The cross-bow is a powerful and destructive wea pon, and, like the common bow, was employed both in war and hunting, and on horseback as well as on foot. It discharged heavy arrows, called bolts, or quarrels, having a square iron head. The conquest of Ireland, in 1172, is said to have been greatly fa cilitated by the terror which the cross-bow of the English inspired, the weapon being previously un known in that kingdom. Richard I. was an expe rienced cross-bowman, and had killed several persons by arrows from his own hand. But he himself at last fell at the siege of Chaluz, by a dart from a cross-bow, at which the recorder of the event testi fies little regret, " neque enim lex ulla xquior est, quam necis artifices arte perire sua." Brompton, p. 1278. Cross-bowmen formed a nume rous corps in the ancient armies. At the battle of Cressy, in 1346, the first rank of the French army consisted of 15,000 cross-bowmen. At present we are imperfectly acquainted with the power of the cross bow ; but if we can credit the older authors, and, in deed, on considering that the greatest mechanical force may be employed in bending it, it must be very great. The arrow flies from it with equal precision, whence, long after being disused in war, the cross-bow was still retained in hunting. But although some authors of more modern date magnify the art of their co temporaries, it was much on the decline in the seven teenth century. Wood, in the Bowman's Glory, re lates, that "in March 1661, 400 archers, with their bows and arrows, made a splendid and glorious show in Hyde Park, with flying colours, and cross-bows to guard them. Several of the archers shot near twenty score yards with their cross-bows, and many of them, to the amazement of the spectators, hit the mark." The cross-bow was prohibited by successive acts of parliament, from the year 1508, and penal ties imposed for even being in possesion of it. Paul Hentzncr, however, who travelled through Britain, in 1598, observes, that he saw in the armoury of the Tower of London, cross-bows, and bows and arrows, of which the English made great use in their exer cises.
Not only the men of former times, but women also, used both the bow and cross-bow for amusement. In the ancient illuminated manuscripts of this coun try are represented ladies of rank with their atten dants hunting, and carrying a bow and quiver. Mar garet, the daughter of king Henry VII. and queen of James IV. of Scotland, killed a buck with an ar row, on a hunting party, at Alnwick, on her progress thither, in 1503 ; and Queen Elizabeth, and the countess of Kildare in her train, were equally suc cessful with the cross-bow. Now, though the long bow, and other kinds, are still warlike weapons among the less civilized nations, yet these, as well as the cross-bow, are principally used for amusement in Europe. Societies are formed on the continent for practising the latter, and instead of bolts or arrows, bullets are discharged.
The revival of the long bow, for warlike purposes, has been recommended by some zealous admirers of its effects in antiquity, and they conceive would yet predominate over the musketry of modern times. Various publications have appeared on the subject ; some of recent date even containing a bowman's ma nual exercise, and proposing to combine the use of the bow along with the pike. '!'he reasons advanced in
favour of the bow arc undoubtedly plausible at first sight; but we doubt much if they will bear analysis. They chiefly relate to the great precision and expedi tion in the use of the bow, to the dread which a snower of arrows in their flight would in.pire, and to the con fusion they would produce. Formerly, indeed, the manual exercise of fire arms, with rests and match locks, was a slow and circuitous operation, and even the most expert musqucteer could give only a few dis charges in a limited time. Yet, notwithstanding all the modern improvements, it is maintained by the parti zans of the bow, that arrows may be sent still quicker from it. Twelve, iris affirmed, may be shot by an expert archer in a minute, and, by one of moderate skill, from six to eight, while not above half as many discharges can be made from a musquct ;— " so that archers," as one of these writers observes, " could always be enabled to return two shot for one of the enemy. The advantage must be evident, attending the quick discharge of such falling showers of arrows, the danger of which is seen and appre hended. Is it possible to suppose but the greatest carnage and confusion must take place, even with the best disciplined troops ? Let an idea be formed of the terror of the object, in supposing a body of 1000 archers opposed to a like number, or even to great superiority, within their distance. What impression must it not have on the enemy, the sight and effect of at least 6000 arrows, flying upon their line in a minute ? Under such flights, kept up without inter mission, how would it be posssible for them, either horse or foot, to perform their evolutions or exercise, or not to fall into rout and disorder, amidst such eaenage and visible slaughter ? For musqueteers are enabled to keep their order, as opposed to each other, from not seeing it. But under such galling dischar ges, if the cavalry could possibly push to the charge of the archers, they would then plant their pikes. This palisade, of a double row of lances, would ef fectually secure the ranks of the archers from being broke, and enable them, by their terrible discharges, to put their adversaries to rout !"—The partizans of the bow also consider musquet balls less effectual than an equal number of arrows would prove. Marshal Saxe, a celebrated general, computes, that only one ball of 85 takes effect. Others, that only one in 40 strikes, and no more than one in 400 is fatal. At the bat tle of Tournay, in Flanders, fought on the 22d of May, 1794, it is calculated that 236 musquet shot were expended in disabling each soldier who suffered. On comparing these results with the precision of the bow, it has been maintained, that, at least, every tenth arrow would be effectual, in a discharge from well trained archers. We apprehend, however, that the partiality for archery, as an amusement, has had no inconsiderable influence in recommending it to those who would adopt it as a warlike weapon, and that many important obstacles against its revival have been over looked. S ;e Moseley's Essay on Archery ; Mason's Considerations on reviving the Long Bow and Pike ; Ascham's 7'oxqz/ii/zie ; Wood's Bowman's Glory ; and Strutt's Sports and Pastimes, See also ARCHERY and ARMS. (c)