About History: the Greek Gods become Roman

With its roots in oral and literary traditions, Greek mythology predates the Roman version by more than a millennium. For the most part, the Greeks envisioned their gods in a familiar human likeness portraying them with, often exaggerated, human traits, emotions, and physical forms. In this way the Greek gods and goddesses espoused both the beauty and flaws of mortal beings. From the thunderous Zeus to the wise Athena, the gods were at the very core of Greek culture influencing everything from art to politics.

Assimilation

While profoundly influenced by the Greeks, Roman mythology emerged in a society with a distinct worldview. The Romans, pragmatic and disciplined, adopted most of the Greek gods and goddesses into their own pantheon, but often changed their names and attributes to better align with Roman values and societal norms. For instance, the Greek god of war, Ares, known for his fierce and tumultuous nature, was transformed into Mars, a more disciplined and virtuous figure in Roman culture.

In the table below is an alphabetical list of the Greek gods and goddesses and their Roman equivalents. The list is by no means exhaustive as there are many more minor deities and other personifications of the natural world within which the superstitious Romans inhabited.

Of those listed above, the principal deities of ancient Greek mythology lived atop Mount Olympus and were thus known as the Olympian gods. They governed all aspects of life, from love and war to wisdom and the natural world. Adopted by the Romans, it is generally accepted that there were twelve Olympians as follows:

Jupiter (Zeus)  For both the Greeks and Romans, Jupiter/Zeus is often referred to as the King of the Gods. He was not the original creator of the mythological creatures that dominated tales and lore as that distinction belongs to his father, Saturnus (Greek: Kronos). Also known as Jove in Roman mythology, Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman religion, presiding over the sky and thunder, and acting as the guardian of justice, oaths, and treaties in the Roman state. He was considered central to the Capitoline Triad alongside Juno, his consort, and Minerva, his daughter. His sacred tree was the oak, and his primary symbol was the thunderbolt, often depicted in the claws of an eagle, which was also his sacred animal.

Juno (Hera)  The Queen of the Gods was the second central deity in ancient Roman religion. She served as the wife and sister of Jupiter, the King of the Gods, and was mother to deities such as Mars, Vulcan, Bellona, Lucina, and Juventas. She was revered as the protector of women, particularly in marriage and childbirth, and held significant civic roles as a guardian of the Roman state. Her sacred animal was the peacock, symbolising her regal status.

Minerva (Athena)  Goddess of wisdom, strategy, and warfare, but also of crafts, medicine, and the arts. Minerva originated as an Italic and Etruscan deity, known as Menrva, before being fully integrated into Roman religion as the third of Capitoline Triad. Her name is linked to the Latin root mens (“mind”) and the Proto-Italic meneswo (“understanding” or “intelligence”), reflecting her association with wisdom and intellect. Over time, she was equated with the Greek goddess Athena, adopting many of Athena’s martial and strategic attributes while retaining her original Italic identity as a goddess of crafts and professional skill.

Neptune (Poseidon)  God of the sea, earthquakes, and of horses. Known in Latin as Neptūnus, he was initially a god of freshwater sources such as springs, rivers, and wells, reflecting the practical concerns of early Roman agricultural society. Later he became identified with the Greek god Poseidon. Neptune is the brother of Jupiter (sky) and Pluto (underworld), forming part of the ruling generation of Roman gods who divided the cosmos after overthrowing their father Saturnus. Neptune’s wife was Salacia, a goddess associated with saltwater and possibly originally with natural groundwater springs, paralleling the Greek Amphitrite.

Ceres (Demeter)  Goddess of agriculture, grain, fertility, the harvest, and motherly relationships. She was a central deity in Roman religion being particularly associated with the growth of wheat and spelt, reflecting the vital importance of grain to Roman survival and society. Her symbols include the sickle, shafts of grain, and the cornucopia, and she is typically depicted as a matronly woman wearing flowing draperies, crowned with wheat ears. Ceres could bring plentiful harvests or, if angered, blight, drought, and famine.

Apollo (Apollo)  The son of Leto and Jupiter (Zeus), Apollo was born on the island of Delos together with his twin sister Diana (Artemis), Goddess of the hunt. Both he and Diana shared an aptitude for archery. The nine Muses were companions of his, they being the goddesses known for inspiring art and music. Apollo was a significant deity in ancient Greek and Roman mythology, known for his numerous functions, including healing, prophecy and oracles. He was widely revered with temples dedicated to him across the ancient world, particularly in cities like Athens and Sparta. Apollo is often depicted as a handsome youth associated with the sun, light, music, poetry, and archery.

Diana (Artemis)  Goddess of the hunt, the moon, wild animals, childbirth, and virginity. Diana was originally an Italian deity worshipped in the forests and countryside. Over time, she absorbed aspects of the Greek goddess, Artemis, including associations with the moon (Luna/Selene) and the underworld (Hecate), forming a triformis or triple goddess concept. She was the daughter of Jupiter and Latona, born on the island of Delos alongside her twin brother, Apollo. Diana was revered as a protector of the wilderness, a skilled huntress, and a guardian of animals, often believed to communicate with and control woodland creatures. Her name likely derives from the Latin dius (“godly” or “divine”), connecting her to the sky and daylight, and she was sometimes called Diana Lucifera, meaning “light-bearer”. 

Mars (Ares)  The God of War who represented its violent and chaotic aspects in contrast to Minerva (Athena). Often depicted in bronze armour, emphasizing his martial character, he was the protector of Rome, and originally a guardian of agriculture, second in importance only to his father Jupiter. Being also the son of Juno, the goddess of women and marriage, made Mars a central figure in the Roman pantheon. He fathered Romulus and Remus, the legendary founders of Rome, through Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin, establishing his role as a divine progenitor of the Roman people. As Rome expanded, his warrior aspect became dominant, symbolising military power to secure peace rather than mere destruction in contrast to the Greek god Ares, who was often seen as impulsive and violent. Mars’ worship was closely tied to the Roman calendar. The month of Martius (March), named after him, marked the start of both the agricultural and military seasons, while October marked their conclusion. Mars was associated with the wolf, reflecting his connection to Romulus and Remus, and the woodpecker, a symbol of vigilance and war. His sacred shield, the Ancile, was believed to protect Rome, and priests maintained multiple copies to safeguard the city.

Venus (Aphrodite)  The Roman goddess of love, beauty, desire, fertility, prosperity, and victory, and the divine ancestress of the Roman people (Gaius Julius Caesar for example claimed descent from her). She was originally a native Italian deity associated with gardens, cultivated fields, and the beauty of growing things, symbolising charm, grace, and productive abundance in nature. Venus was later identified with the Greek goddess Aphrodite. In Greek myth, Aphrodite was born from sea foam after Uranus (Ouranos), one of the primordial deities representing the sky itself, was castrated by Kronus. Despite Greek influences, Venus retained her earlier Italian character, emphasizing fertility, natural beauty, and the flourishing of life. According to mythology, her son Aeneas fled from Troy to Italy. He became the ancestor of Romulus and Remus, co-founders of Rome.

