Karwansaray BV

Crossbows and Christians

Author(s): Vincent van der Veen
Source: Medieval Warfare , 2012, Vol. 2, No. 2, IN THIS ISSUE: The Teutonic Order in
decline (2012), pp. 38-41
Published by: Karwansaray BV

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48577944

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48577944?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Karwansaray BV is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Medieval
Warfare

This content downloaded from

88.240.181.39 on Sun, 09 Oct 2022 18:43:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL

The Church’s ban of the crossbow

Crossbows and
Christians
From the eleventh century onwards, the crossbow was a common sight on the battlefields of Europe.
Its ease of use and effectiveness made it a popular choice among generals, but not everyone took kind-
ly to it. On two separate occasions this ‘diabolical’ weapon was banned by the Church. However, was
the crossbow truly ‘hateful to God’, or might there have been another reason for banning its use?

By Vincent van der Veen
Exactly when and where the crossbow
was invented is uncertain, but it was used
by the Chinese as early as the fourth cen-
tury BC. The Chinese even invented a
repeating crossbow that, although lack-
ing the penetrative power of its medi-
eval European counterparts, still proved
to be lethal; especially when its bolts were
dipped in poison. The Greeks used a cross-
bow known to them as the gastraphetes or
‘stomach-bow’, because of the way it was
drawn by resting the stomach on the butt
of the stock and pushing down. Evidence
of the Romans using the crossbow is rath-
er scarce, though in his fourth century
AD treatise on Roman warfare, Vegetius
does briefly mention lightly armed troops
equipped with what might have been
handheld crossbows (referred to by him
as manuballistae and arcuballistae).
After apparently having been absent
for roughly 500 years, the crossbow seems
to reappear on the battlefields of conti-
nental Europe during the tenth century.
Although the Bayeux Tapestry does not
depict any knight or soldier equipped with
this particular weapon, written sources do
mention the use of the crossbow during
the Norman invasion of England in 1066.
During the Middle Ages the crossbow
was known by several names, but most
commonly as the ballista or a variation
thereof. In shape, a crossbow does indeed
resemble a miniature version of the large
siege engines of antiquity known by that
name. However, unlike the ballistae of the
ancients, which relied on torsion stored in
skeins of twisted cord, the crossbow had
flexible arms that were bent backwards
and then released to propel its projectile.
Construction and use
In its essence, the crossbow is a bow
mounted horizontally on a stock. The
bow-string, made out of many strands of
twine, twisted or plaited together, is held
in place by a ‘nut’, after it has been drawn
back. Pulling a trigger on the underside
of the stock rotates the nut, releasing the
bow-string, which in turn sends the bolt
hurtling towards its target.
The bow, known as a prod, was origi-
nally made of a single piece of tough, yet
flexible wood, such as ash or yew. Around
the thirteenth century, prods were made
out of several thin strips of horn or whale
bone, glued together and sandwiched
between two layers of yew. Over this,
a thick layer of flexible animal tendon
was applied. Finally, the prod was coated
with glue, or skin covered with varnish.
This last process was very important, as
moisture over time would affect the struc-
tural integrity of the weapon. These com-
posite bows already were considerably
more powerful than those made out of a
single piece of wood, but the crossbow
would become even more powerful with
the introduction of the steel prod in the
fifteenth century.
In the early examples, the bow-string
could still be drawn by hand. For stability,
the archer would either position both feet
at opposite sides of the stock, or put his
foot in an iron stirrup mounted to the front
of the weapon, and then pull the string up
with both hands. A crossbow fitted with
such a device was known as a balista ad
estrif.
Because crossbows tended to be
smaller than regular bows, their draw
weight had to be significantly higher in
order for the weapon to be of any use. The
draw weight increased due to innovations
in its construction, making it impossible to
draw the bow-string by hand. To overcome
this problem, a variety of devices were
developed. The first was fairly simple. The
archer would attach to the bow-string a
hook, which was fastened either directly
or via a pulley to his belt. By putting his
foot in the iron stirrup and straightening
his body and legs, the archer would be
able to summon up much more strength
than by solely using his hands.
When crossbows became more pow-
erful still, increasingly elaborate devices
were required. One consisted of a screw on
the back of the stock attached to a metal
rod. This ran through the stock and could
be hooked around the string. By turn-
ing the screw the string would be pulled
back. Another device, called a goat’s-foot
lever, could draw the string in a single
movement. Bows that used this device,
though, were probably not as powerful as
others. Some other crossbows were fitted
with a windlass consisting of two cranked
handles, while yet others were drawn by a
ratchet-type mechanism called a cranequin.
A great benefit of the crossbow was that it

