Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Heiner on August 06, 2010, 12:58:25 pm
-
Hiya,
while discussing construction and usage of the linen arrowbags used in the late middle ages, someone recently stated that "Shooting 8 arrows out of the back quiver is almost impossible to do." (translated fairly enough). I did not agree and some more words were exchanged, mentioning the influence of heavy draw weight on speed shooting. I stopped arguing for the time being and intend to go out this weekend and shoot some rounds myself to see what results I personally can come up with.
Not living in a nutshell, I ask you guys shooting heavy bows (100+ lbs): How many arrows can you shoot per minute? Which arrow keeping device do you use (sidequiver, backquiver, soil)?
Looking forward your valuable answers,
Heiner
-
We had a discussion of this topic on another forum so I had a go - not with a longbow but a flatbow of 105lb.
Firstly, archers appear not to have shot from a bag or quiver - the habit, I believe, was to place the arrows head down in the ground to one side, handy for use. On this basis, I managed 10 arrows in one minute after 3 attempts ie on the other attempts I missed the cut and managed only nine.
They were not particularly aimed arrows but all drawn to a full length and the 'scatter' of arrows was not too severe, and in the context of massed archery, I would have defined it as 'useful' in that range was consistent - you certainly wouldn't want to have been part of a group standing where the arrows were falling!
C
-
We had a discussion of this topic on another forum so I had a go - not with a longbow but a flatbow of 105lb.
Firstly, archers appear not to have shot from a bag or quiver - the habit, I believe, was to place the arrows head down in the ground to one side, handy for use. On this basis, I managed 10 arrows in one minute after 3 attempts ie on the other attempts I missed the cut and managed only nine.
They certainly seem not to have shot from a back or shoulder quiver which was used to get arrows out of the way when travelling to where the shooting was to take place, when the quiver would be transferred to the hip. Eirst, arrows tend to rattle in a back quiver. Second, it is awkward to draw arrows from a back quiver. Third,.raising the arm that high is a warning signal to animal or enemy. I would say that shooting arrows out of a back quiver is a pointless exercise. It would seem even more awkward in the case of an arrow bag with perforated leather disc which would be used in the late Middle Ages for war, the only situation in which a sheaf of 24 arrows was needed.
-
I believe back quivers are a Victorian invention. They're certainly not medieval.
-
Hey everbody,
thanks alot for the comments. I am very aware of the authenticity of back quivers in the middle ages. If my initial text lead to confusion regarding this, I am sorry for that. The basic question was the speed of warbow shooting, other information was just meant to put things in context.
Anyway, here are the results from the weekend:
Round 0, warm-up with a 55er: 12 arrows per minute
Round 1, 100er: 11 arrows per minute
Round 2, 100er: 11 arrows per minute
Round 3, 100er: 11 arrows per minute
Looks like a pretty stable result to me ;).
I'd like to add that my level of training is deplorable right now. One or two arrows more will easily be achievable by improving the nocking technique. More practise will also allow increasing the draw weight. 110 to 115 lbs will not be a problem.
For those interested, here are the links to the YouTube videos: 55er (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PHszhl4_U8), 100er round 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ_13YnhA4s), 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i489c1SDsE4), 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAYOXgSV4f0)
Regards,
Heiner
-
Good shooting :). However, to be true "warbow" shooting, you need to extend your draw to a full warbow draw of 31-32". Pull back past your ear, to full draw, and then see how many you can loose in a minute. Here's a full draw pic.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
man adb it looks like that hurts !
-
how do you do that? i mean that has got to launch them further than a north korean missile!
-
;D ;D ;D... how do I do what? Shoot this bow... I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it's like anything else... practice. And no, they don't quite go as far as any missiles. :D :D :D I was getting 190-200 meters with an EWBS standard arrow, 31.5" in length, and 52 grams weight. Really quite average, actually.
Also, it doesn't hurt, contrary to the expression on my face!
-
I found this in "Agincourt" 2005 by Juliet Barker, page 303, may be of interest regarding speed shooting.
She reports a reference in the 1415 exchequers 2nd quarter financial records regarding the Duke of York's men after the siege of Harfleur:
"two days before the departure from Harfleur, his numbers had been reduced to eighty men-at-arms and 296 archers (four of the latter had been struck off because they could not fire the required minimum ten aimed arrows per minute."