Vulcan (Hephaestus)  A son of Jupiter, king of the Gods, and Juno, queen of the Gods. It was believed that with such parents he would be quite handsome. As a baby, however, Vulcan (or Vulcanus in Latin) was very small and ugly, his face red and distorted. Notwithstanding his looks, Vulcan was married to Venus (Aphrodite). He was revered as the God of fire, volcanoes, metalworking, and craftsmanship. He was known as the master of the forge and patron of artisans, associated with both the creative and destructive aspects of fire. He is often depicted with a blacksmith’s hammer, working at a forge surrounded by flames and tools, symbolising his mastery over metallurgy and craftsmanship. Vulcan is credited with forging powerful artifacts, such as Jupiter’s lightning bolts and Mercury’s winged helm.

Mercury (Hermes)  Known in Latin as Mercurius, was the son of Jupiter, king of the gods, and Maia, one of the Pleiades and daughter of the Titan Atlas. His cult was influenced by the Greek god Hermes and the Etruscan deity Turms, blending traits of speed, cunning, and mediation between gods and mortals. Mercury’s name likely derives from the Latin merx (“merchandise”) or mercari (“to trade”), reflecting his association with commerce and boundaries. He was a versatile deity with multiple responsibilities including protector of merchants, shopkeepers, and of financial gain; God of messages, languages, and divination; patron of travellers, transporters of goods, and the keeper of borders. Known for cunning, wit, and cleverness, often using his intelligence to outsmart others, Mercury was also the God of tricksters and thieves. He also guided the souls of the dead to the underworld, uniquely able to cross freely between realms of the living and the dead.

Vesta (Hestia)  One of the original twelve Olympians as the firstborn child of the Titans Kronus and Rhea. She chose to remain a perpetual virgin, rejecting marriage proposals from gods such as Neptune (Poseidon) and Apollo. Instead, she dedicated herself entirely to being the Goddess of the hearth and domestic harmony, being revered as the guardian of family. Vesta ensured the hearth fire in every household remained burning thereby symbolising stability, warmth, and continuity of family life. Her symbols include the aforementioned hearth, fire, and kettle, while her sacred plant is the chaste-tree and her sacred animal is the pig. She is often depicted as a modest, middle-aged woman, sometimes standing by a fire or holding flowers. In some lists of the twelve Olympians, Vesta is omitted in favour of Bacchus (Dionysus), so some cany readers will note that the twelve have a thirteenth member.

Bacchus (Dionysus)  Bacchus is the Roman counterpart of the Greek god Dionysus, who is associated with wine, fertility, and ecstatic celebrations. He is often depicted as a youthful figure, crowned with ivy and holding a thyrsus (a staff entwined with vines). Bacchus was born to Jupiter (Zeus) and the mortal Semele. His birth is unique as he is considered “twice-born” first from Semele and then from Jupiter’s thigh after Semele perished upon seeing Jupiter in his divine form. Bacchus represents not only wine and festivity but also the liberation of the human spirit from societal constraints. He is often associated with the concept of bacchanalia, wild festivals that celebrate his influence, where participants engage in music, dance, and revelry.

One notable exception to this list is Pluto (Hades), one of three brothers and two sisters born to the Roman god, Saturnus, and his goddess wife, Ops. Upon the death of Saturnus and after the defeat of the Titans, the three brothers divided the realm of their father. Jupiter received the sky as his dominion, Neptune the sea, and Pluto the underworld. So, while Pluto was a major deity in first the Greek pantheon, being a brother of Zeus and related to the other Olympians, his realm of the underworld was far away from Mount Olympus. Pluto therefore was not usually considered to be one of the twelve. Bon appétit!

About History: Amazing early inventions II

Roman concrete

By rights the Pantheon in Rome should not exist, except that it does after more than 2,000 years. Given the technology of the time it should not have been possible for Roman engineers to have constructed such a perfect concrete dome spanning 43 metres, pierced by its great oculus or “eye”. Still standing two millennia after its concrete was first poured, it remains the largest unreinforced dome in the world. It is a structure that has resisted earthquakes, fires, the sack of Rome and centuries of use. Visitors to the Pantheon today can marvel at this example of architectural brilliance but few probably acknowledge the extraordinary role of Roman concrete.

Concrete itself was not a Roman discovery as there is evidence that Nabatean builders were using an early form of it as far back as 6,500 BC. The Roman innovation was adding pozzolana, a volcanic ash sourced from the Bay of Naples to a traditional lime and water mix. The additive created a durable hydraulic concrete with the unique property of setting underwater and the ability of growing stronger over time. The material is even able to “self-heal” when exposed to water.

Concrete was the foundation of an architectural revolution that meant Roman engineers were not bound by the limitations of cut stone. Its use led to impressive basilicas, amphitheatres such as the Colosseum, and monumental harbours and warehouses like those built in Ostia. Concrete allowed the construction of multi-floored insulae (apartment blocks) that housed tens of thousands of Rome’s inhabitants. It enabled the building of bridges across Europe’s rivers some of which are still in use today, and the vast network of aqueducts that kept the Empire’s citizens supplied with fresh water. 

Writing

Homo sapiens have walked this planet for some 300,000 years. In all those millennia humanity relied on the spoken word or pictograms to communicate and record thoughts, beliefs, ideas and histories. Such was the case until around 3200 BC when the first writing system emerged in ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia. From there the concept of writing spread over the world via a process German ethnologist and archaeologist Leo Frobenius called “cultural diffusion” [1]. The discovery of ancient Mesoamerican scripts, far distant from Middle Eastern sources, proved writing systems had been invented independently in at least five different times and places: Mesopotamia as mentioned, Egypt around 3250 BC, Micronesia in the 1800s BC, Shang Dynasty China around 1300 BC, and in Mesoamerica after 900 BC. Of these original writing systems, Egyptian and Sumerian are the oldest known (Regulski, 2016).

These new writing systems did not supplant oral traditions but did dramatically extend the reach of communication. Groups could record and disseminate their histories, knowledge, traditions, and laws which became fundamental to how communities understood themselves in time and place. According to associate professor of history at Duke University, Adriane Lentz-Smith: “Writing made societies easier to administrate over distance. For better or worse, it allowed the development of bureaucracy” (Lentz-Smith, 2026, 42). Moreover, the advent of the next amazing invention meant the written word could be circulated faster and further than ever before. Whole nations and global interests could now be governed from a single location.

Printing innovation

The sharing of written knowledge exploded with the invention of the printing press in AD 1440 by German goldsmith, Johannes Gutenberg. His design was modelled on the helical screw press used by ancient Roman wine and olive oil producers to crush grapes and olives. Moreover, Gutenberg’s printing press also used innovative moveable cast metal type, known as “sorts” [2], to represent individual letters or characters known in typesetting as glyphs [3]. When typesetting compositors combine sorts into lines of type to make up a “forme” secured in a “chase” from which a page is printed. Using moveable type sets meant Gutenberg presses could print up to 3,600 pages per day compared to 40 by hand-printing and a few by hand-copying.

A printing revolution ensued spreading from Gutenberg’s Mainz workshop to more than 200 European cities. Famously, it was William Caxton (born in Kent, England c. 1422; died in London in 1491) who first introduced the printing press to London. He had learned the art of printing in Köln (Cologne) where he lived from 1470 to the end of 1472. He set up a press in Brugge some time in 1474 where “The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye”, the first book printed in English, was published in 1475. Caxton’s translation from the French of “The Game and Playe of the Chesse” (in which chess is treated as an allegory of life) was published a year later. He went on to print two or three other works in French while in Brugge, but toward the end of 1476 Caxton returned to England. He established his press at Westminster and devoted himself to writing and printing. The first dateable book printed in English, “Dictes and Sayenges of the Phylosophers”, appeared on November 18th, 1477.

