Chapter IV: Part 4

“For having a man’s eye alwaye on his marke, is the onlye waye to shoote straighte, yea, and I suppose so redye and easye a waye, if it be learned in youth and confirmed with use, that a man shall never misse therein. Men doubt yet in loking at the marke what way is best, whether betwixt the bow and the stringe, above or beneath his hande, and manye wayes moo. Yet it maketh no greate matter which waye a man loke at his marke, if it be joined with comlye shooting. The diversitye of mens standing and drawing causeth divers men loke at their marke divers wayes; yet they all had a mans hand to shoote straighte if nothinge els stoppe. So that cumlynesse is the onlye judge of best lokinge at the marke. Some men wonder whye in castinge a man’s eye at the mark, the hande should go streight. Surely if he considered the nature of a man’s eye, hee woulde not wonder at it. For this I am certaine of, that no servaunt to his maister, no child to his father, is so obedient as everye joynte and peece of the bodye is to do whatsoever the eye biddes. The eye is the guide, the ruler, and the succourer of all the other parts. The hande, the foote, and other members dare do nothinge withoute the eye, as doth appear on the night and darcke corners. The eye is the very tongue wherewith witte and reason doth speake to everye parte of the bodye, and the witte doth not so soone signifye a thinge by the eye, as every part is redye to followe, or rather prevent the bidding of the eye. This is plaine in manye thinges, but most evident in fence and feighting, as I have heard men saye. There every parte standing in feare to have a blowe, runnes to the eye for help, as younge children do to the mother; the foote, the hande, and all wayteth upon the eye. If the eye bid the hand eyther beare of or smite, or the foote eyther go forward or backeward, it doth so. And that which is most wonder of al, the one man lokinge stedfastlye at the other mans eye and not at his hand, wil, even as it were, rede in his eye wher he purposeth to smyte next, for the eye is nothing els but a certain windowe for wit to shoote out her heade at. This wonderfull worke of God in making all the members so obedient to the eye, is a pleasant thing to remember and loke upon: therefore an archer may be sure in learninge to loke at his marke when hee is younge alwayes to shoote streight.”

The following description of the English archer is from an ancient treatise on Martial Discipline:--

~Archer to wear easy dress.~

~Captains to see that bows &c., were in good order.~

~Twenty-four arrows to each man.~

“The yeoman hadde, at those dayes, their lymmes at libertye, for their hoseyn were then fastened with one point, and their jackes were long, and easy to shote in, so that they mighte draw bowes of great strength, and shote arrowes of a yarde long. Captens and officers should be skilful of that most noble weapon, and to see that their soldiers according to their draught and strength have good bows, well nocked, well strynged, everie stringe whippe in their nocke, and in the myddes rubbed with wax, braser and shuting glove, some spare strings trymed as aforesaid, everie man one shefe of arrows, with a case of leather defensible against the rayne, and in the same shefe fower and twentie arrows, whereof eight of them should be lighter than the residue, to gall and astoyne the enemy with the hailshot of light arrows, before they shall come within range of their harquebuss shot.”

~Encouraged from the pulpit.~

The subject of archery was not deemed, in those days, an unsuitable theme for the pulpit, as may be seen by the following extract from one of the seven sermons (the sixth) preached before Edward VI., within the preaching place in the palace of Westminster, on the 12th of April, 1549, by that patriotic reformer, Bishop Latimer. With honest, plain spoken words, in the midst of his discourse he breaks off--