Interesting to think that the medieval archer of Henry V time shot ten plus arrows per minute, and it seems they were regularly tested to make sure they could do it. If they were found unable to shoot ten rounds a minute they were sacked from active service.
-
(four of the latter had been struck off because they could not fire the required minimum ten aimed arrows per minute.
I have not read her work but what a pity, one would have thought that anyone writing on the subject would use the correct terminology. Firearms are fired, arrows are either shot or loosed.
Craig.
-
The verb she uses to describe the act of drawing, aiming and hitting a target with a bow and arrow is not the salient point of this post, sorry if you took it that way.
Just a what if, suppose you were a french man-at-arms at the battle of Agincourt receiving arrows shot from the english side, would you describe yourself as being under "fire" or being under "loosing?" I guess my point is, today we use a variety of verbs interchangeably to describe the same basic actions.
Again, my main point being the historical record of how fast an archer was supposed to shoot, not grammar.
-
bumppo ,
suppose you were a french man-at-arms at the battle of Agincourt receiving arrows shot from the english side, would you describe yourself as being under "fire" or being under "loosing?"
If I were that Frenchman, other than the fact my thoughts would not be in English, I certainly would not use a verb that did not come into use until a far later date when the use of firearms was widespread. As an English speaker I would have thought of myself as being shot at, the same as I would if it were to happen today.
Your point regarding the interchangeability of verbs would be relevant if the verb in question was actually interchangeable with loose and shoot, when used to describe the propulsion of arrows from bows, it is not it never has been it is just bad English. Let me ask you this, would you say you sailed your car or hammered a screw, (unless you are one of those people who actually do use a hammer on screws), knitted a stitch or maybe loosed a gun?
Your point on the required speed of shooting was noted, I was however simply stating that its a pity that someone who has an item published uses such poor English. It is even more of a pity when one considers that the words used were not those of the original report but the author's version of the same.
I am surprised you seem to have taken my comment as an attack on yourself, you are not the author Juliet Barker are you?
Craig.
-
Either way, thanks for providing the page from the Barker book. I have the book and remember the quote but could not find it on re looking. What I'm interested in is the source reference because I suspect this particular chestnut as being one of those which has acquired authenticity through endless repetition. Be interested to chase it down.
C
-
bumppo ,
If I were that Frenchman, other than the fact my thoughts would not be in English, I certainly would not use a verb that did not come into use until a far later date when the use of firearms was widespread. As an English speaker I would have thought of myself as being shot at, the same as I would if it were to happen today.
Your point on the required speed of shooting was noted, I was however simply stating that its a pity that someone who has an item published uses such poor English. It is even more of a pity when one considers that the words used were not those of the original report but the author's version of the same.
Craig.
Good point Craig ! The only way an arrow could be fired would be if it were shot from a musket, which did sometimes happen, or to stretch the point further, if it were set alight as a fire arrow. I have a further question. How did they measure a minute when clocks did not measure anything beyond the twelve divisions of the hour ?
Erik
-
Hi Erik,
How did they measure a minute when clocks did not measure anything beyond the twelve divisions of the hour ?
A very good question! I have just done a quick search on the word minute, it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century, (or so states merriam-webster in their online dictionary), so it cannot have been used in "the 1415 exchequers 2nd quarter financial records regarding the Duke of York's men after the siege of Harfleur" as stated.
I have heard/read of this claim concerning 10 shots a minute, usually quoted in the same terms as used by Bumppo probably from the same source but have not seen the actual text that it is based on. It would be interesting to read what was actually written.
Craig
-
Perhaps a Sargeant or Captain of Archers just simply counted to 50, 60, or maybe 100, and all those who could loose a standard number of arrows was accepted. Or maybe an archer of known standard was used, and all those who could not match his pace were rejected. No, I don't think they had any sort of time piece that could provide seconds or minutes during medieval times, and I'm sure it was not important.
-
adb,
Of course that would be the way it was done at all to any form of time, I would suggest that if it were done it would more likely have been done by the tester knowing, from long practice, how fast the arrows should be released and assessing against this.
Craig.
-
Exactly what I was thinking. Seems counter-productive and distracting to be arguing about grammar and periods of recorded time from the original post. JMHO.
-
I've read Juliet Barker's book on Agincourt which is very good indeed, but she makes a number of linguistic mistakes and anachronisms when talking about archery (eg. "firing" arrows) and she should be read as a historian not an authority on archery. She is brilliant at describing the politics of the period.
