Ten arrows a minute minimum

[Erpingham]

As an aside to the Arrowstorming topic, I want to share one of those rabbithole pieces of research that these things bring about.

All over the internet, you will find the "fact" that an English military archer had to be able to shoot ten arrows per minute minimum.  Like many such "facts", it is less than clear where this comes from, so I devoted a few hours to some research.

The statement is found in books.  Juliet Barker quotes it twice in Agincourt (p.87 and p.318).  Erik Roth in With a Bended Bow quotes it.  These may well be the immediate source.  But the evidence of origin and precise wording is missing.  A trawl through chat forums yielded the clue that it is taken from the second quarter muster of the Duke of York's retinue in 1415 (TNA E101/45/19).  Unfortunately, this is an unpublished manuscript in medieval Latin.  A dead end?  Well, Juliet Barker references Wiley and Waugh The Reign of Henry V, vol ii, p186, n.5 for discussion of the relevant point.  This book is on line and, indeed, W&W do quote the Latin. 

Four archers are dismissed from the Duke's retinue "Quia non fuerunt suffie sagitt"  I can't read latin but I can see we have a couple of scribal abbreviations in there, which may affect the exact meaning.  The best I can do with Google translate is something like "Because they aren't adequate archers" - W&W say their crime was inefficiency.  I'd appreciate a better translation from our Latinists.

What there doesn't seem to be is a mention of a number of arrows or a time period.   So, still no nearer to the truth of the matter.  Anyone with a clearer earlier source that might be informing Barker and consequently the entire internet?

[DBS]

Interesting - I can think of a number of failings that might make an archer be considered inadequate that would potentially rank as more serious than a set rate of fire.

In fact, thinking about it, I would be very dubious about the idea that anyone in the period would have a concept of arrows per minute, given they had no means of measuring a minute.  Gunners might talk about whether they can get off two or three rounds an hour with their bombard without blowing the gun and themselves up, accepting that even the hour was a rather vague concept in practical daily application.  I suppose an archer might be expected to get off his next shot, say, before someone had finished counting to a number or so, or in the time taken for someone to march, run or ride x distance (ie someone who might be advancing towards you with a spot of malice in their heart).  But ten arrows a minute?  Such a concept can surely have come in only later with enthusiasts, perhaps in the late 16th century at the earliest, when I think mechanical timepieces started to be capable of recording a minute, give or take.  So perhaps it is a retrojection of Tudor or Stuart, or even later, enthusiasts' assessment of what they thought was achievable and realistic?

I should be delighted to be proved wrong on my reasoning, but I think you are absolutely right that this may not bear much scrutiny.

[Erpingham]

Somewhere on a long forum discussion (IIRC Primitive Archer) which I read today in pursuit of the answer, minutes first come in during the 15th century.  They were having a very similar reality check.  The chances that a portable clock was available during the Agincourt campaign to measure archers' shooting rates does seem unlikely, though.  If they wanted to mark a set time, they could probably count as steadily as we can, so someone could count out similar length and shout time at the end thus taking "minute" to mean a short time.  But we are dealing with a short marginal annotation, not a detailed procedure, so I can't see how we know what their measure of adequacy was.  In the sixteenth century, it's clear adequacy was based on the ability to make "strong" shots, which was measured by distance (around 10-12 score yards with the livery arrow) but in the 14th or 15th century?

It would be interesting to know of an earlier reference than Barker for this.  I suspect she has absorbed another secondary source somewhere along the line.

[Erpingham]

Four archers are dismissed from the Duke's retinue "Quia non fuerunt suffie sagitt"  I can't read latin but I can see we have a couple of scribal abbreviations in there, which may affect the exact meaning.  The best I can do with Google translate is something like "Because they aren't adequate archers" - W&W say their crime was inefficiency.  I'd appreciate a better translation from our Latinists.

In the odd position of quoting myself here, but I'm trying to get some clarity on this for the Slingshot "Arrowstorm" article .  If anyone can clarify this Latin phrase, I'd be grateful.

The only other item I've come across on proficiency standards is this comment in an old (1999) article on the Tudor Group website, speaking about Tudor Trained Bands (i.e. late 16th century)

A competent archer was supposed to be able to put more than 6 arrows a minute into a 3 foot across target at 100 yards.

No source is given.  If anyone has studied Trained bands and knows the source of this, I'd be interested.

[RichT]

Four archers are dismissed from the Duke's retinue "Quia non fuerunt suffie sagitt"  I can't read latin but I can see we have a couple of scribal abbreviations in there, which may affect the exact meaning.  The best I can do with Google translate is something like "Because they aren't adequate archers" - W&W say their crime was inefficiency.  I'd appreciate a better translation from our Latinists.

Sorry not sure I can help as it's not proper Latin

Depends on whether 'sagitt' is short for 'arrows' or 'archers', and what 'suffie' means. "Because not they were [adequate/sufficient] [arrows/archers]". Google Translate, for the whole phrase, offers me: "Because there were not enough arrows" which is vaguely plausible and might relate to what the Tudor Group article you quote also says:

Thomas Wyatt ( 1547 ) stated the equipment of an archer being a leather ( padded ) or mail jerkin; a helmet; vambraces; a good sword; a short dagger; a bow; a sheaf of arrows & 3 bow strings in a waterproof case, any failing to produce such ( and having the means to purchase ) should be 'greveously punyshed'.

So possibly dismissed because they didn't have an adequate sheaf of arrows? I can't offer any certainty on that though.

[Dave Knight]

So if an archer were expected to loose 10 arrows a minute how long would a sheaf of arrows last at full rate?

