Medieval Crossbows outlawed by Church ... but Bows too!

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

A bit older technology than normally discussed here, but there's a common misconception that might be worth correcting:

It's often stated, even by otherwise well informed people, that

• "Medieval crossbows were so deadly that the church outlawed them."

That by itself is pretty not entirely wrong, but it omits that traditional bows were outlawed too, at the same time and even in the same sentence. Which in turn has lead people who are not aware they're dealing with an incompletely reported statement to draw erroneous conclusions like that the crossbow was considered to be more lethal than the traditional warbow, or even that the church was trying to protect the knights, whose armour (supposedly) could withstand ordinary arrows, but would be pierced by crossbow bolts.

To go back to the usually incompletely quoted source, it was the Second Council of the Lateran, held in 1139, which issued a statement banning the use of crossbows as well as bows.

Here's the latin quote (via http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/b0f.htm#h ):

• 29 Artem autem illam mortiferam et deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus christianos et catholicos exerceri de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus.

(Rough translation, "We prohibit, under the threat of excommunication, the use of this deadly art, which is despised by god, of the crossbowmen and archers, against Christians and Catholics.")

This was one of several prohibitions issued by the Second Council of the Lateran in the context of the "Peace of God" (pax dei) movement, and these generally don't seem to have had much of an effect. For example, the conduct of tournaments was also prohibited by the council ... obviously, they remained extremely popular for the next couple of centuries, as did the use of crossbows and bows in war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[siegecrossbow]

I thought it was use of crossbow against Christians?

 

[uk 75]

I am glad to see this thread as it got me watching one of my favourite TV shows from when I was very young

The Adventures of Robin Hood (TV series) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The bad guys had Crossbows and of course Robin's chaps had longbows. Friar Tuck was often in evidence. In one episode an Archbishop shows up (maybe the later film).
William Tell on the same channel of course used a crossbow.

 

[BlackBat242]

I thought it was use of crossbow against Christians?

Exactly - as long as you could claim your opponent was a heretic or was non-Christian, you could use the pointy-stick-thrower.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

I thought it was use of crossbow against Christians?

That's correct, but it isn't the whole story ... crossbows and bows were both banned, by the same council, in the same sentence.

Omitting the bit about bows being banned to has lead to a lot of misunderstandings, like for example the crossbows being significantly more lethal than bows.

(A bit like explosive bullets being banned by the St. Petersburg Declaration because they were seen as unusually cruel when used against individual enemy soldiers.)

However, the truth was that the church meant to make the world a less violent place in general, and crossbows and traditional bows alike with the capability of killing Christians from afar were equally "despised by god" in their eyes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Jemiba]

... but, as Marc-Uwe Kling says in one volume of the "Känguru Chroniken" (can't remember which one, but I have the feeling, you know them ... ), it's a good example, that arms control actually is working, as today very few Christians get killed by crossbows !

 

[siegecrossbow]

Hi,



That's correct, but it isn't the whole story ... crossbows and bows were both banned, by the same council, in the same sentence.

Omitting the bit about bows being banned to has lead to a lot of misunderstandings, like for example the crossbows being significantly more lethal than bows.

(A bit like explosive bullets being banned by the St. Petersburg Declaration because they were seen as unusually cruel when used against individual enemy soldiers.)

However, the truth was that the church meant to make the world a less violent place in general, and crossbows and traditional bows alike with the capability of killing Christians from afar were equally "despised by god" in their eyes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Sounds like the same argument against firearms when they became popular in the mid-15th century. It also had the fun side effect of brimstone smell and flame effects and thunder acoustics, which makes it the “devil’s weapon”. Anything that challenges the existing order’s monopoly on violence is seen as heretic I think.

It takes longer to get better at using a bow than it is at using a crossbow though.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

Anything that challenges the existing order’s monopoly on violence is seen as heretic I think.

One could probably argue that the well-armed military class, getting more powerful at the time, with their tendency to resolve conflicts violently was seen as a problem not only by the church, but also by the higher ranks of the aristocracy, so I guess you're right!

It takes longer to get better at using a bow than it is at using a crossbow though.

Absolutely, which is probably why both coexisted throughout the middle ages and into early modern times. The crossbow was popular with the cities, who (at least in Germany ) often required citizens to be armed with crossbows, and often employed a crossbow maker to ensure they were well-supplied with weapons and ammunition.

The bow-and-crosbow ban of 1139 clearly did not have a lasting effect, and thinking about it, I would like to learn if it has any effect that would show up in sources outside of the records of the Second Council of the Lateran. The threat of excommunication was quite serious, but if no-one actually knew about the ban, it might have been entirely a paper tiger ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)