I doubt if there was a fixed understanding of a "minute" in the middle ages - even the "hour" wasn't normally fixed in length being merely one 12th of the time between dawn and dusk. It would have been possible to measure short periods of time using sand glasses or by running water from a vessel, but I really can't imagine that there was a standardised speed shooting test. Maybe master archers or whatever they called sergeant majors in those days just had their own standards for what they thought acceptable shooting.
I've shot at speed in a line of archers many times. I can tell you that being in a tightly packed line slows things down a lot. I can shoot 11 arrows a minute on my own but I doubt it is much more than 8 when shooting in the line and the faster you go the shorter your draw gets! (I'm left handed which makes it even harder in the line). Similarly when I used to shoot muzzle loading rifles we occasionally had timed shoots - 4 rounds a minute is possible, but we normally had a table to load from. In the confusion of combat 3 rounds a minute would be pretty good - and this was the military standard.
-
Exactly what I was thinking. Seems counter-productive and distracting to be arguing about grammar and periods of recorded time from the original post. JMHO.
ADB that is where we differ, I think it is important that any reference to historical events etc is reported accurately otherwise how do we know what is truth and what is merely conjecture, if the minute was not in use during the period reported then the report is factually incorrect and must be treated as suspect in total. In addition if the minute was not in use then how did the person doing the testing know to count to 60. If the report actually said something like "shoot 10 arrows in the time it takes for a slow count of 60", then I could understand it which is why I said it would be nice to see the actual text.
Craig.
-
Erik
...I think you've posed a very interesting question regarding "how did they measure a minute".
One possible answer, and this is pure speculation on my part, is that in human gait, each step from heel strike to heel strike is very slightly under 1 second and the average adult take about 80 steps per minute.
This cadence is remarkably consistant with adult males of all morphological types and reduces slightly in females.
It wouldn't be beyond the whit of man to instruct an archer to loose X number of arrows in the time it takes for a man to walk 80 paces.
...Just my thoughts ...I've no historical evidence to back it up
-
How about beating a drum?
-
How about beating a drum?
..Yes ..sounds (forgive the pun) perfectly feasable
-
Craig,
No I didn't take it as a personal criticism, didn't mean to come off that way. Just trying to point out that she's a 21st century writer using modern english, not latin or french, thought we would all be smart enough to realize that. Today the verb "fire" describes a process wherein some sort of energy is used to start or direct another action, usually in a direction implied to be forward. Whether you fire an imagination, fire off an email, or fire an employee. Are these things literally propelled forward through a combustive process, of course they aren't, but I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that they are all "fired".
I hope we can get past this and get to the heart of the matter. Excellent point in questioning what a minute actually was in the 15th century and how Ms. Barker interpreted the record as written in her book. After reading these questions, I wrote to Ms. Barker to find out where the reference was. This is what she wrote:
"The manuscript reference you are seeking is in the National Archives, in the exchequer records (E) and the call number for the manuscript is E101/45/19. It certainly won't be on line but you can get copies through the National Archives website either sent to you via e-mail or as photocopies. (I prefer the latter as being more legible). A word of warning - you need to be able to read exchequer script and latin to be able to decipher it!
Best wishes
Juliet"
I've written to the National Archives for the records and hope to post them soon. Hope this helps.
Walt
-
Hi Erik,
How did they measure a minute when clocks did not measure anything beyond the twelve divisions of the hour ?
A very good question! I have just done a quick search on the word minute, it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century, (or so states merriam-webster in their online dictionary), so it cannot have been used in "the 1415 exchequers 2nd quarter financial records regarding the Duke of York's men after the siege of Harfleur" as stated.
I have heard/read of this claim concerning 10 shots a minute, usually quoted in the same terms as used by Bumppo probably from the same source but have not seen the actual text that it is based on. It would be interesting to read what was actually written.
Craig
Craig,
I'm confused, did you mean 15th century... "it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century"? The 14th century are the years between 1301 and 1400. The 15th century are the years from 1401 to 1500. If it was in english use in the 14th century, the word "minute" would have been known in 1415. But just exactly what length of time it refers to is the question.
Walt
-
I'm confused, did you mean 15th century... "it seems that its first known use in English (middle English actually) was in 14th Century"?
I don't seem to be able to find the reference I used, I'm sure I meant to write 15th Century not 14th, tried the free online dictionary I quoted but only got the definition not its first use, the only first use of minute I found in the 14th C was of the the word meaning a small part not 1/60 of an hour. However I stand ready to be corrected.