38 Medieval Warfare II-2

This content downloaded from

88.240.181.39 on Sun, 09 Oct 2022 18:43:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Medieval Warfare II-2.indd 38 21-03-2012 13:11:45

 SPECIAL
THEME

hardly took any time to learn how to oper-

ate it. In comparison, it took longbowmen
years and years to master their weapon.
A longbowman couldn’t count on fancy
equipment to help him draw his bow.
Instead, he’d have to make do with the

© British Library Board (Royal 12 F XIII, f. 11v)

strength in his arms, shoulders and back.
Once drawn, nothing kept the string in
place but his own strength.
The comparative downside of all the
technology that the crossbowman had
at his disposal was that it made drawing
the crossbow a rather time-consuming
job. So much so, that a skilled longbow-
man could get off five shots in the time
it took a crossbowman to load and fire
a single bolt. Therefore, in order for the
crossbow to be an efficient weapon of
war, crossbowmen were grouped togeth- This miniature from a thirteenth century English bestiary features two knights in a castle atop
er and drilled to load their weapons and an elephant repelling mounted assailants. One of the knights wields a sword, while the other has
fire in volleys, much like line infantry after just fired his crossbow. Notice the stirrup and the long trigger underneath the stock. While in this
the introduction of the musket. Because somewhat fanciful image the crossbow is used by a knight, in reality the weapon was probably
crossbowmen were rather vulnerable due more often used by the poorer echelons of society. Part of the collection of the British Library.
to the lengthy reload time between shots,
they were often given pavises to take shel-
ter behind.
A diabolical weapon is a socket, a cylindrical kind of
Great crossbows When, in the eleventh century, Anna
In addition to the aforementioned hand- Komnene, the daughter of the Byzantine
cup fitted to the string itself, and
held crossbows, there also existed larger Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, first saw the about as long as an arrow of con-
crossbows that were mounted on a frame. weapon in the armies of the First Crusade, siderable size which reaches from
These were used for the defence of towns she was completely overwhelmed by it. the string to the very middle of
and castles, which were often fitted, for In her book on the reign of her father, she
this purpose, with cruciform loopholes gives a detailed description of this ‘new’
the bow; and through this arrows
known by architects as arbalestinae. weapon: of many sorts are shot out. The
Besides being used to defend towns and arrows used with this bow are very
castles, these great crossbows were just as “This cross-bow is a bow of the short in length, but very thick, fit-
often used to besiege them. Occasionally
barbarians quite unknown to the ted in front with a very heavy iron
they were also mounted on ships.
The large mounted crossbows were Greeks; and it is not stretched by tip. And in discharging them the
often referred to as two-foot crossbows the right hand pulling the string string shoots them out with enor-
(balista ad duos pedes). This name is whilst the left pulls the bow in a mous violence and force, and what-
somewhat problematic. Sir Ralph Payne-
contrary direction, but he who ever these darts chance to hit, they
Gallwey thought it referred to the need
to place both feet in the stirrup, because stretches this warlike and very do not fall back, but they pierce
of the high draw weight. Jean Liebel, on far-shooting weapon must lie, one through a shield, then cut through
the other hand, suggests that it refers to might say, almost on his back and a heavy iron corselet and wing
the bolts the crossbow fired, namely bolts
apply both feet strongly against their way through and out at the
with a length of two feet. In common with
their smaller counterparts, there were a the semi-circle of the bow and with other side. So violent and ineluc-
variety of devices to draw these great his two hands pull the string with table is the discharge of arrows of
crossbows, including screws, windlasses all his might in the contrary direc- this kind. Such an arrow has been
and spanning stands.
tion. In the middle of the string known to pierce a bronze statue,

Medieval Warfare II-2 39

This content downloaded from

88.240.181.39 on Sun, 09 Oct 2022 18:43:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Medieval Warfare II-2.indd 39 21-03-2012 13:12:13

