of the simplest plaything of a child, all the gorgeous display of
knighthood, the elaborated panoply of steel, the magnificent war-horse,
the serried ranks, the ingenious devices of tacticians and strategists,
at once gave way; nothing can withstand the biting storm of the
“cloth-yard shaft.” It was equally efficacious in the field and in the
siege. The defender of town or castle could not peep beyond his bretèche
or parapet, but an English arrow nailed his cap to his head. In a field,
provided the archers were, by marsh, wood or mountain, secured from a
flank attack, they would bid defiance to any number of mounted
men-at-arms. Their shafts, falling thick as hail among the horses, soon
brought them to the ground, or threw them into utter disorder; then the
armed footmen advanced and commenced a slaughter which was scarcely
stayed but by weariness of slaying; the archers meantime continuing
their ravages on the rear of the enemy’s cavalry by a vertical attack,
prolonged, when the ordinary supply of their quivers had been exhausted,
by withdrawing them arrows from their slain enemies, to be sent forth on
new missions of death:--here is encouragement for our modern marksmen
who are armed with a far more deadly weapon.
~Opinion on English archers by Napoleon III.~
~Destroyed the prestige of cavalry.~
~Estimation of infantry by continental nations.~
The most complete and philosophic digest, which relates to the system of
British archery, considered from a military point of view, is that given
by the present Emperor of the French in his treatise “_Sur le Passé et
l’Avenir de l’Artillerie_.” That the British victory at Cressy was
wholly attributable to the prowess of British archers, is well known;
not so well, a circumstance pointed out by the Emperor of the French,
that thenceforward, and in consequence of that victory, the prestige of
cavalry declined. Now, there is a political, no less than military
significance in this lowering of the esteem in which cavalry had
previously been held. Horsemen were gentlemen, and infantry men of
inferior degree. Whenever and wherever British archery were _not_
brought to bear, horsemen were omnipotent, and infantry of little avail.
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries--the golden age of archery
in this land, when yeomen or archers were in such high repute,--France
and continental nations generally, treated foot soldiers with disdain.
The Emperor of the French, in his systematic book just adverted to,
mentions several examples where foot soldiers were ruthlessly cut down
and ridden over by their own cavalry--the men-at-arms; not that the
infantry fought ill, but that they fought too well. They were
slaughtered lest the men-at-arms should have no scope for the exercise
of their skill.
~Archer a yeoman.~
~Political results.~
English men-at-arms never sullied their fame by cruel acts like these;
not that they were better at heart: seeing that human nature is
everywhere, and under all circumstances, pretty much alike. English
infantry, mainly composed of archers, were far too valuable to be thus
used. They bore the first brunt of battle, and not unfrequently decided
it. At the time when every other foot soldier in Europe was the merest
serf, the British archer was a yeoman. He had a fixed heraldic rank; the
first of low degree. He was above the handicraftsman, however
skilful,--above the merchant--taking his rank immediately after the
gentry. The excellence of British archery, then tended to bring about a
political result; helping to establish that middle-class which, ever
since its consolidation, has been one of the sheet-anchors of our
glorious constitution.
THE ARBALEST, OR CROSS-BOW.
~Cross-bow, modification of long.~
In process of time a modification of the bow was invented. In place of
the original instrument, a much shorter and stiffer bow, usually of
steel, was placed transversely in a stock, bent by a lever, and
discharged by a trigger, after the manner since used for a gun.
~Invented in Crete or Sicily.~
The cross-bow, or arbalest, called in Latin, arcus balistarius, or
balista manualis, and in French arbalèt, is said by some to be of
Sicilian origin; others ascribe its invention to the Cretans. It is
supposed to have been introduced into France by the first crusaders, and
is mentioned by the Abbé Suger in his life of Louis le Gros, as being
used by that Prince, in the beginning of his reign, which commenced in
the year 1108.
~To England by Saxons.~
Verstigan seems to attribute the introduction of this weapon into
England to the Saxons, under Hengist and Horsa, but cites no authority
in support of that supposition. In a print representing the landing of
those generals, the foremost of them is delineated with a cross-bow on
his shoulder, and others are seen in the hands of the distant figures of
their followers, landed and landing from their ships.
