3

I've seen some discussions about the command of "fire" before gunpowder was invented. That may be "shoot", "loose", "throw" etc. But what was the command of "fire at will"? Are there any clues?

Update: "Fire at will" is a tactic which has long existed in history. After the invention of gunpowder, we call it "fire at will". Before gunpowder, what did we call this tactic? Was there a common used phrase or not?

Hellion
  • 59,365
Lord_WayneY
  • 51
  • 5
    I've always wondered who this poor guy Will is. Apparently he's imprisoned now, since I often see people taking up an offering to free him. – Hot Licks Feb 16 '15 at 13:24
  • @oerkelens I don't think it is duplicated. That question discussed about "Fire" but not "Fire at will". – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 13:30
  • 1
    For the story behind Fire At Will: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/21/messages/999.html –  Feb 16 '15 at 13:32
  • 2
    I fail to see why fire is so different fro fire at will. The at will part is independent from the existence of gunpowder. Would you really consider similar questions about fire when you see the whites of their eyes, hold your fire, fire at my command, etc as different questions? All of them share the point that fire in a pre-gunpowder times was probably not used, but why would the rest of the sentence be gunpowder-dependent? – oerkelens Feb 16 '15 at 13:34
  • @oerkelens Phrases are time-dependent. Throwing a grenade and we shout "fire in hole!" but not "I've throwed a grenade!", because that is a phrase. Do you think it could be easily replaced the word "fire" with anything others like "shoot" then become "shoot at will"? Why it was not "shoot freely"? What I am asking is wether there existed such a commonly used phase in history equivalent to "fire at will". – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 13:59
  • @Hot Licks If you're brave enough to fire at will, yo'd better make sure your first shot is a telling one. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 16 '15 at 14:10
  • The verb fire is "time-dependent", sure. What makes you think that at will is (1) time dependent and (2) linked to gunpowder? – oerkelens Feb 16 '15 at 14:16
  • Isn't firing in volleys the opposite of firing at will? According to the OED, the word volley was not introduced until the late 16th century, when artillery and firearms were already in use. – Peter Shor Feb 16 '15 at 14:31
  • @HotLicks Me too! Not sure who's worse off though, Will or Bill Posters ... – Araucaria - Him Feb 16 '15 at 14:37
  • @oerkelens Do you have any refrence that they used "at will" after the verb but not other sayings? Yes, "at will" is not time-dependent, but it does not mean a verb followed with "at will" is a historical use. – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 14:55
  • at will in freedictionary, cambridge and collins. Note the examples that Collins gives: switch off at will, call up at will, come and go at will. Absolutely nothing to suspect the idiom at will has anything to do with gunpowder. – oerkelens Feb 16 '15 at 15:04
  • @oerkelens Why are you always trying to split a phrase into separate parts? What I mean of "historical use" is the historical use to describe such a tatic as "fire at will" before gunpowder time. I am not arguing if it is acceptable to say "shoot at will" in film or not. Was "shoot/loose/throw/... at will" really used as a commonly used command for that tatic in history? – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 15:31
  • 1
    Is you question about fire? Then it is a duplicate. Is your question about at will? Then it has nothing to do with gunpowder. Is your question about that random combination of fire and at will, then I don't understand why that combination was chosen and maybe you should provide some more detail. verb at will is a normal idiom, and if you are interested in the history of it, that might constitute a valid question. However, I do not see any relevance to gunpowder. If you do see a link between the idiom at will and gunpowder, please add that information to your question. – oerkelens Feb 16 '15 at 15:48
  • My question is about "fire at will", not "fire", not "at will", and not random combination, OK? "Fire at will" is a tatic which exists long in history. And after gunpowder time we call this tatic as "fire at will". My question is before gunpowder time what phrase we used to call this tatic or there was no common used phrase. – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 16:24
  • @Lord_WayneY: the tactic "fire at will" can be described quite easily with one sentence. How do you know that there was a short, fixed phrase for this concept before "fire at will" was introduced? Why would it have been needed? There aren't short fixed phrases for all currently used military tactics. – Peter Shor Feb 16 '15 at 17:32
  • @PeterShor Actually I do not know if there are any. It maybe vary, maybe have a fixed one in a region. And that is just what the question asks... – Lord_WayneY Feb 16 '15 at 17:41
  • So, flaming arrows couldn't be fire at will? Attack when ready? "At will" is a long-known phrase. – SrJoven Feb 16 '15 at 19:25

0 Answers0