Coinciding with a sharp rise in learning and literacy among the middle-classes, by AD 1500 more than 20 million books had been produced by the new printing presses. As demand for books increased, so did the printers’ output, which rose to an estimated 150-200 million copies during the 16th-century. Quite simply, traditional mediæval scribes could not have kept up with such a voracious demand.

Reforming practices

Arguably the greatest impact of the printing press was the democratisation of knowledge. Even more people had access to ideas and information previously denied them. Yet, while fuelling worthwhile debate, dissent also followed. German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and former Augustinian friar, Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation. Ordained to the priesthood in 1507, Luther came to reject various teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular the view on indulgences [4] and papal authority. Luther initiated an international debate on these in works such as his “Ninety-five Theses” authored in 1517. From 1518 to 1520, some 300,000 copies of his tracts were printed and circulated widely across Europe, reaching France, England and Italy as early as 1519. The following year (1520) Pope Leo X demanded that Luther renounce all of his writings. Luther refused and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in January 1521 (at the time of his death in 1546, his excommunication was still in effect). Later that year (1521), at the Diet of Worms, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, condemned Luther as an outlaw. Regardless, Luther clearly made effective use of Gutenberg’s printing press to spread his views. He even switched from Latin to German in his writing to appeal to a broader readership. Between 1500 and 1530, Luther’s works represented one fifth of all materials printed in Germany, but more significantly demonstrated the power of the printed word to reach and influence a vast audience and spark Reformation.

Printers’ legacies

The development of printing has had other, perhaps less obvious, impacts. Several words and phrases are thought to have entered the English language from printing. For example, the terms “uppercase” and “lowercase” letters seemingly derive from printers storing type in shallow compartmentalised drawers called “type cases”. In most print shops, the majuscule (capital) letters were kept in a separate case typically positioned above the case containing the miniscule (“small”) letters. Hence, we refer to capital letters as “uppercase” and the smaller forms of the letters in the English alphabet as “lowercase”.

The metal sorts used in printing are cast as mirror images so that the resulting print will be the correct way round. In older type cases, lowercase p’s and q’s are in sections right next to each other and therefore were prone to getting mixed up. So, compositors in the print shop were encouraged to take care and “mind their p’s and q’s”, eventually leading to the phrase meaning to be on one’s best behaviour. Interestingly, several letters look like mirror images of each other but mixing them up was less likely. B’s and d’s, for example, may be mirror image letters but they are not kept side-by-side in type cases.

Limited supplies and storage space within a print shop often made it impractical to leave type set in its “forme” just in case a reprint was required. Yet, given the time and labour involved in setting type, especially if one considers the prospect of re-setting an entire book for a subsequent edition, it was sometimes worth the expense of using a “stereotype”. The process involved creating a mould, known as a “flong”, in papier mâché of already set type. A mixture of molten lead, antimony and tin was poured into the mould to cast the type as a single metal plate or “stereotype” that could be used for reprints. The original type set could then be taken apart and distributed for use in other jobs. The idea of printing many identical copies from a single plate of type was soon connected to the broader meaning “stereotype” describing individuals belonging to a single group as being effectively the same as one another.

Cliché is the French word for stereotype. The difference in this case is that rather than casting a whole plate of text, the French would cast frequently used phrases as a block that could be set in a forme alongside any other individual letters to save time. The word cliché is derived from the French verb “clicher” meaning “to click” and imitates the sound made when using stereotype plates in a method known as dabbing or abklatschen (“to tap”) in German. Phrases cast in this way were so frequently used that cliché become synonymous with its modern meaning.

The casting of printer’s stereotypes or clichés is believed to have given rise to the word “typecasting”. Once again the idea of printing multiple identical copies has been transferred to actors chosen for roles relying on their specific profile, particularly when they are picked for very similar roles time and again. In these instances, they are being typecast.

One last example is contested, but it may have had an origin in print shops. If someone is feeling unwell or ill-tempered, they might be described as “out of sorts”. As previously mentioned, individual characters or “glyphs” of cast metal type are called “sorts”. When typesetting, a compositor might run out of type part way through a job thus making them “out of sorts”. In such circumstances the compositor may well have felt fed up about it and it is therefore tempting to think that this could be the source of the phrase. According to the website Phrase Finder, however, the first known citation of “out of sorts” appears in “The Proverbs, Epigrams, and Miscellanies of John Heywood” dated to AD 1562. No mention is made to typesetting and it seems the phrase pre-dates the first use of the word “sorts” to mean blocks of type. So, it is safer to conclude that “sorts” is just a synonym for “spirits or health”. That said, an earlier citation may yet be discovered, especially given that Gutenberg invented movable type printing over a century earlier around AD 1440.

Da Vinci’s parachute

Forty-five years after Gutenberg introduced Europe to the printing press, in 1485 Leonardo da Vinci sketched the world’s first parachute in his work, the Codex Atlanticus. His design was for a pyramid-shaped canopy, approximately 12 braccia wide and 12 braccia tall [5], of sealed linen cloth stretched over a wooden frame. It seems Da Vinci’s vision was for a man to safely descend from any height providing the parachute was properly constructed. Unlike modern round parachutes, da Vinci’s version was rigid and structured to rely on air resistance to slow descent. There is no evidence that he ever built or tested his design, but centuries later da Vinci’s parachute was successfully tested to prove it was practicable. British balloonist Adrian Nicholas built a parachute of wood and canvas to the artist’s specifications. On June 26th, 2000 he was hoisted by a hot-air balloon to an altitude of 3,000 m (10,000 ft) and then released. Nicholas slowly and gently floated downward beneath da Vinci’s parachute thereby disproving predictions that the structure would not keep a man aloft. With the parachute weighing some 84 kg (185 lbs) there were concerns that it would crash down on top of Nicholas upon landing. To avoid injury, Nicholas cut away from the da Vinci parachute at 600 m (2,000 ft) and used a conventional parachute for the remaining, safe, descent.

Da Vinci’s flying machines

It is evident from his work that da Vinci’s approach to science was observational. He tried to understand phenomena through detailed description and depiction but not necessarily through experiments or theoretical explanation. The parachute was just one of the flying machines stemming from da Vinci’s fascination with the phenomenon of flight. Surviving to us are his many studies, including Codex on the Flight of Birds (c. 1505), as well as plans for several flying machines, such as a glider (below left & middle), the flapping Ornithopter [6], and one with a helical rotor (below right). 

Da Vinci is known to have studied the methods by which birds kept themselves airborne. He developed an in-depth understanding of bird flight, leaving behind a huge number of sketches, notes and musings about their behaviour. Da Vinci’s drawing of the Ornithopter (pictured right) conceived human flight inspired by his copious observations. The design had the pilot lying prone while operating a complex system of pedals and pulleys to flap the wings and adjust the tail. His engineering solution attempted to scale up the natural strength of humans to generate sufficient lift for take-off and sustained flight. After several attempts at re-creating the flapping action of birds, da Vinci concluded that his design could not generate enough power or lift to overcome the weight of a pilot and achieve flight. While practically impossible, given the machine’s size and weight, the ornithopter nonetheless remains a brilliant conceptual exercise and an innovative leap of imagination far ahead of its time.

