on hand for this? How important is volume of arrows to your practice of the English war bow?
I remember hearing something about an archer needing to shoot at least twelve arrows per minute at a roughly man-shaped target 200 paces away. But what source is this from, or is it misinformation or an anachonism? I've seen a video of someone fire 10 arrows per minute going against a crossbowman (who got in 5 or 6 bolts, I forget), but is this a good rate of fire or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs
I've watched a lot of warbow shooting on youtube, but seem to see everyone focusing on distance shooting and the rolling shot, and taking their time with nocking and fully drawing their arrows. Do any of these groups focus on the rapid "fire" needed to be considered more of a battle-oriented archer? Or is that not deemed as important a focus as is range or accuracy? Do you not do the rolling release when you're going for speed?
I would like to develop shooting speed myself, and I wanted to know if anyone focused a lot on this. How do you develop shooting speed? Is the fastest way to shoot a war bow from having the arrows stuck in the ground, or is there a better way?
I've seen videos of horse archers using the Kassai method holding their arrows in the bow hand, and using that to fire at incredible speed: Kassai can shoot 12 arrows in 17 seconds! Is there a similar effort to develop rapid fire in warbow shooting like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVYyEg3N9nI
I know that Kassai usually uses much lighter draw weights for horse archery, so perhaps this rate of fire is impossible for a war bow, but is it possible to get a similarly impressive result?
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, whether this is important to you in practicing the war bow, and especially any historical sources you know of that might indicate the ideal firing rate of someone using a war bow.
Thanks!
Ian.:
You have to think of the application; the English used the bow over long range when aimed shots over a distance was needed, most of the speed shooting is done at targets very close like the video you posted. And the bow in the video is only 110lb so below what would have been used in the period. Most heavy bow archers agree that 6 or 7 aimed arrows a minute is all that you would keep up with. And even then I doubt it would be continual the English didn't carry that many arrows into France for them to be wasted. oh and no one knows where the 12 arrows a minute quote came from its just something historians who know no better like to bat around.
If you want to do speed shooting then you need a horsebow, it isn't practical or historical to do it with a heavy bow.
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote ---oh and no one knows where the 12 arrows a minute quote came from its just something historians who know no better like to bat around.
--- End quote ---
Ian is correct here, I have tried unsuccessfully to track this claim down even though it is mentioned by a number of Historians/writers on history most of whom use the "fire" word in their "quote" from a supposed letter that mentions that an archer recruit was sent home as he failed to meet the target of 12 per minute. (How exactly a minute could be counted when the few clocks around only displayed hours and then not very accurately is anyones guess.)
As for
--- Quote ---I realize that there might be better ways of saying it.
--- End quote ---
What is wrong with:
rate of shooting
rate of discharge
rate of loosing
All of which apply more correctly to archery
Craig
Ringeck85:
Rate of loosing, ok I'll use that.
Thank you both for your insightful points.
I recently thought of a few things adding to that, though not necessarily backed up by any sources as of yet.
-I've been of the opinion that volume of arrows (which in my mind became equated with rate of discharge) in a rough zone was more important in a medieval battle than accuracy or penetration power (only a very small percentage of who you fight is going to be encased in steel, and even then there are gaps), but perhaps a concentrated volley is even more important than that, and getting the volley land where the enemy is (a form of accuracy). And with a concentrated volley, you'd be loosing arrows at a rate that isn't necessarily top speed, if bowmen even concentrated on this at all.
-the main effect of archery on enemy formations would be to disrupt or slow them down. You might not die being hit with an arrow, but it would sure scare you and slow you down! And being under a barrage of arrows would be a very demoralizing thing, like being under an artillery barrage almost. You'd either reach the close combat exhausted, demoralized, wounded, or in broken formation. And so rate of discharge might not be as important to causing this as concentrating the arrows more accurately by range zones. Are there any sources that mention this idea?
-Pitched battles, even in the later middle ages and Renaissance, were rarer, were they not? Many things I've read indicate that siege warfare was much more common, and even then assaults on a defensive position rarer than just cutting off supplies. So in the event of an assault, a bowman would not necessarily have focused on insane rates of loosing if they were ducking under a castle wall or a pavise shield where they'd have all the time in the world to renock and draw.
Anyway, thank you for your posts, that's a good clarification. I wonder if rate of discharge was even all that important to horse archers, some of whom would have used composite bows with just as high of draw weight as warbows if claims of their range are to be believed. Would be quite a challenge for them too, and maybe the zillion arrows per minute thing is more of a modern way of showing off than a historically accurate feat for medieval archery.
Your thoughts?
JackCrafty:
Ring, there is so much talk out there on this subject that a quick search will yield enough reading material for months. ;)
I've read many accounts of battles and the ones that seem the most accurate are those that describe archers shooting at specific targets with accuracy and penetration being very important. In addition, arrows can be seen before they hit. The shorter the distance, the less time the target has to react. Arrows are not very effective against armored targets at long range, so horses and lightly armed troops would be the most likely long range targets of a volley. But I would imagine that leaders would try to get the archers as close as possible in any case.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version