 SPECIAL
© Public domain
Siege scene from the Liber ad Honorem Au-
gustis showing different types of missile
troops, armed with a crossbow, composite bow
and sling.
and if it hits the wall of a very
large town, the point of the arrow
either protrudes on the inner side
or it buries itself in the middle of
the wall and is lost. Such then is
this monster of a crossbow, and
verily a devilish invention. And
the wretched man who is struck by
it, dies without feeling anything,
not even feeling the blow, however
strong it be.”
Anna Komnene, Alexiad, Book 10
Although this clearly is an exaggeration of
the crossbow’s power, the Byzantine prin-
cess wasn’t the only one who considered
the weapon a ‘devilish invention’. One of
the clauses of the Magna Carta, issued by
King John in 1215, ordained the removal
40 Medieval Warfare II-2
88.240.181.39 on Sun, 09 Oct 2022 18:43:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Medieval Warfare II-2.indd 40
out of the kingdom of “all foreign-born
knights, crossbowmen, sergeants, and
mercenary soldiers who have come with
horses and arms to the kingdom’s hurt.”
Over a century earlier, in 1097, Pope
Urban II had banned the use of the cross-
bow among Christians (canon 7 of the
Lateran Synod). His subjects apparently
didn’t heed his words, because in 1139
Pope Innocent II again forbade the use of
the crossbow, and the bow as well:
“We prohibit under anathema that
murderous art of crossbowmen and
archers, which is hateful to God,
to be employed against Christians
and Catholics from now on.”
Second Lateran council (1139),
Canon 29.
Conrad III, King of Germany from 1138 to
1152, also forbade the use of the crossbow
in his army and kingdom. Neither decree
seemed to have its intended result, as
the popularity of the crossbow only grew.
The odd thing about the Church’s decree,
however, is that the Church apparently
didn’t mind, or at least was aware that it
wouldn’t be able to stop, Christians fight-
ing each other. The decree specifically
restricts the use of the bow and cross-
bow, both ranged weapons, but doesn’t
mention any close combat weaponry. So
what made the crossbow such a diabolical
device in the eyes of the Church?
It is certainly possible that the ban-
ishing of the crossbow had a much more
secular reason than it being ’hateful to
God‘. First of all, let’s consider who would
be using a bow or crossbow. As part of
Henry III’s Assize of Arms in 1251, the King
ordered the yeomanry who owned more
than a hundred shillings in land to report
to him with steel cap, gambeson, lance
and sword. Those who owned between
forty and a hundred shillings in land were
to bring a sword, dagger, and bow and
arrows. Those citizens who owned chattel
worth between nine and twenty marks
were to be armed with bow, arrows and
sword. Finally, even the poorest citizens
were to bring bow and arrows, if they had
them. In other words, it wasn’t the aristoc-
racy who carried bows into battle. Instead,
it were the poorer echelons of society. A
This content downloaded from
wooden bow, even taking into consider-
ation the difficult process of selecting the
right timber, would be much more afford-
able than a sword, which had to be forged
from steel by a skilled smith. Due to its
more complex construction, the crossbow
probably cost considerably more than a
longbow, but by the elite it was probably
still considered a weapon of the common
man.
So, having established who used the
crossbow, who did they use it against?
Well, in a word, everyone, and that’s exact-
ly why the crossbow was considered such
a threat. The aristocracy, with their code
of chivalry and their expensive suits of
armour, weapons and horses, didn’t much
like the thought of being killed by a sim-
ple peasant carrying a crossbow. On the
battlefield, there was a clear double stan-
dard in regard to the treatment of knights
and non-knights. The chivalric code, which
formed such an important part of the
knight’s identity, demanded that he treat
a nobleman or knight with respect. When
defeated in combat, a knight often wasn’t
killed, but was taken prisoner. He would
then be held in somewhat comfortable
surroundings until his ransom was paid.
No such luck for non-knights, who were
often slaughtered after capture. Although
of crucial importance to the outcome of a
battle, infantry and archers were of lower
socio-economic standing and a knight
could gain far less prestige by fighting
these warriors than by fighting those of
his own class. On the battlefield, non-
knights were therefore regarded as mere
impediments to knights getting at other
knights in order to fight them.
And if fighting the members of the
lower classes was less prestigious, getting
killed by them was downright shameful.
Even more so when the opponent was a
crossbowman. Instead of fighting in close
combat, the ‘honourable’ way of fight-
ing preferred by knights, the crossbow-
man picked off his targets from a dis-
tance. Furthermore, while the knight had
received years of training in the art of war,
it took virtually no training whatsoever
to load, aim and fire a crossbow. Seeing
noble knights felled by these unworthy
opponents was probably the true motive
behind the Church’s ban. If a knight had
to die, he wanted it to be by the hands of
someone from the same socio-economic
class. The crossbow stood in the way of
that.
21-03-2012 13:12:41
 SPECIAL