Once it became clear that the ornithopter was doomed to failure, and probably injury in any testing scenarios, da Vinci reverted to his studies of the most efficient form of bird flight, i.e. gliding through the air. He quickly realised that fixed-wing gliders were more likely to succeed in keeping a moving object off the ground. Even so, da Vinci’s alternative approach was still constrained by the materials of the period being far heavier than those available today. Even so, da Vinci pioneering observations on aerodynamics recognised the importance of airflow both over and under wings to create lift. He identified vortices formed by wing movement, a concept still relevant to aerospace engineering today, and noted the role of a bird’s “thumbs”, or alulae, in controlling descent and ascent. Da Vinci’s work demonstrated a deep understanding of the physics involved that paved the way for later advances in flight mechanics (Bianchi, 2026).

Da Vinci’s tank 

More correctly termed an armoured fighting vehicle, the concept of da Vinci's Tank first appeared a letter to his patron, Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan. Written around 1482 as part of his Codex Atlanticus, da Vinci proposed:

“I will make protected wagons, reliable and impregnable, which, piercing the enemy’s ranks with the fire of their artillery, will destroy him, no matter how great the number of his soldiers. The infantry can follow without suffering great losses and without encountering any resistance.”

The resulting design, inspired by a turtle’s shell, incorporated a conical cover made of wood reinforced with metal plates. The angled cover was intended to deflect enemy fire in much the same way as modern sloped armour. Da Vinci envisioned the machine would be driven by two large cranks, operated internally by four strong men, powering two wheels each connected by an axle. The circular fighting vehicle would be equipped with an array of light cannons spaced around its circumference.

Study of da Vinci’s sketches revealed a flaw in the gear design, which would cause both wheels to rotate in opposing directions rendering the machine inoperable. This error has been described as a deliberate security feature should the design be stolen or because of da Vinci’s mirror writing style that appears in his other designs. The superb 3D model by Ľuboš Černák, shown right, was created in 2022 according to da Vinci’s original drawing. The model emphasizes the machine’s proportions but also illustrates the flawed gearing design alongside three possible solutions to the problem. During one episode of the US documentary series “Da Vinci's Machines” (2009), a team of engineers and craftsmen undertook the challenge of reconstructing Leonardo’s armoured vehicle. During the build the flawed gearing design was corrected enabling the team to successfully operate and move the machine. From the vehicle’s impressive size, it was clear that it would not have been capable of moving across rugged terrain. Moreover, while it would not have been possible to realise da Vinci’s idea in the 15th-century, the reconstruction validated his innovative thinking.

Bon appétit!

References:

Bianchi, L. (2026), “Leonardo da Vinci Glider: Could It Really Fly?”, Leonardo da Vinci Inventions and Experiences, available online (accessed 18th June 2026).

Borman, T, (2026), “Ask the Experts: The printing press”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.44.

Gurney, T. (2023), “Leonardo da Vinci”, https://www.thehistoryofart.org, available online (accessed 14th May 2026).

Lentz-Smith, A, (2026), “Ask the Experts: Writing”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.42.

Regulski, I., (2016), “The Origins and Early Development of Writing in Egypt”, available on-line (accessed 16th June 2026).

Venner, J, (2026), “Ask the Experts: Roman concrete”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.42.

Endnotes:

1. In his 1897/98 publication “Der westafrikanische Kulturkreis”, Leo Frobenius conceptualised “cultural diffusion” as the spread of cultural ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages between individuals, whether within a single culture or from one culture to another.

2. In physical typesetting, a sort or type is a block with a typographic character etched on it that are used, when lined up with others, to print text. In movable-type printing, the sort or type is cast from a matrix mould and assembled by hand with other sorts bearing additional characters into lines of type to make up a form, from which a page is printed.

3. A glyph is any kind of purposeful mark. In typography, a glyph is “the specific shape, design, or representation of a character.” It is a particular graphical representation, in a particular typeface (in computing, a font), of an element of written language.

4. The remission of the temporal punishment of sin.

5. The term braccia refers to an Italian unit of measurement derived from the length of a man’s arm that could vary between 318 mm and 991 mm (15 in and 39 in). Historically, braccia were used to measure cloth as well as other items. Interestingly, in 18th-century Milan one braccio was redefined as one metre and is only 90 mm shorter than the modern SI unit.

6. From the ancient Greek ὄρνις (órnis) meaning “bird” and πτερόν (pterón) or “wing”, an ornithopter is an aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designers like da Vinci sought to imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, bats, and insects.

Dispelling Some Myths: Homer who?

The writer credited with composing the Iliad and the Odyssey [1], often regarded as one of the most important authors of all time, is the most overrated historical figure, at least in the mind of Professor Michael Scott. That is largely because there is no one person called Homer. Careful study of those works, as well as other surviving epic fragments, has shown that they were not written at a single time by one person. Rather, it is likely that the Iliad and Odyssey were composed over generations by poetry performers known in ancient Greek as rhapsodes.

Each of rhapsōidos improved on the work of their predecessors, curating these epics and honing them to perfection. From probably around 700 BC these works started to be transmitted in a more constant format. Around 550 to 500 BC, they were written down for the first time. The belief circulating by then subscribed their genesis to one particular poet: Homer. The idea of a single, genius author remains much simpler to conceive and a more attractive option than having to accept a slow process of evolution involving hundreds of different creators.

In the end a whole narrative was woven around the likely fictitious Homer: that he lived on the island of Chios, that he was blind, and even that he may have had some divine parentage. In fact, the notional Homer became so popular that later rhapsodes, doing performances of these now “finished” stable poems, liked to claim themselves the “sons of Homer” for added gravitas and fame. Ancient historians even wrote biographies of Homer as a historical figure, and busts were created of him. Yet, as a single man, he probably never existed at all. Bon appétit!

Reference:

Scott, M, (2026), “Who is the most overrated person in history: Homer”, History Extra Magazine January 2026, London: Immediate Media Company.

Endnote:

1. The Iliad and The Odyssey are two epic poems where the former focuses on the Trojan War and the latter on Odysseus’ journey home. The Iliad is set during the final weeks of the Trojan War, a ten-year siege of Troy by Greek states. It centres on the wrath of Achilles, exploring themes of honour, glory, pride, fate, and mortality. The poem depicts both large-scale battles and intimate personal interactions, with gods actively influencing events. It is composed in Homeric Greek and traditionally divided into 24 books, containing over 15,000 lines, and was performed by rhapsodes at Greek festivals. The Odyssey, in contrast, follows King Odysseus’ ten-year journey back to Ithaca after the fall of Troy. It emphasizes cunning, perseverance, and the importance of home and family, featuring encounters with mythical creatures, divine interventions, and personal trials. While the Iliad is action-driven and war-focused, the Odyssey is more introspective, highlighting the hero’s intelligence and resilience.

About History: Was underwear worn by ancient Romans?