Found this on the Online Etymology Dictionary:
late 14c., "sixtieth part of an hour," from O.Fr. minut, from M.L. minuta "minute, short note," from L. minuta, fem. of minutus "small, minute" (see minute (adj.)). In M.L., pars minuta prima "first small part" was used by mathematician Ptolemy for one-sixtieth of a circle, later of an hour (next in order was secunda minuta, which became second (n.)).
So if this is correct I was not. still looking.
Just trying to point out that she's a 21st century writer using modern english, not latin or french, thought we would all be smart enough to realize that. Today the verb "fire" describes a process wherein some sort of energy is used to start or direct another action, usually in a direction implied to be forward. Whether you fire an imagination, fire off an email, or fire an employee. Are these things literally propelled forward through a combustive process, of course they aren't, but I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that they are all "fired".
Sorry I disagree in modern English fire is not applicable to the loosing of a bowstring, in the discharging of a weapon it purely applies to item to which fire is applied, its use for archery, slings, catapults etc is lazy English. The language has words that specifically apply the use of words that do not is shear laziness and shows a paucity of language, the same paucity that caused a countryman of yours to invent the word burglarize when he actually meant burgle, a burglar burgles he does not burglarize, burgle is the root not burglar. As I said before you do not say you sailed or flew a car, you say you drove it, nor do you say you loosed a gun but you may say you shot it.
Craig
-
hey Craig, who cares? i got on this post because i thought it was an interesting topic, not to read post after post of you going off on a tangent about a word. stick to the subject man. in fact go make some bows and arrows or go hunting. better yet, go do your own field test on "firing" a war bow in rapid succession. there, i said it. in fact, i too have wasted too much time with this nonsense. watch out for the grammar police.
-
jimmy,
One would suggest that you must have done to read them and responded.
By the way using "fire" for the act of shooting a bow is not a grammatical error, I would explain but clearly you don't know or care.
Craig.
-
::) ::) ;)
-
hey Craig, who cares? i got on this post because i thought it was an interesting topic, not to read post after post of you going off on a tangent about a word. stick to the subject man. in fact go make some bows and arrows or go hunting. better yet, go do your own field test on "firing" a war bow in rapid succession. there, i said it. in fact, i too have wasted too much time with this nonsense. watch out for the grammar police.
For one, I care. Using words that mean what we want to say, make for understanding without unneccesary confusion. An example; When we get sloppy enough to say."I call any bow a longbow. I just like to fire bows and don't care what anybody calls them", then any comment is pointless and nobody learns anything.
Erik
-
hey Craig, who cares? i got on this post because i thought it was an interesting topic, not to read post after post of you going off on a tangent about a word. stick to the subject man. in fact go make some bows and arrows or go hunting. better yet, go do your own field test on "firing" a war bow in rapid succession. there, i said it. in fact, i too have wasted too much time with this nonsense. watch out for the grammar police.
Hey, jimmy... don't worry... I don't care either. This post has been hijacked, and has gotten far off track by some posters who like to argue about semantics. "Fire, loose, release, shoot"... really... who cares? This post was originally about warbow speed shooting.
-
This post has been hijacked, and has gotten far off track by some posters who like to argue about semantics.
No its been posted to by people who like historic fact not hearsay or old wives tales.
adb why do you try and shoot a warbow, why not just any, I believe its a, 90lb bow? Is one of the reasons because you want to be close to historically correct in the gear you use? The same should then apply to language and the information supplied.
Craig.
-
adb why do you try and shoot a warbow, why not just any, I believe its a, 90lb bow? Is one of the reasons because you want to be close to historically correct in the gear you use? The same should then apply to language and the information supplied.
Craig.
Maybe he just likes to shoot heavy bows? Or is it fire? I forget now... ::)
-
[
7
Maybe he just likes to shoot heavy bows? Or is it fire? I forget now... ::)
[/quote]
It looks like the difference may be overtaxing your brain. Careful you don't strain yourself. Actually you don't shoot a bow, you shoot the arrow as you shoot a bullet but fire a gun or a piece. {you don't want to mix up those last words in the Marine Corps. They are really fussbudgets about semantics]. You shoot [the arrow]in a bow or with a bow. Or go back to sleep.
