Warbow speed shooting

[CraigMBeckett]

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

[adb]

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.

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[adb]

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.

[backgardenbowyer]

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.

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[Phil Rees]

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

[Cromm]

How about beating a drum?

[Phil Rees]

How about beating a drum?

..Yes ..sounds (forgive the pun) perfectly feasable

[bumppo]

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

[bumppo]

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

[CraigMBeckett]

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

[jimmy]

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.

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[mullet]