In a previous Tastes Of History post on How To: Dress as an ancient Roman brief mention was made of underwear. A letter discovered at Vindolanda Roman Fort, tablet 346, sent to a soldier probably from his home in Batavia [1] refers to socks (udones), underpants (subligaria) and sandals (soleae) being dispatched to him. Other tablets preserved from the excavations at the fort also reference underwear so we can be fairly confident that, just like us, Romans wore such clothing. What form this took is a little harder to discern, however. Roman writers left descriptions of clothing, hairstyles, jewellery and the fashion of the wealthy elites but almost nothing about underwear. So, it is uncertain whether Roman underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loin- or breechcloth. Predictably most organic textiles have vanished from the archaeological record, and the few garments and images that do survive present inconclusive evidence. This lack of proof has led to competing interpretations of Roman underwear.

We can be relatively certain that Roman women had something akin to a bra known as a strophium. This was a simple band of cloth wrapped about the bust to provide support. Interestingly Ursula Rothe, professor of Roman archaeology and history at the Open University, suggests that garment speaks volumes about Roman beauty ideals. According to Rothe: “A big bust was considered a bit coarse and barbaric.” It appears that the fuller chest was associated with lower status since elite Roman women typically did not breast feed their own children relying instead on wet nurses. In Roman society it was assumed that a woman with a large bust was breastfeeding her own children. Thus, a tightly wrapped strophium formed part of a wider system of visual cues signalling one’s refinement and social status.

A 4th-century mosaic in the Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily (pictured right) depicts young women exercising wearing subligacula (loincloths) and strophia (breastbands). Yet it is difficult to draw any conclusions about underwear from this one image. It is a late-antique mosaic belonging to a specific decorative tradition which may not represent the underwear worn through the Roman empire’s many centuries of existence or across its geographical expanse. Moreover, from the available evidence it seems these garments may only have been worn in contexts where clothing was shed to undertake strenuous physical activity or, as shown, exercise.

As stated, no identifiable fabric subligacula have survived, but archaeologists have found versions made of more durable leather. One such, identified as belonging to a woman, was excavated from a Roman well discovered in Queen Victoria Street, London. Now in the Museum of London, it consists of thin leather briefs tied at the sides with laces as shown right. This subligaculum remained a unique archaeological discovery for many years until others were found, some of which are richly decorated. Most of these later discoveries have been made in Roman London, with one found in Mainz, Germany. Such garments were likely worn by young female dancers or gymnasts, such as those shown in the Villa Romana del Casale mosaic, and not as daily underwear.

As for Roman men, we have evidence for loincloths from literary sources as described above, but also from images of labourers, athletes and enslaved workers depicted without their outer layers. Gladiators, such as those in the Borghese Villa mosaic pictured above, are shown wearing a subligaculum. This style of garment was a functional and essential part of their attire, offering modesty and freedom of movement in combat. Even so, we cannot be certain that similar underwear was routinely worn beneath tunics. Some Roman literature describes men falling over and accidentally exposing themselves. Such tales imply the absence of underwear, but it is hardly conclusive.

Our lack of knowledge about Roman underwear seems counterintuitive given what we do understand about Roman society with its communal bathing, open latrines, shared sleeping arrangements and household hierarchies where the enslaved routinely witnessed their masters undressed. With such a lack of apparent privacy, perhaps underwear was just not as important to Romans as a marker of modesty or personal privacy as it is for many cultures today. So, did the average Roman wear underwear? It is not entirely clear. Some may have worn undergarments beneath their tunics, but equally many probably did not. Bon appétit!

Reference:

Osborne, J., (March 2026), “We still can’t be sure if the Romans wore underwear”, What we’ve learned this month, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p. 18.

Endnote:

1. Batavia is a historical and geographical region in the Netherlands, forming large fertile islands in the river delta formed by the waters of the Rhine (Dutch: Rijn) and Meuse (Dutch: Maas) rivers.

A Brief History of Food: Eels

What’s in a name?

The name “eel” descends from the Old English word ǣl. Famously, the cathedral city of Ely in Cambridgeshire, England, derives its name from a time when eel fishing was a vital local activity in the surrounding fenland waters. Further afield, the large lake of Almere that existed in the early Mediæval Netherlands was also named after the eels that lived in its waters. The Dutch word for eel is aal or ael, so: “ael mere” translates into English as “eel lake”. More recently, the name has been preserved in the new city of Almere in Flevoland which was named in 1984 after the body of water on which the town was built.

Part of the order of Anguilliformes, the humble eel is one of more than 800 species of teleost fishes that are characterised by elongate wormlike bodies. In fact, the order consists of eight suborders, 20 families, 164 genera, and about 1,000 species. With such diversity, the focus of this article is on the common freshwater eel which has been an important food source for millennia.

Eels have a remarkable life cycle. Broadly, it consists of development and early growth in the open ocean through the stages of the planktonic (free-floating) dispersal of eggs and larvae, metamorphosis, juvenile and adult growth, and the migration of maturing adults to an oceanic spawning area. During their juvenile and adult life, most eels are solitary fishes, swimming slowly by means of sinuous lateral movements of the body and median fins. Essentially carnivores, during the several years of growth to maturity, eels feed diversely on free-floating planktonic or bottom-dwelling (benthic) animals. Maturity is reached after about 10 years in the European freshwater eel (Anguilla anguilla) but possibly much earlier in tropical marine species. The process of growth and maturation has been most closely studied in the European freshwater eel. In this species, both sexes pass through successive phases of neutrality, early onset feminization and juvenile hermaphroditism before environmental factors determine whether the eel will be definitively male or female.

All eels apparently undertake either a short or long distance migration at maturity to a spawning area. These are generally located over the continental slope or in ocean basins some distance offshore. Working on massive collections of larvae from 1905 to 1930, a Danish biologist, Johannes Schmidt, established the early life history of the European and American freshwater eels (Anguilla rostrata). He claimed that both species reproduced within the Sargasso Sea before using ocean currents to disperse to their respective freshwater habitats in Europe and North America. Although parts of his work have been questioned, especially the process by which these eels returned to their spawning areas, his description of a western Atlantic spawning and a trans-Atlantic dispersal of the larvae of these eels is still largely accepted. Contemporary studies suggest, however, that adult American and European eels use a combination of chemical, geomagnetic, and geographic cues to return to separate spawning areas east of the Sargasso Sea near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Eels as food

Eel blood is toxic to humans and other mammals so eating eels seems somewhat counterintuitive, but both cooking and the digestive process destroy the toxic protein. This simple expedient means common freshwater eels continue to be mostly eaten in Europe and the United States. Yet high consumption, especially in European countries, has resulted in those eel species becoming critically endangered. 

Up to World War Two jellied eels were a traditional and popular East London food, but post-war demand has significantly declined. Elvers, often fried, were once a cheap dish in the United Kingdom until, during the 1990s, their numbers collapsed across Europe. Since then they have become a delicacy, and the UK’s most expensive fish species.

Eels as currency?

Throughout the Mediæval period and up to the early modern era, eels were used as currency. People in England paid their rent, and sometimes other debts, using eels. With very little hard currency in circulation peasants often had no money and thus landlords collected in-kind rents. Indeed, Domesday Book records numerous instances of rents being paid in grain, honey, eggs and other produce. Eel rents, however, were by far the most common.

At the turn of the 12th-century more than 500,000 eels were due in rent in England each year. Over the course of the century hard currency became more available and in-kind rents disappeared. Eel rents, however, continued in popularity up to the Black Death in the mid-14th-century before slowly disappearing thereafter. The last recorded eel rent was paid from a Norfolk mill in the 1680s.

