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?

  • 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: phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/21/messages/999.html – user66974 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
  • 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