Cheers,
Erik
-
[
7
Maybe he just likes to shoot heavy bows? Or is it fire? I forget now... ::)
It looks like the difference may be overtaxing your brain. Careful you don't strain yourself. Actually you don't shoot a bow, you shoot the arrow as you shoot a bullet but fire a gun or a piece. {you don't want to mix up those last words in the Marine Corps. They are really fussbudgets about semantics]. You shoot [the arrow]in a bow or with a bow. Or go back to sleep.
Cheers,
Erik
[/quote]
Unbelievable. ::) ::)
-
Do you guy's only do this stuff when the weather starts to get cold and miserable?
-
Do you guy's only do this stuff when the weather starts to get cold and miserable?
Its spring here and the weather is getting better. ????
-
So, I guess it's just a Warbow thing? I think if you guys were allowed to go shoot real animals you wouldn't argue over things like this.
-
;D I'm with you Eddie. I can't figure out this argument ???
-
It's strange how threads on this particular forum topic often get way off track, and turn into something completely unrelated. This topic has been a perfect example... it originally started as a discussion on speed shooting, and turned into a grammar lesson. I, for one, would like to see the nit-picking and arguing stop, and keep the discussion relevant and polite.
-
There is obviously a lot of knowledge here too bad theres so much argument. I would be thrilled to see some bows maybe some shooting or arrow making. I rarely come here because of the arguing.Ronnie
-
There is obviously a lot of knowledge here too bad theres so much argument. I would be thrilled to see some bows maybe some shooting or arrow making. I rarely come here because of the arguing.Ronnie
This is actually the only post that I've seen since joining P.A. where there was an argument, and it seems to me that it's just because of one person that's looking for attention. I would suggest that someone locks this thread.
-
Instead of locking it, why doesn't everybody just get back on topic? And if you don't like the womans book, don't buy it or read it. ::)
-
Excellent idea.
-
Before some of you throw stones take a look at your own posts.
For instance:
I believe back quivers are a Victorian invention. They're certainly not medieval.
Posted after the question of back quivers was dealt with, what has this to do with the original post? I would also suggest that this is a perfect invitation to go off discussing back quivers.
It's strange how threads on this particular forum topic often get way off track, and turn into something completely unrelated. This topic has been a perfect example... it originally started as a discussion on speed shooting, and turned into a grammar lesson. I, for one, would like to see the nit-picking and arguing stop, and keep the discussion relevant and polite.
No not a grammar lesson, grammar does not enter into it, but rather a comment on the poor use of English by an author which turned into a question of the veracity of a quote on the supposed speed required of medieval archers and how the same could be measured. Followed by responses to direct posts
I suggest you reread the posts, you have become fixated on something you did not like.
Craig.
-
Good grief, Craig... give it a rest!
-
Craig, there is only two people who seem to care. Why don't you two start another thread and discuss it there?
-
"No not a grammar lesson, grammar does not enter into it, but rather a comment on the poor use of English"
Grammar is the proper use of a given language. I agree with adb and mullet. Start a grammatical thread, this one is about what is commonly known in military circles as "cyclical rate of fire".
I don't have a dozen matched arrows to futz with, and did my best with the six I do have and a 50# osage flatbow. Could barely get them all off in 60 seconds the first few tries, but had them down to about 45 seconds after a dozen or so rounds. Plenty of rest between rounds while I searched the hillside for stragglers even though the double hay bale target at 15 yds!!!! Unless they are particularly large soldiers and mighty close and slow moving they have little to fear from me.
-
There are half a dozen folks in our longbow club (Companions of the Longbow, Swindon, UK) shooting 100#-plus bows. All of us can achieve 10-12 aimed shots per minute from arrows chucked into the ground. One of the lads can shoot 18+ surprisingly well aimed shots from his 90#, next summer it will be 100#. This isn't guesswork, it's one of the recorded challenges we perform from time to time throughout the year.
-
ChrisM, you guys are heroes to me! If ever I get over to your little island, I'm going to have to come see you guys shoot!
-
Aww, Ken. let's stay with the topic. It took two pages to get back ::)
-
ChrisM, you guys are heroes to me! If ever I get over to your little island, I'm going to have to come see you guys shoot!
JW, sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. If you are ever over her visiting our "little island" you would be very welcome to shoot with our little band!