~Training of Bishop Latimer.~

“Men of England, in times past, when they would exercise themselves, (for we must needs have some recreation, our bodies can not endure without some exercise), they were wont to goe abroad in the fieldes a shooting; but now it is turned into glossing, gulling, and whooring within the house. The arte of shooting hath bene in times past much esteemed in this realme, it is a gift of God that He hath geven us to excell all other nations withall, it hath been God’s instrument whereby He hath geven us many victories against our enemies. But now we have taken up whooring in townes, instead of shooting in the fieldes. A wonderous thing that so excellent a gift of God should be so little esteemed. I desire you, my Lordes, even as ye love the honour and glory of God, and entend to remove his indignation, let there be sent forth some proclamation, some sharpe proclamation to the justices of peace, for they doe not thier dutie, justices now be no justices, there be many good actes made for this matter already. Charge them upon their allegiance that this singular benefite of God may be practised, and that it be not turned into bolling, glossing, and whooring within the townes: for they be negligent in executing these laws of shooting. In my time my poore father was as diligent to teach me to shoote as to learne me any other thing, and so I think other men did their children. He taught me how to draw, how to lay my body in my bow, and not to draw with strength of armes as other nations doe, but with strength of the body. I had my bowes bought me according to my age and strength, as I encreased in them, so my bowes were made bigger and bigger: for men shall never shoot well except they be brought up in it. It is a goodly arte, a wholesome kinde of exercise, and much commended in phisicke.”

The following is another extract from the same sermon:--

~How estimated by the people.~

“I came once myself to a place, riding on a journey homeward from London, and I sent word over night into the towne that I would preach there in the morning, because it was a holiday, and methought it was an holidayes work. The church stood in my way, and I took my horse and my company, and went thither, (I thought I should have found a great company in the church,) and when I came there, the church door was fast locked. I tarryed there halfe an houre and more, at last the key was found, and one of the parish comes to me and said: ‘Sir, this is a busie day with us, we cannot heare you, it is Robin Hood’s day. The parish are gone abroad to gather for Robin Hood. I pray you let them not.’ I thought my rochet should have been regarded, though I were not: but it would not serve, it was faine to give place to Robin Hood’s men.”

PROOFS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCHERY.

~By names of places.~

There is little at the present day in England to afford any adequate idea of the high importance, the great skill, and the distinguished renown of the English archers. Some few places still retain names which tell where the bowmen used to assemble for practice, as “Shooter’s Hill,” in Kent; “Newington Butts,” near London; and “St. Augustine’s Butts,” near Bristol. The Butts will be found applied to spots of land in the vicinity of schools, as for instance, the College School of Warwick.

The fields situated to the east of the playing-fields at Eton, and known by the name of “The Upper and Lower Shooting-fields,” were probably so named from the ancient exercise of archery on these grounds.

~Armorial Bearings.~

Many of the noble and county families of Great Britain and Ireland have the symbols of archery charged on their escutcheons; as, for instance, the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Grey de Wilton, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Besborough, the Earl of Portarlington, the Baronetal family of Hales, Sir Martin Bowes, and also on the arms of Sydney Sussex College, in Cambridge, and the seal of the Sheffield Grammar School.

~Government brand.~

The mark or brand used by the Government of the present day, to identify public property, is an arrow-head, commonly called “The King’s broad arrow.”

~Surnames of families.~

There are also existing families which have derived their surnames from the names of the different crafts formerly engaged in the manufacture of the bow and its accompaniments; as, for instance, the names of Bowyer, Fletcher, Stringer, Arrowsmith, Arrow, Bowman, Bowwater, &c.

~National proverbs.~

If reference be made to our language, there will be found many phrases and proverbial expressions drawn from or connected with archery; some suggesting forethought and caution, as “Always have two strings to your bow;” “Get the shaft-hand of your adversaries;” “Draw not thy bow before thy arrow be fixed;” “Kill two birds with one shaft.” To make an enemy’s machination recoil upon himself, they expressed by saying, “To outshoot a man in his own bow.” In reference to a vague foolish guess, they used to say, “He shoots wide of the mark;” and of unprofitable silly conversation, “A fool’s bolt is soon shot;” and as a proof of exaggeration, “He draws a long bow.” The unready and unskilful archer did not escape the censure and warning of his fellows, although he might be a great man and boast that he had “A famous bow, but it was up at the castle.” Of such they satirically used to remark, that “Many talked of Robin Hood, who never shot in his bow.” Our ancestors also expressed liberality of sentiment, and their opinion that merit belonged exclusively to no particular class or locality, by the following pithy expressions, “Many a good bow besides one in Chester,” and “An archer is known by his aim, and not by his arrows.” To these may be added, “Testimony is like the shot of a long-bow, which owes its efficacy to the force of the shooter; argument is like the shot of a cross-bow, equally forcible, whether discharged by a dwarf or a giant.”

