power or speed of shooting?

[poplar600]

was the warbow made for speed shooting, or just raw power with fewer shots?

if you were a battlefield commander, would you rather have your archers shooting lots of arrows from lighter bows, or less arrows from heavier bows?

say 10 arrows per minute from a 90lber vs 4 arrows per minute from a 120lber.

[mikekeswick]

Neither - lots of heavy arrows from heavy bows

[loon]

They can get pretty fast when they get really heavy... I think, lighter arrows for long distance, very heavy arrows once the enemy is closer???

[Del the cat]

I think there is a lot of BS spoken about rate of shooting.
Yes if you can only just shoot a 130# bow your rate will slow, but if you went down by just 10# it would be like shelling peas. Add in the fact that these guys did it for their living... literally. I don't think there was a problem.
I would imagine they'd all know what they could manage in terms of draw weight... yeah I'd imagine they'd have the 'who could pull the heaviest', shoot the furthest and fastest contests same as any group would.
They'd shoot the arrows they were given, maybe a few archers would have some light ones to antagonise the enemy at range...dunno if they'd get to select a bow...
I s'pose that sums it up, we don't know... but they sure as heck did.
Once the distance closed to say 100 yards, I don't s'pose you'd get off too many shots before it got real nasty anyway.
If I could go back in time, I'd love to see the first arrow storm go up, but I wouldn't want to hang around for very long or see the results of it!
Del

[stuckinthemud]

100 yards and I reckon it'd be time to let the infantry do their thing while praying hard that your heavy horses will arrive in time! No armour, no shield and a light sword?  Just stay the heck outa the way..........unless the French are up to their thighs in mud that is

[jaxenro]

I often think we discount the effects of adrenaline when discussing this. How your body responds is different when there are 2,000 armed men charging at you to kill you then when your standing in the field chatting with friends.

[Pat B]

My ideas of war bows is they were the artillery of their times, long range weapons that shot heavy arrows...in mass. They would hit the enemy before the enemy were close enough to be effective.  When dealing with armor and chain mail (sp) light bows and arrows would probably not be as effective.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

What Pat B said. Folks who haven't seen real warbow arrows up close are quite shocked when they do. The best comment I heard was "That's no arrow, that's a broom handle with feathers!". These bows and arrows are not something you would go hunting with, these were serious weapons of war. Power, speed, not a trade off in this case, speed was regulated as they generally fired in volleys, though not at a slow pace by any means, and power, well no one on the receiving end of these miniature (and I use the term loosely) spears is going to argue power...

[Wyrda]

Power was of primary importance. 5 powerful shots are better than 20 that will just bounce of any armour. Clearly, warbows prioritise power first and foremost. That's why I place little stock in the people who claim there is practical application to shooting an arrow every two seconds from a half-drawn 30# bow, and that theirs is the "correct" or "historical" way of shooting as contrasted to modern target archery. Warbows are not easy things to shoot, and you are limited by your muscles just as much as your dexterity. Mark Stretton thinks that 7-9 seconds is a realistic estimate of how fast one can shoot a warbow accurately. However I think it might be the case that he hasn't trained to shoot fast like a Medeival archer might have, and 5-6 seconds would have been the standard.

[Marc St Louis]

Neither - lots of heavy arrows from heavy bows

Or both 

[willie]

not to hijack from power vs. speed to......... aimed vs volley shooting, but they are related some.

the archers of old shot lots of arrows to be sure, but probably not as much "ammo"was wasted, as in more recent times.

[Lucasade]

The whole point of projectile weapons is to avoid (or at least extend the time until) hand to hand fighting. So when you have an army coming at you a moderate distance away accuracy is not so important, as if you miss one man you will hit the one next to him. Even if you dont actually kill him the force of impact will slow him down a bit, affect his concentration or even better bring his horse down so he has to walk. All of which gives you a bit more time.

Once they are within short range you need to be more accurate as you need to hit that man who will be on top of you if you dont bring him down, which I suspect is where their extensive training in loosing off many arrrows quickly comes in.

[Hawkdancer]

Sort of have to remember that when the enemy is in range, so are you!  There would have been an arrow storm "incoming" as well .  The archers likely used the "relay" or "rank" method of keeping the volleys flying, but I'm not certain.  Haven't researched it enough.
Hawkdancer

[WillS]

There would have been an arrow storm "incoming" as well
Hawkdancer

Ummmmm...nope.

If the opposition were able to shoot heavy military arrows the same distance as the English, the hundred years war would have been very, very different.