In fact, the (cross)bow was such a

threat that it is often considered the main
catalyst behind the development of a
new type of defensive armament: plate
armour. From the late thirteenth century
onward, when crossbows became more
powerful and the longbow grew in popu-
larity, chain-mail could no longer provide
adequate protection. The search for better
protection against bolts and arrows would
eventually lead to the articulated suits of
armour that covered every inch of their
wearer in steel.
No one appeared to be safe from the
bolts of this fiendish weapon. Not even
a king like Richard I, himself a great sup-
porter of the crossbow and considered

© Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

by some historians to be the one who
introduced the weapon to the French. In
1199, during the Siege of Châlus, Richard
the Lionheart was struck in the shoulder
by a bolt fired by a man wielding a cross-
bow and a frying pan, which he used as a
shield. Making light of the wound, the King
ordered his men to continue the attack on
the castle, until finally it fell. When even-
tually he had the crossbow bolt removed
by a surgeon, Richard was told that the
wound had become gangrenous. Knowing
that this meant death, Richard ordered
the archer who had fired the bolt to be
brought to him. When he arrived, the King
was surprised to see that he was only a
young boy. When asked why he had dared
to shoot at the King, the boy answered
that he had acted out of revenge, because
Richard had killed his father and his two
older brothers. Richard pardoned the boy
and, giving him a hundred shillings, sent
him on his way with the words “live on, and
by my bounty behold the light of day.” The
King’s words weren’t honoured, though.
After his death, the boy was recaptured,
flayed and finally hung.
Whatever the reason for banning the
crossbow may have been, neither the
Church’s decree, nor the reservedness of
the aristocracy towards the weapon, could
bring its use to a halt. In 1200 the Church
decided to relax its condemnation of the
weapon, allowing it to be used against
pagans and Cathars, and in case of a ‘just’
war.
Decline
As popular as the crossbow once had
been, by the late fourteenth century it
slowly started to be replaced by gunpow-
der weapons. With the waning of its popu-
On the left, a squire carrying a halberd. On the right, an archer drawing the string of his cross-
bow, fitted with a stirrup and a windlass with two cranked handles. From the miniatures of the
‘Jouvencel’ and the ‘Chroniques’ of Froissart, dated to the fifteenth century. Part of the collection
of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
Further reading:
- G. Alberigo & N.P. Tanner,
Decrees of the ecumenical coun-
larity, the number of experienced cross- cils. Vol. 1: Nicea I to Lateran V.
bowmen also rapidly declined. In order London 1990.
to prevent this, Charles V of France in the - E.A. Dawes, The Alexiad. London
year 1384 prohibited the playing of any 1928.
game except with a bow or crossbow. In - K. DeVries, Medieval Military
the 1440s, Charles VII set up companies of Technology. Toronto 1992.
crossbowmen, but it was clear that hand- - J. Liebel, Springalds and Great
guns were the future, however slow to Crossbows (translated from
load and inaccurate these originally were. Espringales et Grandes Arbalètes).
By 1550 the crossbow had completely dis- Leeds 1998.
appeared from the battlefield. • - R.E. Oakeshott, The Archaeology
of Weapons, Arms and Armour
from Prehistory to the Age of
Vincent van der Veen graduated from Chivalry. London 1960.
the Radboud University of Nijmegen - R. Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow:
with a MA in Classical Languages Mediaeval and Modern, Military
and Culture, and is currently and Sporting: Its Construction,
studying Archaeology at the Catholic History and Management: With
University of Leuven. He would like to a Treatise on the balista and
thank the editor of Medieval Warfare Catapult of the Ancients. London
for giving him the opportunity to 1903.
contribute to this magazine.

Medieval Warfare II-2 41

This content downloaded from

88.240.181.39 on Sun, 09 Oct 2022 18:43:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Medieval Warfare II-2.indd 41 21-03-2012 13:13:13