Most eels paid to landlords were eaten by them, but some were used to pay for other things. For example, in the 11th-century Ramsey Abbey paid Peterborough Abbey 4,000 eels per year for the rights to quarry building stone from Barnack in Cambridgeshire. Payment was to be made to the monks in Peterborough at the beginning of Lent, an ideal time as the eating of meat was prohibited on religious grounds. Unsurprisingly agreements and charters establishing eel rents often demanded they be paid in the spring. Most of these eels were sexually mature adults that were caught in the autumn during their downstream migration to the sea to spawn. Over the winter months these “silver eels”, as they were known, would be salted and then cold-smoked to preserve them for storage. Eventually, the autumn catch would provide landlords with a spring’s worth of church-approved food.

A couple of recipes

Elus Bakyn in Dyshes (“Eels baked in dishes”) is a 15th-century English recipe found in MS Harley 5401 housed in the British Library (Hieatt, 1996, 54-71):

Eles & cowche þam in a dysh, & cast on salt & saferon & powdyre of pepyr, & couer þat dysh with anoþer dysh & set it on þe coles, & turn þe dysh aboute and put in a lityll wyne in þe fyrst tyrne for savyng of þe vessell, & put þe hot coles in a hole in þe erth & so lat it bolyle, & serof it forth.

Eels & lay them in a dish, & cast on salt & saffron & powder of pepper, & cover that dish with another dish & set it on the coals, & turn the dish about and put in a little wine in the first turn for saving of the vessel, & put the hot coals in a hole in the earth & let it boil, & serve it forth.

A modern take on the recipe is reproduced below from the website “Gode Cookery”, a superb resource for anyone wishing to recreate dishes from the Mediæval and Renaissance periods.

From website Fabulous Fusion Food is a classic dish of Elys in Brewet (Eels in Broth). Taken from the 14th-century collection of Mediæval English recipes known as the Forme of Cury, the eels are prepared, sliced and cooked in a wine-based sauce, which is flavoured with spices and thickened with breadcrumbs:

ELYS IN BREWET: Take Crustes of brede and wyne and make a lyour, do þerto oynouns ymynced, powdour. & canel. & a litel water and wyne. loke þat it be stepid, do þerto salt, kerue þin Eelis & seeþ hem wel and serue hem forth.

Eels in Broth: Take breadcrumbs and wine and mix together, then add diced onions, powdered ginger and cinnamon and a little water and wine. Ensure that it is steeped then season with salt. Slice your eels and boil them thoroughly and serve them forth.

Bon appétit!

References:

Hieatt, C.B., (1996), “The Middle English Culinary Recipes in MS Harley 5401: An Edition and Commentary”, Medium Ævum vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 54-71.

Matterer, J. L., (2000) “Elus Bakyn in Dyshes”, from A Boke of Gode Cookery, available online (accessed 19th May 2026). 

Wyatt Green, J, (March 2026), “Is it true that eels were used as currency?”, Q&A, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p.63.

About History: Crossbows

Introduction

As its name suggests a crossbow is a bow perpendicularly attached to a stock to form a “cross shape”. One significant advantage of such weapons is that they can be kept in a loaded state without effort from the user. The stock also allows spanning (bending) and releasing of the bow (also called a lath or prod) to be mechanically assisted. All of which results in a powerful and accurate projectile weapon that can be mastered by anyone lacking the skill or physical strength demanded by conventional bows. Crossbows vary according to method of spanning, the material of the bow itself, the release mechanism, the projectile to be shot, and the intended use.

Shooting with a crossbow differs somewhat from that of “conventional” archery. At its simplest, spanning involves drawing the bowstring back by hand until it is held by the nut. Over time improved mechanical aids allowed more powerful bows to be made and used. Fitting a bolt, or quarrel, entailed holding the weapon roughly horizontal, and laying the bolt in the groove cut into the stock for that purpose. The butt of the bolt shaft was placed close to the nut touching the bowstring. A leaf spring was sometimes fitted to hold the bolt in place at any attitude. Crossbows can be aimed like a rifle, at or near the shoulder, and the trigger pressed with minimum disturbance to the aim. Inherently accurate, crossbows could be aimed precisely using the top of the bolt much as the sights on a rifle. Military crossbows typically relied on simple release mechanisms, while greater ingenuity was shown in trying to perfect this mechanism for later target bows.

Compared to an English or Welsh longbow, the crossbow’s rival in 14th- and 15th-century warfare, crossbows were slower to span and shoot. Depending on the source, longbowmen are said to be able to shoot six aimed arrows per minute (or twelve with less accuracy), while a crossbowman using a windlass might only be able to achieve one shot per minute (four if spanning with a belt and claw). Crossbows, however, could outrange longbows. The extreme range of the former was ca. 360 m (380 yds) against the latter’s ca. 255 m (280 yds), although the effective tactical range for both weapons was far less. At said tactical ranges both crossbow bolts and longbow arrows could pierce plate and mail armour with a correctly tempered arrowhead.

It is not clear when the crossbow was invented, but it is believed to have first appeared in China by the 7th-century BC and in Greece around the 5th- or 4th-century BC (the Classical Greek period). In the case of the former, cast bronze trigger mechanisms have been recovered archaeologically in China dating to around 650 BC. As to the latter, the earliest crossbow-like weapon to emerge in Europe was the gast3raphetes which probably appeared around the late 5th-century BC. This particular weapon was described in Belopoeica (Βελοποιικά, “On War Machines”) written by Hero of Alexandria who lived in Roman Egypt. His work, however, draws on an earlier account by Ctesibius (fl. 285–222 BC), a Greek engineer residing in Ptolemaic Egypt. According to Hero, the gastraphetes was the forerunner of the later catapult, thus placing its invention some, as yet unknown, time before 399 BC.

Greek gastraphetes

The gastraphetes (Koine Greek: γαστραφέτης, lit.” belly-releaser”), also called belly bow or belly shooter, was a hand-held crossbow used by the Ancient Greeks. A fairly detailed description and drawing of the gastraphetes appears in the aforementioned Belopoeica. The weapon was powered by a composite bow but unlike later Roman and mediæval crossbows, it was spanned not by drawing back the bowstring.

A dovetailed slider was pushed forward in the lower stock until the two pivoting “fingers” of the trigger mechanism could grasp the bowstring. A trigger bar locked the fingers in place. The weapon was cocked by resting the belly in a concavity at the rear of the stock and bearing down on it using the bowman’s body weight. In this manner the slider would be driven backward spanning the bow. A ratchet and pawl mechanism would prevent unintended discharge. As with other crossbow-like weapons, the projectile is placed against the bowstring in a groove in the slider. Having taken aim, the bowman pulls the trigger bar rearward allowing the fingers to pivot upward releasing the bowstring. The power stroke accelerates the projectile along the slider towards the intended target. The gastraphetes lets considerably more energy to be summoned up than by using only one arm of the archer as in a conventional bow.

According to some authors, the dimensions of the gastraphetes may have involved a prop but there are no surviving images or archaeological finds. Hero’s description is detailed enough however to allow modern reconstructions, one of which is shown above right.