~The Normans got cross-bows from Italy.~
It would appear that the Normans derived the cross-bow, with its name,
from Italy. In Domesday Book mention is made of Odo, the arbalester, as
a tenant in capite of the king of lands in Yorkshire; and the manor of
Worstead, Norfolk, was at the time of Domesday survey, held of the
Abbot of St. Benet at Holme, by Robert the cross-bow man. The names show
them to have been Normans, and these instances are sufficient to prove
the introduction of the weapon, though the few that may have been used
at the battle of Hastings might occasion its not being represented in
the Bayeux tapestry.
~No cross-bow among Romans.~
The absence of the cross-bow in early Roman monuments leaves it a matter
of doubt, whether an arbalester would not simply mean the engineer of a
catapult. There is no mention made of the hand cross-bow in very ancient
authorities.
~William II surnamed Rufus, from 1087 to 1100~
The cross-bow has been used in England (at least, on hunting excursions)
in the time of Rufus, for Wace tells us, that “Prince Henry, going the
same day to New Forest, found the string of his cross-bow broken, and
taking it to a villain to be mended, saw an old woman there, who told
him he should be king.”
~Henry I, 1100 to 1135.~
~Cross-bow in war.~
During the reign of Henry I. the cross-bow seems to have been
principally used in the chase. The projectile was in form of a short
arrow, with a pyramidical head, called a quarrel, (plate 14, fig. 2 and
4). Simeon of Durham speaks of it in the time of Henry I. thus:--“He
raised a machine from whence the archers and cross-bowmen might shoot.”
~Genoese celebrated for the use of.~
The Genoese were at all times most celebrated for the skilful management
of the cross-bow. The success which attended the Christians at the siege
of Jerusalem, 1100, is attributed principally to the mechanical talents
of this people.
~Use of forbad.~
The use of the cross-bows was general in Italy in 1139, for at that time
Pope Innocent II. particularly forbad them. The German Emperor Conrad
did the same, as we learn from William de Dole, who lived in the latter
part of the 12th century, they not being looked upon as a fair weapon.
~Richard I from 1189 to 1199.~
~Siege of Acre~
~Universal in Crusades.~
~Richard killed by.~
It is said of Richard I.:--“Truly he revived the use of this kind of
shooting, called cross-bow shooting, which had long since been laid
aside, whence he became so skilful in its management, that he killed
many people with his own hand.” It is supposed that Richard I. first
used the cross-bow as a weapon of war at the siege of Acre. In every
action, however, of which we read in the history of the second crusade,
as well as the third, in which Richard participated, cross-bows, as well
as other bows, are repeatedly noticed. It is stated that he was killed
by an arrow, said to have been shot from a cross-bow at the Castle of
Chaluz.
~Genoese cross-bow men.~
~Mounted Arbalists 1225.~
From the beginning of the 13th, and until the middle of the 15th
century, cross-bow men are uniformly mentioned as part of the Genoese
troops. From Justinius we learn, that in 1225 “Twenty Arbalestes
mounted, and one hundred on foot, with cross-bows of horn, were then
employed in the army of the state.”
The cross-bow man was an essential component of the host during all this
period. He was in the van of the battle.
~Battle near Damietta 1237.~
In the battle near Damietta, in 1237, “more than a hundred knights of
the Temple fell, and three hundred cross-bow men, &c., &c.”
~Campaign in Italy 1239.~
The Emperor Frederic, in 1239, giving an account of his Italian campaign
to the king of England, writes: “After we had, by our knights and
cross-bow men, reduced all the province of Liguria,” &c.
~Genoese 1245.~
~Treatment of.~
Five hundred Genoese cross-bow men were sent against the Milanese in
1245, and these unfortunate men being placed in front of the line, were
taken prisoners by the enemy, who, to revenge themselves for the havoc
done by their bows, cruelly punished each with the loss of an eye, and
amputation of an arm.
~Cross-bows at Cressy 1346.~
There were 15,000 Genoese cross-bow men in the front rank of the French
army at the battle of Cressy, 1346.
~At siege of Le Roche de Rién.~
The next year we find that Charles, Earl of Blois, had at the siege of
Le Roche de Rién no less than 2,000 in his army.