Time to fess up I think - the truth is, for most folks who attempt this, it really isn't so hard. The guy "Deadly Dave" who can ping out 18 or so in a minute nocks by feel, and he's practised but not a whole lot. For the rest of us it's just another challenge we do throughout the year. I can only do 10 or 11 because I nock by sight and as an old git, my sight isn't brilliant. Imagine beginning this aspect of military shooting as a ten year old, rather than 30, 40 or even 50 like myself, and you can easily see how 12 well-aimed shots in a minute would have been a breeze. Then ask yourself - how long would your arrows last? This had to be a technique which they would have trained for, not to achieve 12 arrows a "minute" (well-aimed of course) - because it's easy, but to know when to use it.
Cheers
ChrisM
-
How true! If every archer went for the "spray and pray" philosophy it might become uncomfortable when they are out of ammo and the French chevaliers are pointing their lances their way. Guess that's why us commoner clots depend on our "betters" to order us in battle.
-
There are half a dozen folks in our longbow club (Companions of the Longbow, Swindon, UK) shooting 100#-plus bows. All of us can achieve 10-12 aimed shots per minute from arrows chucked into the ground. One of the lads can shoot 18+ surprisingly well aimed shots from his 90#, next summer it will be 100#. This isn't guesswork, it's one of the recorded challenges we perform from time to time throughout the year.
Your group seems to be above par. In “Secrets of the English Warbow”, Mark Stretton says that with a heavy warbow [like 150 pounds] under stressed conditions, he could manage an aimed shot every seven seconds, not more. The quote concerning the Duke of York and the dismissal of four of his 300 archers that couldn’t manage 10 arrows a minute sounds like the truth to me. That would be a shot every six seconds. While Mark Stretton seems as close to a mediaeval war archer as possible, I can imagine that some archers trained from childhood could manage one second less, but Mark’s record might be the one to aim for.
adb; Thanks for your input toward my correction about helical [or not] MR fletching.
-
There's four of us in NZ who are doing similar stuff with bows 115lbs and up. We shoot every week at a 220 yard mark. Occasionally we'll do a speed shoot. Our focus at the moment is shooting a whole sheaf in one round. I use rubber bungy cords as a training device. The other day I did 24 draws @105lbs in 75 seconds at a nice easy pace. It's not exactly the same as drawing a bow as there is no arrow to pick up and nock but the same muscle groups are being worked.
There is no big mystery to any of this. It comes down to the strength and muscular endurance of the archer.
-
There are half a dozen folks in our longbow club (Companions of the Longbow, Swindon, UK) shooting 100#-plus bows. All of us can achieve 10-12 aimed shots per minute from arrows chucked into the ground. One of the lads can shoot 18+ surprisingly well aimed shots from his 90#, next summer it will be 100#. This isn't guesswork, it's one of the recorded challenges we perform from time to time throughout the year.
Your group seems to be above par. In “Secrets of the English Warbow”, Mark Stretton says that with a heavy warbow [like 150 pounds] under stressed conditions, he could manage an aimed shot every seven seconds, not more. The quote concerning the Duke of York and the dismissal of four of his 300 archers that couldn’t manage 10 arrows a minute sounds like the truth to me. That would be a shot every six seconds. While Mark Stretton seems as close to a mediaeval war archer as possible, I can imagine that some archers trained from childhood could manage one second less, but Mark’s record might be the one to aim for.
We're just ordinary folks Bow-Toxo, like yourself, and 150# under stressed conditions is quite different to 100# - 120# under relaxed conditions.
There's four of us in NZ who are doing similar stuff with bows 115lbs and up. We shoot every week at a 220 yard mark. Occasionally we'll do a speed shoot. Our focus at the moment is shooting a whole sheaf in one round. I use rubber bungy cords as a training device. The other day I did 24 draws @105lbs in 75 seconds at a nice easy pace. It's not exactly the same as drawing a bow as there is no arrow to pick up and nock but the same muscle groups are being worked.
There is no big mystery to any of this. It comes down to the strength and muscular endurance of the archer.
Nice work Keith, and you've made the point well. It's nocking and aiming which takes the time and effort. Repeatedly drawing up the bow is the easy part.
-
One more thing to take into account Chris which I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet– adrenaline. As you would well know the human body is capable of quite amazing feats when the situation demands it. That fact combined with the years of practice and the professionalism of the English armies of the 100 Years War suggests to me that 10 or more aimed shots loosed in rapid succession would have been quite achievable when required.
We may never know how they managed their (for want of a better expression) “fire discipline”. Once we have a group of say 50 modern archers shooting bows averaging 140lbs it would probably be then possible to carry out some useful research in that direction.