Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Questions concerning Rate of "fire" per minute
Dag:
Yeah its great to see a strong representation of younger archers enjoying this sport.
That triathalon is something I would be extremely interested in! I am a part of the SCA and have some of that type of sword skills. I know that live steel is a lot different from rattan weapon fighting but for what its worth i can say I have some training. But yes, archery contest, falchion/messer combat would be so much fun!
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on January 08, 2012, 11:18:57 pm ---
It is reported that archers were expected to shoot at least ten aimed arrows a minute. [a minute was first recognized in the 15th century]. 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. This is of course with a powerful warbow, and modern warbow archers have not been able to better it. It is a different story and a much easier feat with a light weight bow. Standard minimum issue was a sheaf of 24 arrows, sometimes two sheafs or even three sheafs have been reported. 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. Good luck on your project.
Erik
--- End quote ---
Good day Erik and a happy new year to you, I have not read the posts from here on yet so forgive me if I ask a question already raised.
I have often read various reports of the "test" you refer to yet have never seen the actual text of the report quoted or managed to source it, and because the usual quote takes the form of "failure to attain the required rate of fire" a term not used then and although as you say the minute was recognised by the 15th C. there were few instruments that could display such to any form of accuracy, and therefore the general populance would have had difficulty counting out a minute as they had no referance to what constitutes a second, remember we have been exposed to accurate timepieces that show seconds since we were children and were taught to count in approximate seconds in junior school. So I am doubtful of the veracity of such claims. Do you actually have a copy of the letter in which the failure is mentioned?
Craig,
***EDIT*** It seems that the question was asked!
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: Ringeck85 on December 29, 2011, 01:57:54 am ---I don't know about the "armor was almost all iron", I'll see if I can find any articles or research that might debunk that.
About that, brief q: do you all think that plate armor was designed primarily to defend against arrows, or against edged weapons like swords?
would the arrow have more or less penetrating force depending on how long the archer held the arrow at full draw?
Does this improve the energy/speed of the arrow (and thus improving its range), or would holding it at full draw for that long make the arrow lose stored kinetic potential?
"He should be trained to shoot rapidly on foot, either in the Roman or Persian manner. Speed is important in shaking the arrow loose and discharging it with force. This is essential and should be practiced while mounted. In fact, even when the arrow is well aimed, firing slowly is useless."
("Maurice's Strategikon; translated by Geoge T. Dennis, pg. 11)
Now, do you think that his advice regarding rapid draw/loosing is completely unrelated to warbow archery centuries later? Or does Maurice have a point here?
At what point of time does aiming an arrow become counter productive to the speed at which the arrow is loosed? And if this is a case of comparing apples to oranges (which it likely is, I just want to see what you guys think about the quote), why are the shooting mechanics of warbows so vastly different to their composite ancestors/contemporaries in the East?
--- End quote ---
Ringeck85, Happy New Year to you.
Taking your points in turn,
I look forward to the result of your research on armour, iron or steel but think you will be disapointed.
Regarding plate armour and what was it designed to counter sword or arrow, I lean towards the latter as it can be shown that as bows (both Longbows and crossbows) became more prevalent on the battle field and as the crossbow increased in power then plate armour was developed and improved while swords and other edged weapons remained the same.
Regarding rapid release and not holding bows at full draw, The longer a bow made of natural materials is held at full draw the more the hystereses with its subsequent loss of available energy. I am trying to remember where I read an article on this so I could point you there but so far have failed. So to answer your question a rapid release provides for a more powerful shot, all things being equal, so Maurice had a point.
As for "At what point of time does aiming an arrow become counter productive to the speed at which the arrow is loosed? I have no idea, but remember that the English used their archers to put large numbers of arrows into the mass of the enemy, I doubt that most were aimed at particular persons rather than a pont where the enemy were or were likely to be, but as the enemy got closer the need to shoot accurately became paramount, otherwise you probably died on the weaponds of the man you missed. A Slow miss is as bad as a fast miss.
Craig
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: CraigMBeckett on January 12, 2012, 05:02:39 am ---[
there were few instruments that could display such to any form of accuracy, and therefore the general populance would have had difficulty counting out a minute as they had no referance to what constitutes a second, remember we have been exposed to accurate timepieces that show seconds since we were children and were taught to count in approximate seconds in junior school. So I am doubtful of the veracity of such claims. Do you actually have a copy of the letter in which the failure is mentioned?
Craig,
***EDIT*** It seems that the question was asked!
--- End quote ---
Happy New Year to you, Craig. I don’t have a copy of the original transcript. Concerning the accuracy of mediaeval timepieces, I have owned wooden copies of 14th century weight driven timepieces with weighted balance as used by monks for prayer time. Adjusting these weights produced perfect time matching my Timex for the 13 hours it ran without resetting. Marks for the hours soon became further subdivided into quarter hours. A clock with a dial indicating minutes was illustrated in a 1475 manuscript by Paulus Almanus, and larger clocks predate my wall clock.
@ Ringeck85 Roger Ascham, writing in warbow time advises that the loose must be so lytle that it may be perceyued better in a man‘s mynd when it is done, than seene with a man‘s eyes when it is in doing. and no hanging on the string. Ascham practiced at the butts with other Englishmen training for war and his words are valid. Please, no more silly claims that he was describing idle rich sport shooters.
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on January 14, 2012, 12:21:59 am ---Happy New Year to you, Craig. I don’t have a copy of the original transcript. Concerning the accuracy of mediaeval timepieces, I have owned wooden copies of 14th century weight driven timepieces with weighted balance as used by monks for prayer time. Adjusting these weights produced perfect time matching my Timex for the 13 hours it ran without resetting. Marks for the hours soon became further subdivided into quarter hours. A clock with a dial indicating minutes was illustrated in a 1475 manuscript by Paulus Almanus, and larger clocks predate my wall clock.
--- End quote ---
Erik,
As you say you have done it I accept your premise that a medieval type clock could be adjusted to be accurate. However you would need an accurate timepiece to perform the adjustment, something lacking back then. However that aside even if all the clocks in Europe around the time of Agincourt (not that there were that many in relation to populace) were as accurate as modern ones they generally only displayed the hour with some possibly displaying minutes. A check on Wikipedia (yes I know the probity of some of the things published there is highly questionable) however according to the font of net knowledge the first appearance of a clock face displaying minutes is (as you point out) in an illustration dated 1475 , some 59 years after Agincourt the campain from which the slow archers were supposedly either returned to England or not taken to. Now even if there were clocks around that displayed minutes (something that even in the 16th Centuary was rare with the majority aparently only displaying 15 minute intervals), there were none that accurately displayed seconds, and it is the exposure to accurate second displays that enables people to "accurately" count minutes.
Craig.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version