~Corporation of Arbalisters 1359.~
The “Corporation des Arbalestriers de Paris,” in 1359, consisted of two
hundred members. In 1373, their number, as fixed by a royal ordinance,
was eight hundred. They were not bound to serve beyond the limits of
their district without the consent of the Provost of Paris. There were
both foot and mounted cross-bowmen in this body.
~Cross-bow encouraged by Edward III.~
~No English in wars of Edward III.~
~Genoese mercenaries.~
Edward III., though he wished principally to encourage the long-bow,
could not help seeing the advantages which might be derived from the
cross-bow, from the accuracy of its shot, and its convenience on
horseback. It does not appear that, in the long wars of Edward with the
French in this century, cross-bowmen were raised in England, though they
were supplied by Genoese contractors on various occasions for service at
sea. In 1363 the king caused public proclamation to be made, in order to
encourage its use.
~Matches.~
There were also matches made in different parts of Europe, at which
prizes were given to the most skilful cross-bowmen.
~Mounted cross-bow men in France 1373.~
In the list of the Grand Masters of the Arbalesters of France under
Charles V., in 1373, appears “Marc de Grimant, Baron d’Antibes,
Captain-General of Arbalesters, both foot and horse, in the service of
the king.” And a similar notice occurs in the reign of King John,
Baudoin de Lence being Grand Master; but it would appear that the
mounted cross-bowmen were retained in much smaller numbers than the
foot.
~“Pavisers.”~
During the reign of Edward III. cross-bowmen seem first to have been
protected by “Pavisers,” (plate 15), or men who held before them a large
shield called a “Pavise.”
~Pavisers by English 1404.~
On the attack by the French and Spaniards upon the Isle of Portland in
1404, the English formed pavisers to protect themselves from the
cross-bow bolts, by taking the doors from their houses, and fixing them
upright by props. Under this cover the archers plied their arrows.
~Cross-bow not esteemed by English.~
~Forbad by Henry VII 1508 & 1515.~
~Forbad by Henry VIII 1535.~
~Decline of cross-bow.~
The English never had much esteem for the cross-bow in the field. Among
the 10,500 men led out of England by Henry VI., in 1415, there were only
ninety-eight Arbalesters, of whom eighteen were horsemen; nevertheless,
Henry VII. found it necessary to prohibit the use of the cross-bow in
1508, and, seven years after, another statute was passed, renewing the
prohibition. This interference, however, of the legislature does not
seem to have produced the intended effect, for in less than twenty years
later the use of the cross-bow had become so prevalent, that a new
statute was judged requisite, which inflicted on every person that kept
one in his house, the penalty of twenty pounds. It is from this period,
therefore, that we may date the decline of the arbalest in this
country, as these statutes produced by degrees the reformation sought
for. Not a single cross-bow man is to be seen in the paintings belonging
to the Society of Antiquaries, nor at Cowdray House, representing the
battles of Henry VIII., and painted at the period; and, to give a
finishing blow, another statute soon followed, still more decisive.
DESCRIPTION OF CROSS-BOW.
~Description.~
The ancient cross-bow, which differed in many particulars from those of
late times, is thus described by Father Daniel, who formed his
description from one or more then before him.
The cross-bow was an offensive weapon, which consisted of a bow fixed to
the top of a sort of staff, or stock of wood, which the string of the
bow, when unbent, crossed at right angles.
~Stock.~
~Trigger.~
The handle or bed, which was called the stock of the cross-bow, had
towards the middle a small opening or slit, of the length of two
fingers, in which was a little moveable wheel of solid steel; through
the centre of it passed a screw that served for an axis; this wheel
projected a little beyond the surface of the stock, and had a notch, or
catch, which stopped and held the string of the bow when bent. In the
opposite side of the circumference was a much smaller notch, by the
means of which the spring of the trigger kept the wheel firmer, and in
its place; this wheel is called the nut of the cross-bow. Under the
stock, near the handle, was the key of the trigger, like that of the
serpentine of a musket; by pressing this key with the hand, to the
handle of the cross-bow, the spring released the wheel that held the
string, and the string by its motion drove forward the dart.
