The arbalest, or cross-bow, was not only much shorter than the long-bow,
but fastened also upon a stock, and discharged by means of a catch or
trigger, which Mr. Strutt reasonably enough thinks gave rise to the lock
on the modern musket. The old logicians illustrate the distinction in
their quaintest fashion. Bayle, explaining the difference between
testimony and argument, uses this laconic simile, "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 the cross-bow, equally forcible, whether
discharged by a dwarf or a giant."

The arbalest is said by some writers to be of Italian origin. Verstegan
says it was introduced here by the Saxons, but was neglected till again
brought into use by William the Conqueror, at the battle of Hastings. No
mention is made of bowmen among the troops of Harold; but we read that the
Norman army was fronted by "footmen clothed in light armour, worn over a
gilted cassock, and bearing either long-bows or steel cross-bows." Harold
himself had his eye struck by an arrow, notwithstanding which he continued
to fight at the head of his army. Cross-bows were afterwards prohibited by
the second Lateran Council, anno 1139, as hateful to God, and unfit to be
used among Christians; in consequence whereof they were laid aside till
the reign of Richard the First, who again introduced them, and was himself
killed by an arrow or quarrel, discharged from a cross-bow at the siege of
the Castle of Chalus.[1]

Cross-bows shot darts called quarrels, or _quarreaux_, or _quadrels_, and
in English _bolts_: they were headed with solid, square pyramids of iron,
and sometimes trimmed with brass instead of feathers. According to Sir
John Smith a cross-bow would kill point blank 60 yards, and if elevated
above 160. There was an officer styled _Balistrarius Regius_; and several