Arcuballista: the Gallo-Roman crossbow

The gastraphetes was superseded by more powerful torsion-driven catapults which, for several centuries, became the standard “artillery” weapons of the Roman legions. In the 4th-century AD the Roman military historian Vegetius makes the sole mention of the arcuballista in his work Epitoma rei militaris [1]. In book II.15, when describing how the ancient legion was drawn up in battle order, he refers to soldiers who shoot bolts with manuballistae and arcuballistae, terms which are typically translated as catapults and crossbows respectively. Yet, as Joseph Needham explains:

“On the textual side, there is almost nothing but passing references in the military historian Vegetius (fl. + 386) to ‘manuballistae’ and ‘arcuballistae’ which he said he must decline to describe as they were so well known. His decision was highly regrettable, as no other author of the time makes any mention of them at all. Perhaps the best supposition is that the crossbow was primarily known in late European antiquity as a hunting weapon and received only local use in certain units of the armies of Theodosius I, with which Vegetius happened to be acquainted.”

In etymological terms, Latin ballista is taken from the Greek βαλλίστρα ‎(ballístra), itself derived from βάλλω (bállō, “I throw”). So, manuballista (the Latin variant of the Greek cheiroballistra) has the sense of “hand projector”. Most scholars [2][3][4][5] seem to agree that this weapon was a torsion-powered bolt-shooter, but debate on its configuration is effectively divided into two camps: those who accept the translation literally and believe the manuballista was hand-held and, conversely, those who see it as a continuation and technological development of earlier stand-mounted catapults as seen, for example, on Trajan’s Column.

As for the arcuballista, its name suggests it incorporated an arcus (“arch”), but whether this refers to the bow of a non-torsion weapon or to the arched-strut (Latin: arcus ferreus) design of torsion weapons from the 2nd-century AD onwards cannot be unequivocally stated.

However, in Book IV of Epitoma Rei Militaris (op. cit. IV.22), while discussing siege and naval warfare, Vegetius continues to make a clear distinction between the weapons “they used to call ‘scorpions’ that are now called manuballistae” and those such as fustibali (“staff-slings”), arcuballistae (“crossbows”) and slings. Rather unfortunately Vegetius does not describe the latter any further assuming that his contemporary readers would be familiar with their form and function. Weapons such as slings and staff-slings are clearly hand-held weapons however and, by implication, so must arcuballistae. Moreover, by repeatedly referring to manuballistae and arcuballistae separately Vegetius, and other authors such as Arrian, seems clear that the latter are different from torsion powered bolt-shooters and stone-throwers. Interestingly Arrian's earlier Ars Tactica, written around AD 136, mentions “missiles shot not from a bow but from a machine”, and that this machine was used on horseback while in full gallop. It is hard not to believe that Arrian was describing some form of crossbow.

So, if arcuballistae are not torsion-powered, then it seems logical that they were very similar to Mediæval crossbows using flexion bows. We turn, therefore, to the crossbows depicted on the Gallo-Roman carved stone reliefs (shown above right) from Solignac and Saint Marcel. These are obviously not a gastraphetes as they lack the distinctive crescent-shaped stomach rests characteristic of such weapons. Nor is there any sign of winching mechanism for spanning the bows. Are these then the elusive arcuballistae?

From a photograph of the Solignac relief in his article [6], Dietwulf Baatz suggests a plausible reconstruction of an arcuballista as shown left.

It is unclear whether the reliefs depict self-bows or composite laths of wood, horn and sinew; both were known and used by the Romans. Any reconstruction of an arcuballista could, quite reasonably, use either. It is unlikely, however, that a steel prod was used as in later medieval crossbows.

No known contemporary spanning devices have been discovered, and none are shown on the surviving French reliefs. To span an arcuballista, a sketch in Baatz shows the arcuballistarius placing a foot on the belly of the bow, either side of the stock, and drawing the bowstring by hand. If correct, the draw weight of the arcuballista cannot be so great that the bow cannot be spanned by hand.

A visual assessment of the Saint Marcel relief suggests the stock was between 600 mm and 700 mm in length using the forearm of the arcuballistarius as a cubit measure; the average cubit being 480 mm (»0.5 m). Likewise, using the same method of measurement, a bow length of c. 1300 mm (tip to tip), as Baatz' suggests, is plausible.

Using the length of the quiver depicted on the relief from Saint Marcel, Baatz assumes that missiles were of similar length to arrows shot from standard bows. Furthermore, with the nut placed toward the end of the stock, Baatz also imagines that the draw length was longer than that of later crossbows, and thus longer arrows could be used rather than shorter bolts.

The Solignac relief depicts a similar hunting crossbow from above. This clearly shows a revolving-nut release for the bowstring, together with a groove for the bolt. It proves the arcuballista is the ancestor of all Mediæval crossbows that use the same revolving nut release mechanism. Finds of objects resembling revolving nuts have been discovered in Britain and dated to the 5th- or 6th-century AD.

Unsurprisingly, these have been attributed to a form of late Roman crossbow. The author’s reconstruction uses a Mediæval-style trigger bar set beneath the stock to release the nut which freely rotates for the bowstring to begin its power stoke along the stock accelerating a bolt toward its target.

Unlike Mediæval crossbows which tend to have a wholly rectilinear stock or “tiller”, the arcuballista has a unique carved handgrip at the rear. Being so distinctive, it has been conjectured that pulling back on this handgrip, if connected to a straight trigger bar, might have been the means to release the revolving nut. Simply pushing the handgrip forward may have engaged said trigger bar into the locking notch cut in the nut. Precisely how this type of mechanism might have operated remains speculative, but one solution is pictured below:

Mediæval

In post-Roman Europe, from the 5th-century until the 10th-century, there are no known surviving images or references to crossbows. However, according to Bishop Guy of Amien’s poem Carmen de Hastinge proclio, which was completed in 1068 and describes the battle of Hastings two years earlier, crossbows were present at the battle but not one is depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry. William of Poitou also writes that crossbows were carried by Norman soldiers at Hastings (Payne-Gallwey, 2007, 45).

In AD 1098, a mere thirty years later, the ruling class of western Europe petitioned Pope Urban II to ban the use of crossbows because of their “brutality in war”. This apparent dislike of the weapon most likely stemmed from the ease with which the lower classes could be trained to use crossbows and, by extension, kill the nobility. Such actions upset the established mediæval social order and may explain the nobility’s petition. Yet even though the Pope complied, the Papal edict had little impact and certainly did not prevent the merchant guilds in London, Paris, Genoa, and Prague from manufacturing and selling, at a handsome price, thousands of crossbows each year. Once again strongly encouraged by the European nobility, the Church tried to ban the weapon. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council decreed that crossbows were unfit for use by Christians, and that those who used the crossbow against anyone other than infidels (Muslims and heretics) would suffer the penalty of anathema and be eternally damned. The ban was simply ignored and even Pope Gregory IX employed crossbowmen against the Lombard League a year later (1140).

One might argue that the nobility’s fears were vindicated when Richard I, King of England, besieged the tiny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin region of France. On 26th March 1199 Richard was reportedly inspecting the castle’s defences. The King’s apparent over confidence in the face of the enemy, allied with underestimating the threat posed by the defenders, meant he was not wearing armour. A crossbowman, often said to be a young man named Pierre Basile, shot the bolt that struck Richard in his left shoulder near the neck. Despite initial removal attempts, the wound became gangrenous leading to Richard’s death on April 6th some eleven days later. In a historic twist of fate, Richard was renowned for his military prowess and strategic innovations, with one of his most significant contributions being the use of crossbowmen. Before his reign (1189 - 1199), the crossbow was not widely used in English warfare until, it is said, Richard recognised its potential and incorporated it into his military strategy. How ironic that a champion of the crossbow was killed by one?