MILITARY AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SKILL IN THE USE OF THE BOW.

~Commenced at the battle of Hastings.~

~Achievement lasted through a period of 500 years.~

~England had a voluntary army.~

From the time of the battle of Hastings the English archers began to rise in repute, and in course of time proved themselves, by their achievements in war, both the admiration and terror of their foes, and excelled the exploits of other nations. The great achievements of the English bowmen which shed lustre upon the annals of the nation, extended over a period of more than five centuries, many years after the invention and use of fire-arms. England, therefore, in those times, possessed a national voluntary militia, of no charge to the Government, ready for the field on a short notice, and well skilled in the use of weapons. Hence sprung the large bodies of efficient troops which at different periods of English history, in an incredibly short time, were found ready for the service of their country. These men were not a rude, undisciplined rabble, but were trained, disciplined men, every one sufficiently master of his weapon to riddle a steel corslet at five or six score paces, or in a body, to act with terrible effect against masses of cavalry; while most of them could bring down a falcon on the wing by a bird-bolt, or with a broad arrow transfix the wild deer in the chase.

~Archers defeated men-at-arms.~

~Value in sieges.~

Before the simple weapon of the British archer, itself but a larger form 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.~

The effects of arrows sticking in horses, are said to have been frightful. This can be easily imagined. A fire-arm bullet can be shot quite through a horse without causing the animal to show one sign of anguish. He goes steadily on his previous course, and makes no sign. However fatal of necessity, a fire-arm bullet gives no immediate pain. Not so the arrow. Planted never so lightly in a horse’s neck or flank, the animal grew furious. Starting off into a wild gallop to escape the barbed sting, the animal had no respite for his agony. The wilder the pace, the greater the pain. Far from the serried squadrons where he fain would be, sore against his will, rushed the mail-clad knight. Plunging and rearing, the steed would throw him at last, amidst the dead and dying; himself to die.

Though comparatively few men or horses were killed by arrow wounds at once, few, nevertheless, recovered. The barbed arrow-head was immeasurably more dangerous, imbedded in the flesh, than a mere lump of lead. Hundreds of men, hale and well to-day, have had fire-arm bullets imbedded in their flesh for years. Not so in the time of archery. The arrow-head must be extracted, or mortification came on, and soon a cruel death. Neither was the surgical process of extraction often happy in the results. It would not be easy to extract a barbed arrow-head even now, with all the appliances of modern surgery at hand.

~Arrow wounds more fatal.~

Another fatal consequence of arrow wounds on the field of battle was this: men wounded thus were rarely taken prisoners. Arrows were expensive ammunition. The battle over, detachments were sent out to collect them; and the collection was not done too tenderly. To regain an arrow seemed a far more meritorious act than to save the life of an enemy. The throat of many a wounded wretch was mercilessly cut, that he might be quiet whilst the arrow was being extracted.

~Bows useless in wind.~

~In rain.~

The defects of archery were these:--the ammunition was expensive, and when lost, not easily replaced. The flight of arrows is never correct on a windy day, from whatever direction the wind may blow. Rain relaxes the bow and bowstring, so that archery then is of little use. All these are serious defects; but there was another of more importance still. When the archer’s ammunition was all expended, he was nearly powerless. A sword, indeed, he carried, for close fighting; and each archer stuck into the ground before him a sharp pointed stake as a protection against cavalry.

