t guarantee large-scale destruction of their own forces (for instance, modern nuclear weapons). Though the crossbow was often the cause of injury or death to its user, the military has always held that individual soldiers are replaceable, and as the crossbowman was a low-class of infantry, his fate would not have been much of a factor in the decision to use crossbows. Neither would the social distaste for the weapon as a military arm. Because they were such effective weapons it is likely that crossbows were used militarily in some capacity for as long as there have been crossbows. During this period a few secular chronicles were written to honor certain individuals for their prowess at arms in close combat. These chronicles documented battles and tournaments. The contents of such chronicles were determined mostly by the personal bias of their patrons and sponsors, not necessarily by the facts. Girard de Viane wrote that the bowman was `brave in waging war with beasts, in nought besides` and his bow `that weapon of a dastard`. This is not to say that medieval writers did not pride themselves on documenting the truth. More error was in omission than in misinformation. Therefore, negative incidents, those which seem to show crossbowmen as cowards and fiends, were often the only incidents recorded in writing. Chronicles from non-chivlaric cultures, such as the Norse and the Oriental, show much higher regard for the archer as an integral part of a successful military effort, and more respect is granted to the archer in these cultures than in any early chivalric realm. It must be remembered, however, that some records provide facts that hold little or no bias, even in these early feudal kingdoms. It has always been important for a ruler who relied on might to control his realm to have a clear accounting of his military resources. There have almost always been some form of military pay records or inventory and inspection logs. Also looking to ...