Crossbows are not mentioned in Byzantine sources until the 11th-century when Anna Komnene (1083–1153) [7] documented that the crossbow was a new weapon associated with barbarians and was not known to the Greeks:

“This cross-bow is a bow of the barbarians quite unknown to the Greeks; and it is not stretched by the right hand pulling the string whilst the left pulls the bow in a contrary direction, but he who stretches this warlike and very far-shooting weapon must lie, one might say, almost on his back and apply both feet strongly against the semi-circle of the bow and with his two hands pull the string with all his might in the contrary direction. In the middle of the string is a socket, a cylindrical kind of cup fitted to the string itself, and about as long as an arrow of considerable size which reaches from the string to the very middle of the bow; and through this arrows of many sorts are shot out. The arrows used with this bow are very short in length, but very thick, fitted in front with a very heavy iron tip. And in discharging them the string shoots them out with enormous violence and force, and whatever these darts chance to hit, they do not fall back, but they pierce through a shield, then cut through a heavy iron corselet and wing their way through and out at the other side. So violent and ineluctable is the discharge of arrows of this kind. Such an arrow has been known to pierce a bronze statue, and if it hits the wall of a very large town, the point of the arrow either protrudes on the inner side or it buries itself in the middle of the wall and is lost. Such then is this monster of a crossbow, and verily a devilish invention. And the wretched man who is struck by it, dies without feeling anything, not even feeling the blow, however strong it be.” Anna Komnene

During the 12th-century the crossbow superseded hand bows in many European armies, except in England where the longbow remained more popular. Archers, however, had to train for many years and from an early age to gain the strength, stamina and skill needed to master the longbow. Crossbow use on the other hand could be learned far quicker and did not require the physicality. Crossbows were the obvious weapon of choice for commonfolk. 

The laths of the first mediæval European crossbows were made of wood, usually yew or olive wood. Composite lath crossbows began to appear around the end of the 12th-century, while crossbows with steel laths (also known as prods) emerged in the 1300s. With much higher draw weights the latter, sometimes referred to as arbalests, required mechanical aids for spanning. In the 13th-century, European crossbows started using winches, and from the 14th-century an assortment of spanning mechanisms such as winch pulleys, cord pulleys, gaffles (such as gaffe levers, goat’s foot levers, and rarer internal lever-action mechanisms), cranequins [8], and even screws. Yet, even for a practised crossbowman, using these tools took time reducing the number of bolts shot to two per minute compared to the six or more arrows of a skilled archer. With spanning taking more time, crossbowmen carried a large shield, characterized by its prominent central ridge, known as a pavise (pavis, pabys, or pavesen). The pavise was primarily used by archers and crossbowmen, especially during sieges, to protect themselves as shown. It was carried by a pavisier, usually an archer or, for the larger versions, by a specialist pavise-bearer. The pavise was either held vertically in place by the pavisier or set in the ground with a spike attached to the bottom edge and braced with a support. While reloading, archers and crossbowmen would crouch behind them taking shelter from incoming missiles (www.metmuseum.org).

Crossbowmen recruited in Genoa and other parts of northern Italy were renowned mercenaries in the pay of many armies throughout mediæval Europe. As professionals such crossbowmen often earned higher pay than other foot soldiers, including equivalent mercenary archers. The extra stipend reflected that longbowmen did not have to pay a team of assistants and that his equipment was cheaper. However, with one crossbow team being more expensive to hire it made sense to engage three longbowmen for the same fee, which may explain why English armies favoured the longbow.

At the battles of Crécy in 1346, at Poitiers ten years later (1356) and again at Agincourt in 1415 French forces employing the composite crossbow were simply outmatched by English longbowmen. After these humbling defeats the use of the crossbow declined sharply in France, and the French authorities made attempts to train longbowmen of their own. The experiment did not last long as the French largely abandoned the use of the longbow after the Hundred Years’ War ended. Subsequently, the military crossbow saw a resurgence in popularity continuing in use in French armies by both infantry and mounted troops until as late as 1520. From that point on however the crossbow would be largely eclipsed by the increasing use and popularity of handgonnes across continental Europe. Even with its widespread demise, Spanish forces in the New World made extensive use of crossbows. That said, crossbowmen participated in Hernán Cortés’ conquest of the Aztec Empire and accompanied Francisco Pizarro on his initial expedition to Peru. However by the time of Pizarro’s conquest of Inca Empire in 1531-1532 he would have only a dozen such men remaining in his service.

Modern applications

From their inception crossbows have played a significant role in military history, particularly during the mediæval and early Renaissance periods. They offered common soldiers a weapon that required less training than longbows. Their mechanical advantage allowed for the spanning and holding of heavy draw weights, resulting in considerable power capable of penetrating armour at shorter ranges. Yet no modern military issues crossbows (or bows) as standard combat weapons. That said a surprising number of armed forces around the world still keep them in their arsenals for specialised tasks. For example a special operations team might use a crossbow for a specific mission requiring absolute silence, such as eliminating a guard dog or deploying a rope across a chasm. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is known to use crossbows as “non-lethal” option in countering public disorder. But these are extremely rare circumstances. Today, in many parts of the world, crossbows are more likely to be used for hunting. They are particularly effective for hunting deer, elk, and other large game animals at shorter ranges. Bon appétit!

References:

Blumberg, A., (2003), “The Medieval Crossbow: Redefining War in the Middle Ages”, Warfare History Network, available online (accessed 26 March 2026).

Payne-Gallwey, R. (2007), “The Crossbow: Its Military and Sporting History, Construction and Use”, Chapter IX, Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Crossbow (Halbe Rüstung) with Cranequin (Winder)”, available online (accessed 30 March 2026).

Endnotes:

1. Milner, N.P. (1993), “Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science”, Liverpool University Press.

2. Baatz, D. (1978), “Recent finds of ancient artillery”, Britannia 9, pp. 1-17.

3. Gudea, N., and Baatz, D. (1974) “Teile spätrömischer ballisten aus Gornea und Orşova”, Saalburg Jahrbuch 31, pp. 50-72.

4. Marsden, E.W. (1971), “Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises”, Oxford.

5. Wilkins, A. (2003), “Roman Artillery”, Shire.

6. Baatz, D. (1991) “Die Römische Jagdarmbrust”, Archäoligisches Korrospondenzblatt 21, pp. 283-290.

7. Anna Komnene (1 December 1083 – 1153) was a Byzantine Greek princess, scholar and historian. She is the author of the Alexiad, an account of the reign of her father, Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Her work constitutes the most important primary source of Byzantine history of the late 11th- and early 12th-centuries, as well as of the early Crusades.

8. For heavy crossbows the most practical spanning mechanism was the cranequin, consisting of a rack and reduction gear with handle. The gear box is usually almost circular, with a heavy loop of hemp rope attached to the underside. This loop would be slipped over the butt end of the crossbow stock and brought to rest against the transverse pegs to the rear of the release mechanism. The double claw of the rack, in extended position, would be slipped over the bow string, to be pulled back by turning the handle of the gears. The gear ratio of this winder is twelve to one.