~Hand-gun most penetration.~

~Silent discharge in favor of bows.~

The great advantage of the hand-gun was from its penetration, as no armour could keep out balls, but the _silent_ discharge of the cross-bow rendered it superior in the pursuit of timid animals, and the prodd has continued in use to the present day, for the purpose of killing deer, rooks, and rabbits.

NOTE.--The articles on ancient Engines of War, and upon the Bow, are
principally taken from the following works, viz:--“Military
Antiquities,” by F. Grose, Esq.; “A Critical Inquiry into Ancient
Armour,” by Sir S. R. Meyrick; “Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe,”
by John Hewitt; “Projectile Weapons of War,” and “Report of the Rifle
Match at Wimbledon Common,” by J. Scoffern, M. B.; “Engines of War,”
by H. Wilkinson, and “The Long-Bow of the Past and the Rifle for the
Future,” by H. Britannicus.

HISTORY OF ARTILLERY.

~Fate of nations depends on arms.~

There is no subject more intimately connected with the history of the world, from the remotest antiquity than the history of Arms, the fate of nations having always depended either on the superiority of the Arms employed, or on the superior discipline or dexterity of those who used them, wholly independent of the numbers by which they were opposed.

~Artillery includes all war-engines.~

Before the introduction of gunpowder, all kinds of weapons, both offensive and defensive, were included in the term “Artillery,” which has since become restricted to the larger kinds of fire-arms, such as guns, mortars, howitzers, rockets, &c. Thus we find in the I. Saml. xx., 40, “And Jonathan gave his artillery to his lad,” when speaking of bows and arrows. Again, in the 20th, Henry VIII., a patent was granted to Anthony Knevt and Peter Mentas, “to be overseers of the science of Artillery;” and in an enumeration of the different species of Artillery, printed in 1594, are reckoned “long-bows, cross-bows, slur-bows, stone-bows, scorpions, and catapultas.”

~Definition of Artillery.~

The root of the word “artillery,” is the Latin word “_ars_,” an “art.” It has been fantastically derived from the Italian _arte di tirare_, the art of firing. In the fourteenth century the science of war-engines was called _artemonie_, and its productions _artillerie_, from the old French word _artiller_, “to employ art.” Some writers state that the word “artillery,” is derived from _arcus_ “a bow,” the earlier species of artillery being termed _arcualia_.

~First invention unknown.~

~Names of gun--from old machines.~

It is difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy the epoch at which gunpowder and its resultants, fire-arms, were first employed for the purposes of war in any part of the world; and this difficulty is increased, at least, as far as regards Europe, from the fact, that the first engines of war, depending on the use of gunpowder, were named after the old machines for throwing darts, stones, &c.

~First mention of guns.~

The earliest account which we have of gunpowder, where it is mentioned as applied to fire-arms, exists in a code of Gentoo Laws, and is thought by many to be coeval with the time of Moses. The notice occurs in the Sanscrit preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, translated by Halhed, at page 53, viz:--“The Magistrate shall not make war with any deceitful machine, or with poisoned weapons, or with _cannon or guns_, &c.” Halhed observes: “It will no doubt strike the reader with wonder to find a prohibition of fire-arms in records of such unfathomable antiquity, and he will probably hence renew the suspicion, which has long been deemed absurd, that Alexander the Great did absolutely meet with some weapons of this kind in India, as a passage in Quintus Curtius seems to ascertain.”

~Greek fire, earliest European combustible.~

~Gunpowder known before in China.~

~Chinese explosive shell.~

~Early Chinese cannon.~

The Greek fire seems to have been one of the earliest attempts in Europe at the manufacture of a military combustible; but there is some reason to believe that the Chinese had become acquainted with the nature of gunpowder long before the introduction or invention of the aforenamed substance; and they appear to have been the first who took any steps in its manufacture, or in that of weapons of war resulting from its use. Amongst the machines constructed by this extraordinary people, was one called “the thunder of the earth,” which is thus described by M. Reinaud; and M. Favé: “A hollow globe of iron was filled with a bucket of gunpowder, mixed with fragments of metal, and was so arranged, that it exploded on the approach of an enemy, so as to cause great destruction in his ranks.” The “impetuous” dart of the Chinese, was a round bamboo, about two and a half feet in length, lashed with hempen cords to prevent its splitting, and having a strong wooden handle fixed to one end, thus making its entire length about five feet. This was then charged with powder of different kinds, arranged in layers, over which were placed fire balls, which being thrown to a distance of thirty or forty yards by the discharge, consumed any combustible materials they might come in contact with.