~Back-sight.~
~Fore-sight.~
Upon the stock below the little wheel was a small plate of copper, which
lifted up and shut down, and was fixed by its two legs, with two screws
to the two sides of the stock; this was a back-sight; it was pierced
above by two little holes, one over the other, and when the plate was
raised, these two holes answered to a globule, which was a small bead,
no bigger than that of a chaplet, that was suspended at the end of the
cross-bow by a fine wire, and fastened to two perpendicular columns of
iron, one on the right, the other on the left, and this little globule,
answering to the holes in the plate, served to direct the aim, whether
for shooting horizontally, upwards, or downwards.
~Cord.~
The cord or string of the bow was double, each string separated by two
little cylinders of iron, equi-distant from the extremities of the bow
and the centre; to these two strings in the middle was fixed a ring of
cord, which served to confine it in the notch previously mentioned when
the bow was bent. Between the two cords in the centre of the string, and
immediately before the ring, was a little square of cord, against which
was placed the extremity of the arrow or dart, to be pushed forward by
the cord.
~Bent by hand.~
~By foot~
~By pulley.~
The smaller cross-bows were bent with the hand; the larger ones were at
first bent by the soldier placing his foot in a stirrup, attached to the
end of the bow; a cord was then fixed by one end to the butt of the
stock, the other end being fastened to a waistbelt. A pulley, running
upon the cord, was hooked to the bowstring, and the bow was then bent by
raising the body and keeping the leg firm.
~By moulinet.~
The cross-bow was afterwards furnished with the moulinet and pulleys,
(plate 13) which after the bow had been bent, could be removed for the
discharge; these consisted of an iron cylinder in a frame of the same
metal, made to turn by two moveable handles in opposite directions, and
having a cap likewise of iron to fit on the butt end of the stock. On
each side of this cap was a small pulley, the wheel of which was one
inch and a half in diameter, having attached to one of its arms a strong
cord that passed thence round an equal sized wheel, returned over the
first, and then went round one double in diameter, situated beyond the
second, and so passed to the cylinder of the moulinet, by winding which,
the power required to bend the bow was lessened to one fourth. Attached
to the arms of the greater wheels was a double claw, made to slide on
the plane of the stock, which, catching hold of the bowstring, drew it
up to the nut. An improvement of the moulinet was, that the handles of
the cylinder were both made in the same line, instead of being one up
and the other down.
~By windlass.~
At a later period the cross-bow was bent by a windlass, which consisted
of a bar of iron, shaped at its end into a claw, and having teeth the
whole length of one edge. This slipped through an iron box, containing a
wheel, the cogs of which fitted the teeth of the bar, and as a handle
was fixed to the axle, on turning it the string was wound up. This
apparatus was attached by a loop, which slipped over the stock, and was
kept in its place by two iron pins, that projected from the side, and
then, when bent, it could be easily removed.
~By steel lever.~
Another mode of bending the cross-bow was by means of a steel lever,
called the goat’s-foot lever, which was moveable. This was formed of two
legs, a catch and a handle, all acting on one pivot. The legs were
applied to the projecting pieces of iron on each side the stock, and
then the purchase was very great.
~Latch.~
~Prodd.~
There were two principal varieties of cross-bows, viz., the “Latch,”
with grooved stock, for “quarrels,” and the “Prodd,” for bullets. (Plate
14, fig. 1 and 2.)
~Dimensions and form of latch.~
~Quarrels viretons.~
In the reign of Henry VI. the stocks of cross-bows were made of hard
wood, ornamented with ivory. They were about three feet three inches
long, the bow of steel, about two feet eight inches from end to end,
weighing in all about fifteen pounds. The length of the groove for the
quarrel about one foot four inches. The arrows discharged were called
both quarrels and viretons, (plate 14, fig. 2 and 4,) some with
feathers, others without. The vireton is a French name; the feathers
being set on a little curved, made it spin round as it passed through
the air.
~Arquebus or barrelled cross-bow.~
~Slit in tube.~
~Fired leaden balls.~
It is stated by Captain Panôt, that the Arquebus was in use before the
invention of powder, and was but an improvement on the arbalest, or
cross-bow. The Arquebus, like the cross-bow, had a stock, upon which was
fixed a tube, intended to receive the projectile. This tube was split,
for the passage of a cord, which was held back by a kind of sheave or
pulley, which communicated motion to the projectile, on the trigger
being pulled. In general, leaden balls were fired from the arquebus. The
barrelled cross-bow was suggested by the “balista grossa de arganellis,”
which was furnished with tubes for ejecting Greek fire.