[Erpingham]

So if an archer were expected to loose 10 arrows a minute how long would a sheaf of arrows last at full rate?

Two minutes 24 seconds?  Though modern "warbow" archers reckon that, while they could shoot ten arrows in a minute, they couldn't do twenty in two, so maybe three minutes as they slow down? 

[Erpingham]

Depends on whether 'sagitt' is short for 'arrows' or 'archers', and what 'suffie' means. "Because not they were [adequate/sufficient] [arrows/archers]". Google Translate, for the whole phrase, offers me: "Because there were not enough arrows" which is vaguely plausible and might relate to what the Tudor Group article you quote also says:

Should have found this earlier

Gary Paul Baker : To Agincourt and beyond! The martial affinity of Edward of Langley, second Duke of York (c.1373‒1415)

This is a detailed study of the retinue list.

In it, we find this :

"23 archers, all but two of whom were from York's household list, were described as not having equipment sufficient to serve as an archer ('quia non fuerunt sufficientes sagittarii')."

Note, incidentally, 23 men are deficient , not four as Juliet Barker gives, and no mention beyond this note of why they were deficient.  If it were simply short of bows and arrows, it should be correctable by drawing on the army's reserve stocks - it was, after all, what they were for.  The fact that they were from the household list, which, as originally mustered, had 53 men not drawing army pay as archers, may be significant.  In other words, they were men present for household duties, not as archers (though many household servants did both).

It looks, therefore, like the ten arrows regulation is a myth, perhaps back projected from modern views.  Hardy, in his book Longbow from 1976, says we can "confidently allow" archers ten shots a minute, for example.

[Erpingham]

To complement our studies, and to help those trying to quantify our "arrowstorm", here are a few quotes based on modern practice

As to the hail of arrows, heavy bow archers confirm that releasing twelve arrows in one minute is possible, but that such a rate of shot is not possible for subsequent periods. Practical experience points to a rate of shot of about 5 to 6 arrows per minute as being feasible over a period up to 10 minutes.

Longbow Archers website


The rate at which I was shooting can be worked out mathematically, in which the time it takes for the knight* to travel 220 yards at 20 m.p.h. or 10 yards/sec is just 22 seconds. To shoot four arrows in that time, an archer must take a shot every 5½ seconds and this leaves no margin for error.  If, however the archer slows down to shoot just three arrows in 22 seconds, then the rate is lengthened to a more comfortable time of just over 7 seconds between each shot. This would then give the archer more time to rectify any mistake, which could be the difference between life and death on a real battle field.

* A remote controlled rig made of old lawn mower parts

Mark Stretton, blog


Archers who shoot longbows of draw weights comparable to the estimated draw weights of the Mary Rose bows reckon that it takes between seven and nine seconds to complete an aimed shot from nocking the arrow to loosing it.

Wadge, Arrowstorm, p. 186 (info from Mark Stretton and Simon Stanley)

(Mark Stretton) ... can shoot ten (arrows) a minute with a 140lb bow but could not be able to shoot twenty in two minutes. ....... He considers six a minute achievable for consecutive minutes with such a bow.

Loades, Longbow, p69 n


Note that this information is not all from independent sources - Mark Stretton appears in three.  The third is anonymous but the webpage is illustrated with pictures of members of the club, including .... Mark Stretton.

[RichT]

Much like maximum range and effective range (and actual battlefield range), there was no doubt a big difference between maximum shooting rate and actual shooting rate. While I can well believe that shooting once every ten seconds (or quicker) is perfectly possible, there would be very few situations in which it would be desirable - the only one being a rapidly advancing enemy charging directly on the archers, who have no other means of defence or escape; and even then I would think that aimed and considered shots would be more useful than just volume of shots, especially at longer ranges.

I don't know how big a typical sheaf of arrows would be - 30? Shooting the whole lot off in three minutes would on the face of it never be a good idea, and shooting at oncoming chargers might only require three or so arrows (so three arrows in 30 seconds, but that does not scale up to six in a minute, or 30 in five minutes, because after 30 seconds the chargers have either arrived, or run away).

[Erpingham]

I don't know how big a typical sheaf of arrows would be - 30?

Administrative records suggest 24 was normal, though 30 is recorded in places.

While I can well believe that shooting once every ten seconds (or quicker) is perfectly possible, there would be very few situations in which it would be desirable - the only one being a rapidly advancing enemy charging directly on the archers, who have no other means of defence or escape; and even then I would think that aimed and considered shots would be more useful than just volume of shots, especially at longer ranges.

This is sort of the crux of it, I think.  If we focus on archers against infantry or cavalry coming straight at them, we're looking at a tactically undesireable position to start with.  Archers aren't there to go head to head with heavy infantry or cavalry.   They have a set of support roles to the men-at-arms.  One of these was to neutralise enemy shooters.  Another was to disrupt cavalry as they form up and advance.  They also often stood to the flank of the men at arms, breaking up attacks to give their men-at-arms an advantage.  This last, incidentally, is where I agree with Mike Loades et al and their flat short range shooting.  I just don't think he looks carefully enough at how much they are doing the other stuff at longer ranges against "softer" targets.

[RichT]

Concerning shooting speed, I came across this guy.

Very impressive skills (though it looks like a very light bow). There seems to be almost no lower limit to the possible rate of shooting, but as usual with such tricks, the military application is less obvious.

[Erpingham]

Concerning shooting speed, I came across this guy.

Lars Andersen is a famous trick shooter.  I believe Justin is a fan.  His use of short, low draw weight bows and light target arrows does limit his relevance to longbows but some see what he says having something to say about horse archers.  I leave that debate to those who know of these things