~Guns in China, 618 B. C.~

A late writer, M. Paravey, has in a great measure established the fact, that gunpowder and fire-arms were known to the Chinese long before the Christian era; and it is mentioned in Chinese writings, that in the year 618 B. C., a gun was in use, bearing this inscription, “I hurl death to the traitor, and extermination to the rebel.”

~A. D. 757.~

Guns are said to have been constructed in China, in 757 A. D., for the purpose of throwing stones of the weight of from ten to fourteen pounds to a distance of 300 paces. Whatever doubts may exist as to the earlier history of artillery among the Chinese, it is almost beyond question, that cannon were extensively used by them in the beginning of the 13th century, as we have access to various reliable accounts, establishing this fact.

~Artillery at Saragossa, A. D., 1118.~

~At Niebla, A. D., 1157.~

Condé, in his history of the Moors in Spain, states that artillery was used by them against Saragossa in 1118 A. D., and that in 1157, A. D. they defended themselves in Niebla, against the Spaniards, by means of machines, which threw darts and stones, through the agency of fire.

~Used against the Moguls, A. D. 1232.~

In 1232 A. D. cannon throwing stone shot were used against the Moguls, and during this war, certain machines were also employed, which being filled with powder, and ignited at the proper time, burst with a noise like thunder, and whose effect extended for the space of half an acre round the spot where they exploded.

~Cannon bearing date 1258 found in France.~

A small brass cannon is said to have been found at the bottom of a deep well of the Castle de Clucy, in France, with the date 1258 upon it.

~Cannon used against Cordova, A. D. 1280.~

~Iron shot, 14th century.~

In 1280 A. D., cannon were used against Cordova, after which period, they are frequently mentioned in the records of Spain. Iron shot appear to have been first used in that country in the beginning of the 14th century.

~Cannon used by Arabians, 1312.~

Cannon are described by Arabian authors as early as 1312.

The first mention we have of the use of fire arms, after this period, is in the life of Robert Bruce, by John Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, in which certain engines termed, “crakeys of war,” are spoken of, as having been used by Edward III., in his campaign against the Scots, in 1327.

~Cannon in France, 1338.~

It is generally believed that cannon were commonly employed in Europe since 1338, as they were used by the French in that year to demolish some castles.

~Siege of Algesiras, 1342 to 1344.~

Gunpowder is said to have been used at the siege of Algesiras by Alphonse of Castile against the Moors, 1342 to 1344.

~Cannon at Cressy, 1346.~

Edward III. had four guns at the battle of Cressy, 1346. Froissart mentions these guns in one of his manuscripts, now preserved in the library of Amiens. A free translation of the passage referred to would run as follows: “And the English caused to fire suddenly certain guns which they had in the battle, to astonish (or confound) the Genoese.” Vilani, a Florentine historian, also confirms this statement, as well as a passage in the chronicles of St. Denis, which speaks of the use of cannon by the English at Cressy. An ancient manuscript also mentions the existence of gunners and artillerymen, whom Edward III. employed when he landed before Calais in 1346, and the several stipends each soldier received. The sentence runs thus: “Masons, carpenters, engineers, gunners, and artillerymen, the sum of 12, 10, 6, and 3 pence per diem.”

~Cannon of two kinds.~

~Used by the Black Prince, 1356.~

~At St. Valery, 1358.~

The first fire-arms appear to have consisted of two kinds; a larger one for discharging stones, called a bombard, (plate 18, fig. 3) and a smaller for propelling darts and leaden balls, both of which were used in 1356, by the Black Prince, to reduce the castle of Romozantin; and two years later, the artillery of St. Valery did great execution among its besiegers.

