Fig. 157.—Arbalestier, c. 1250.
Fig. 158.—Archer and arbalestier, 13th century.
Like the bowman of his time the arbalestier was clad occasionally in heavy armour. In the annexed [Fig. 158] of an archer and a cross-bowman, from Add. MS. 15,268 and dating from the close of the thirteenth century, the armour of the latter appears to be of the tegulated or the scale variety, though it is quite possible that it may be intended for banded mail. Upon his head he wears a leather skull-cap strengthened apparently by iron bands, under which appears a linen or soft leather coif. A representation of a similar skull-cap of leather ([Fig. 159]), ornamented with a strengthening device in iron which is prolonged into a nasal, is shown upon one of the figures in the Painted Chamber, Westminster. The pile of the cross-bow bolt is shown to be quite distinct from the barbed head of the arrow. In [Fig. 109], p. [94], the cross-bowman is represented as heavily armed in a pot-helm and hauberk of mail. The supersession of the cross-bow in England by the long-bow was due to natural causes. It was found that as the long-bow underwent improvements it outclassed the cross-bow in more ways than one. A powerful and skilful bowman could discharge half-a-dozen or more arrows during the time necessitated for winding up the cross-bow for a second shot; also the distance covered by the arrow, together with its penetrative force, were quite equal to that of the quarrel, and is generally considered to have been superior. In consequence of this rapidity of fire the English archer invariably beat down the attack of Continental cross-bowmen, if equal in numbers, and, very often, when they were in excess. Compactness of troops was a great point in mediæval warfare, and the bowmen could stand closer together with their bows vertical than their brethren of the cross-bow with their weapons in the horizontal position. There is little doubt that the cross-bow was the ideal weapon for the ordinary soldier of an ordinary race, inasmuch as little intellect was required to direct the aim and little strength was necessary if the usual mechanical means were used to bend the bow. For the efficient use of the long-bow, on the contrary, a keen judgment was an absolute necessity, and it was only a race of considerable physical power that could put forth the strength and maintain the exertion which the long-bow demanded. It is undoubtedly a matter for national self-complacency to reflect upon the fact that while the British gradually discarded the cross-bow and adopted the long-bow almost entirely, the Continental nations proceeded in exactly the opposite direction.
Fig. 159.—Nasal. Painted Chamber, Westminster.