Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Questions concerning Rate of "fire" per minute
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Ringeck85 on January 09, 2012, 03:09:14 am ---Thank you Erik. I have a question for you: What specific primary source or sources does that information come from? Some of the people here do not think that is from an accurate, primary source, it might be BS made up by a secondary source. Do you know specifically where that comes from? Because I've heard of the 12 arrows per minute thing before, but I've never read the specific source that says that.
--- End quote ---
I don't have more specific information than that. What part do your "people here" have a problem with ? Did they also question the two finger salute ? Mark Stretton, as close to a mediaeval longbowman as exists today, couldn't quite equal the shooting speed quoted. It sounds right to me. Take it or leave it.
Ringeck85:
--- Quote from: Ian. on December 17, 2011, 10:43:45 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- 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.)
--- End quote ---
By "these people" I meant people who have posted in this very thread before you. Here is what they said, emphasis put by me in bold. If you can't provide a citation for the information you're providing, I can't trust it as historically accurate.
Not saying I disagree with you, but, where the heck does that quote that I've heard come from? What are the primary sources for the battle of Agincourt, anyway? And are any available online? I'll ask around and see what I can find.
Ian.:
You do need to quote names and dates with information like that Bowtoxo other wise it is worthless.
And Mark is indeed good but he and others like Simon Stanley and Joe Gibbs in fact anyone who is able to shoot a heavy bow agrees that 6 or 7 a minute is a realistic goal. Don't get me wrong you can do 20 a minute if you want to but that would be 20 wasted arrows. Its important to remember that the archers who fought in the 14 and 15th century's were far better than anyone today, of those that shoot today none of whom would be considered good enough to serve as archers. I do not doubt that these archers could do 12 well aimed shots a minute but at that rate the archer would be spent after a few minutes. When you have thousands of archers you can be a little more efficient.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Ian. on January 09, 2012, 09:12:05 pm ---You do need to quote names and dates with information like that Bowtoxo other wise it is worthless.
--- End quote ---
I did quote names and date and situation. More than one chronicler, including Jehan de Wavrin from the French side, reported on Henry V's invasion of France, I don't know which one provided this information. I invite you to look it up. Concerning minutes, the wooden clocks used in the 14th century were marked in hours and can be adjusted by balance weights to excellent accuracy. In the 15th century, the century cited, the clock faces were further divided into minutes for the first time.
Ian.:
"The Duke of York struck off four of his 300 archers who failed the test following the 1415 siege of Harfleur that began Henry V's French campaign."
"Concerning accuracy, a Vevetian visitor reported that any decent English archer, whether shooting level or with elevation, would hit within a half palm of his mark."
Neither of these are references, a reference is something that points us to the place where we could read the source ourselves. I could spend years trying to track down that particular piece of information. What you have there is hear'say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version