~Repeating cross-bow.~
In the United Service Museum, Whitehall, there is a cross-bow of
Cingalese manufacture. It strings itself, and discharges two arrows each
time in rapid succession, until the magazine is exhausted, which
contains twelve arrows, and may be replenished in a moment.
~Range in Henry V.~
It is evident that the different sizes and various powers of cross-bows
occasioned a great diversity in the distance of their range. Thus, in
Henry 5th’s time the range of the cross-bow is stated to have been forty
rods (220 yards), and it never appears to have been more powerful than
at that period.
~Range in Elizabeth’s.~
M. de Bellay says that the cross-bowman will kill at 100 or 200 paces,
which gives a great range to the arbalests of Elizabeth’s time.
Sir John Smith, however, in his observations, not long after this, very
much contracts the distance of their shot, for he says that “a cross-bow
will kill point-blank between 40 and 60 yards, and, if elevated, 120,
140, or 160 yards, or further.”
The former probably alluded to the prod, the latter to the latch.
COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE LONG AND CROSS BOW.
How inefficient the cross-bow was found, when opposed by English
archery, appears in every page of the histories of the fourteenth
century.
~Why long-bow superior.~
The superiority of the long-bow mainly depended upon the strength and
skill of the archer, while a greater amount of accuracy at shorter
ranges could be had out of the cross-bow, with much less training; and
the success of the English archers when opposed to cross-bowmen may be
mainly ascribed to the more “rapid” fire of the former.
~Celerity the great advantage of the long-bow.~
It is generally conceded that the long-bow could deliver at least six
shafts while the cross-bow discharged one; and, “with such odds against
them, it became impossible for the bravest and most expert troops,
whether at Cressy or elsewhere, to make a stand against their opponents”.
~Cross-bow best on horseback.~
On the other hand, the cross-bow was decidedly a more convenient weapon
on horseback than the long-bow.
COMPARATIVE MERITS BETWEEN BOWS AND EARLY FIRE-ARMS.
The invention of gunpowder, and its application to artillery and small
arms, did not produce that sudden change in the art of war, or in
weapons, that might, on a first consideration, have been expected. Many
of the old soldiers were much divided in their opinion of the
superiority of fire-arms, nor does it appear that the government of
those days were decided upon it, as the strongest statutes for enforcing
the practice of archery were enacted after their introduction.
~Long-bow preferred in Edward III.~
Joshua Barnes, in his life of Edward III., observes, that “without all
question, the guns which are used now-a-days, are neither so terrible in
battle nor do such execution nor work such confusion as arrows can do;
for bullets, being not seen, only hurt where they hit, but arrows
enrage the horse, and break the array, and terrify all that behold them
in the bodies of their neighbours. Not to say that every archer can
shoot thrice to a gunner’s once, and that whole squadrons of bows may
let fly at one time, when only one or two files of musqueteers can
discharge at once. Also, that whereas guns are useless when your pikes
join, because they only do execution point-blank, the arrows which will
kill at random may do good service even behind your men of arms.”
~Long-bow the favourite in Henry VIII.~
Although fire-arms had attained no inconsiderable degree of perfection
in the reign of Henry VIII., yet the long-bow was still the favourite
weapon.
~Merits balanced in Queen Mary’s reign.~
So indifferent were the ministers of Queen Mary respecting them, that in
her ordinance respecting armour and weapons, the alternative is left to
the choice of the people, whether they should find a long-bow and sheaf
of arrows, or a haquebutt, in every case where they were by law charged
with the latter.
~The lighter ammunition of the harquebus an advantage.~
In the reign of Elizabeth, the musket was so slow to charge and
discharge that the bow was considered superior by many; and Mons. de
Bellay states that if archers and cross-bowmen could carry their arrows,
&c., as easy as harquebusiers do their ammunition, he would prefer the
former weapon over the latter.
~Arrows make more severe wounds than bullets.~