~Cannon made in England, 1377~

Cannon were made in England in the fourteenth century, and Richard II. commissioned Sir Thomas Norwich to buy two great and two small cannon in London, or in any other place; and also 600 balls of stone for cannon and for other engines, to be sent to the Castle of Bristol.

~Cannon at St. Malo.~

When the English unsuccessfully besieged St. Malo, 400 cannon are said to have been used, but these are supposed to have been of the smaller kind, called hand cannon, or culverins, which were carried by two men, and fired from a kind of tripod or rest fixed in the ground.

~Cannon general.~

~Bombards made of iron.~

~Bronze.~

~Leather, rope, &c.~

~Wood.~

From this period, cannon were used in all the offensive and defensive operations of war; though a considerable time elapsed before it became a really serviceable arm for field operations. The earlier kinds of cannon were called bombards or bombardæ. Those first employed were clumsy, (plate 16) and ill contrived, wider at the mouth than at the chamber. They merely consisted of bars of iron, arranged in such a manner that their internal aspects should form a tube. The bars were not welded together, but merely confined by hoops. They were also made of iron bars over a cylinder of copper, strengthened by iron hoops, driven on red hot, and others were entirely composed of copper. Bronze was also employed in the manufacture of artillery, as well as thin sheets of iron rolled together; and guns made of leather, and coiled rope, over a cylinder of copper or gun metal, were also introduced, and continued in use for a considerable time. Guns also appear to have been made of wood.

~Rope mortar at Venice.~

In the arsenal at Venice there is an ancient mortar, constructed of leather and rope, used in the siege of the island of Chioggia, near Venice, against the Genoese, 1380. The shot is of stone, 14in. in diameter.

~Cannon of paper.~

It has been heard recently, that the Chinese constructed their cannon of prepared paper, lined with copper.

~Field cannon to keep up with army, 1380.~

As early as 1380 it is said the French were able to procure for the invasion of Italy, a great number of brass cannon, mounted on carriages, and drawn by horses, instead of oxen; these pieces threw balls of from 40lbs. to 60lbs. in weight and could always keep pace with the army. (Plate 18, fig. 1, 3, and 4.)

~Large cannon 1400.~

A cannon taken at the siege of Dien in 1546, by John de Castro, and now in Lisbon, is 20 feet 7in. in length, 6 feet 3in. in diameter in the middle, and threw a ball of 100lbs. A Hindostani inscription on it states that it was cast in 1400.

~Bolts and quarrels shot, 1413.~

~Red-hot iron balls used at Cherbourg, 1418.~

~Slow to discharge.~

Bolts and quarrels were shot from cannon in the reign of Henry V.; these were succeeded by stones, as he ordered in 1418, “labourers to make 7,000 stones for the guns of different sorts from the quarries of Maidstone.” We learn from Elam’s life of Henry V., that when an English army, commanded by the Duke of Gloucester, besieged Cherbourg in 1418, the besieged discharged _red-hot_ balls of _iron_ from their cannon into the English camp, to burn the huts. So much time elapsed between the loading and discharging the great guns, that the besieged had sufficient time to repair at their leisure, the breaches made by the enormous stones, &c., thrown from them.

~Cannon at Meaux, 1422.~

Five wrought-iron bombards are preserved in the “Musée de l’Artillerie,” at Paris; which were, it is said, abandoned by the English, at the town of Meaux, in 1422.

~Cannon cast, 1450.~

About the middle of the fifteenth century, the ancient method of constructing cannon was exchanged for that of casting. A hard or mixed metal was invented called “font metal” or bronze, and cannon were then cast in one piece, and instead of fanciful names, they began to be indicated by the weight of their ball, as at present.

~Siege of Constantinople, 1453.~

~Small guns with several barrels.~

~Large brass gun, cast at Adrianople.~