A Medieval Weapon of Mass Destruction

The Peasant's Weapon of Choice

Rodney Stark, commenting upon the weaponry of the Crusaders:

But no armor, not even a plate-armor suit, was very effective against the invention that made the crusaders to lethal in battle--the crossbow. Although it was widely used by the crusaders, remarkably little has been written about the crossbow because it was thought to be quite shameful, even sinful, to use it. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council prohibited its use (except against infidels) "under penalty of anathema, as a weapon hateful to God and to Christians," and this ban was subsequently confirmed by Pope Innocent III. However, European armies ignored the Church and made widespread use of the crossbow until it was made obsolete by firearms. Thus, for example, the Knights Templar garrison at the castle of Saphet in northern Galilee in about 1260 consisted of fifty knights and three hundred crossbowmen.

The "moral" objections to the crossbow had to do with social class, as this revolutionary weapon allowed untrained peasants to be lethal enemies of the trained soldiery. It took many years of training to become a knight, and the same was true for archers. Indeed, it took years for archers to build the arm strength needed to draw a longbow, let alone to perfect their accuracy. But just about anyone could become proficient with a crossbow in less than a week. Worse yet, even a beginner could be considerably more accurate than a highly skilled longbow archer at ranges up to sixty-five to seventy yards. . . .

The projectiles fired by crossbows were called bolts because they were much shorter and heavier than the arrows fired by regular bows. While this reduced the range of crossbows, it greatly increased their impact at shorter ranges. The fact that so little training was required meant that huge numbers of crossbowmen could be assembled quickly; the Genoese several times fielded as many as twenty thousand for a single battle. Stark, God's Battalions, p.72f

We think Stark is probably right.  Even to this day the crossbow remains underrated.  In the Anglo-Saxon world this may be due in part to childhood stories of Robin Hood and the celebration of the English longbow. 

Once again these observations underscore the need for military doctrines and tactics constantly to evolve and adapt to technology.  When this does not happen, disaster is around the corner.  Witness how the machine gun made serried rows of infantry obsolete in World War I.  Another lesson is never to underestimate low tech advances put in the hands of infantry en masse.  Imagine the devastation represented by infantry brigades equipped with high powered, long range hunting rifles, each with telescopic laser sights.  Suddenly every man is a sniper, with a modicum of training. 

So, if New Zealand cannot afford modern weaponry, why not take this route, deployed via a universal military subscription of at least two years?  If a sniper behind every tree worried Hitler's generals when they were contemplating invading Switzerland, how much more would New Zealand's defensive capability be enhanced if every adult in the country could drop an enemy combatant at a thousand metres with consistent deadly accuracy, particularly when an enemy would face very long supply lines if an invasion of the country were attempted. 

This would represent a far stronger defensive capability than we have now.  Any invader would likely find the cost of proceeding not worth any gain.  The country would be much safer--much safer than our piddling around the globe participating in Obama's wars of choice in the vain hope that it obligates "others" to come to save us were New Zealand to be attacked.