The Pope that enacted the original ban on crossbows must've been horrified when he looked down from heaven and saw that those Christian kingdoms had developed firearms
And this question will rage on all the way to European colonial imperialism which was around the 16th to 1700s I believe might need to check my history
Quite the opposite. The ban was ignored because James Bisionette was the largest supplier of crossbows, and a little Papal ban wasn't going to get in the way of business.
Maybe it was that stupid... it's "Armbrust" in german which directly translates to "armbreast". The pope didn't want the "cross" to be involved in any weapons -- and sure ah stay away from those breasts...
Thomas Aquinas famously felt that crossbows were unethical because they were too powerful and because you couldn't see the person you were killing due to range, thus making it inhumane. At least that's what I remember from university
Average medieval crossbow only had a range of about fifty yards which is well within sight. A longbow could manage four or five times further than that.
@@JohnHerzfeld-on3og When crossbows became prolific on the battlefield, mail was the standard armour for knights and arrows from regular bows were capable of piercing that. The Papal ban came about before plate armour became common.
Imagine banning a weapon in order to lessen the amounts of Christians that die only to be told by the kings “yeah they’re Christian…. But they’re French too….”
With melee weapons, it was common to for one party to get slightly injured, surrender and be taken hostage. This was especially common for nobles who would fetch a much higher ransom. You can't really surrender to an arrow/bolt, so there was a higher chance ranged exchanges would end... fatally. My guess why crossbows were banned and not all bows, was bows took years of training to use effectively, crossbows allowed a similar level of power to be available to anyone who had access to a crossbow and maybe a few weeks to practice.
The council also banned bows, I'm not sure why it's always just reduced to crossbows. There can be some debate over what's actually meant by the terms, but it was more of an attempt to ban all ranged weapons.
@@varana Bows seem much more present in medieval art and such (I am thinking of depictions of the Hundred Years war, for example). While crossbows too are well-known to be (late) medieval weaponry, they seem rarer (despite having significant advantages over regular bows), thus making a ban more believable.
Longbows have good range and rate of fire but usually do not penetrate plated armor. Crossbows lack range and rate of fire, but can usually penetrate plated armor. I dont think there was much competition there.
@@hanswoast7bruh, windlass crossbow and high poundage warbow has more or less the same power, they're definitely could penetrate lighter armor like gambeson and brigandine, when it comes to plate they're better off fire at the gaps of the armor
@hanswoast7 I think the issue was, in order to keep projectile units ready for the crusades, the pope needed archers to maintain training, so they didn't ban bows. But they didn't need to maintain training for an army of crossbowmen, so in the off years it was banned
1:19 He was right about that. We know the proportion of casualties in battles went up massively once firearms were introduced and not just because of the improved weapons. We also know that early modern battles where bayonets were used had lower casualties because one side will break and objectives will be taken sooner. European observers in the American Civil War were shocked that they just stood and shot each other until everyone was dead instead of using bayonets. (That doesn't translate exactly to crossbows because they're not as deadly and army composition was very different but still)
I can see that happening, battles back then were not about killing your opponent, but routing them, though I'm sure once a rout happened, the slaughter did too in some instances.
Nonsense... The losses during the American Revolution were insignificant, compared to European and Asian battles, in which tens of thousands of soldiers died. This is due to the fact that American soldiers simply could not withstand large losses and fled.
Everyone always talks about James Bisonette but no one ever even mentions “spinning 3 plates” or even care to ask how or why he is spinning those 3 plates. These are the real questions that need answering people!🤔
Well, the why answers itself. And the how is just a matter of practice and perfecting your technique. Source: often spin plates on weekends, although usually just casually with two plates
If you think about it, that's actually quite a "nice" reason. It's one of the many occasions the church truly tried to make things better. A shame that most people who know about the ban still believe the old trope that it was just about perserving the existing social order.
I want to make it known to all that there wasnt plate armor at that time. Mail armor was the standard for knights Plate armor would develop later, proper full plate armor is 14th-16th.
The problem here was that the Pope was trying to use soft power to enforce his will in a manner that requires hard power. The Pope may have a grip on the hearts of the people but the rulers aren't gonna listen to him if he doesn't have an army to back up his more bold proclamations.
@@tomtomtrent The Pope did have an army in the form of the military orders, the nearest things to Roman legions in the 12th century, but I dunno whether they would be prepared to fight other Christians.
@@bornstar481 The religion in question is literally trying to reduce conflict between nations and decrease the likelihood of people killing each other during war and peacetime. Tell me then how is the preservation of peace and lives not "useful"? Unless your one of those warmongering jingoistic imperialists.
@@zincwing4475 The text only says "crossbowmen and archers". No distinction between different types of bows. Maybe a historian will provide evidence for the distinction being obvious at the same and thus, not specified ; but until then I would take it literally.
One of the most amusing moments of caesaropapism is King John of England being excommunicated and basically Enemy #1 as far as the Pope was concerned, but when John relented and accepted his crown as a fief from Rome, he became the apple of the Pope's eye overnight and had the assistance of the church in defending against the French invasion attempting to depose him (because the Pope had asked them to).
I love this channel, it is educational and wonderfully sarcastic. While there are no comments, I have a question. Is there any subject "too recent" to cover? Like some of the post-Soviet Wars or Yugoslav Wars? Also, would consider doing more medieval videos. Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, perhaps?
What most people don't say, for some reason, is that bows were banned literally in the same sentence. One doesn't seem to be have been considered worse than the other.
The original text in Latin (Canon 29 of the Council of Lateran) : "Artem autem illam mortiferam et deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus christianos et catholicos exerceri de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus." In English it becomes: "We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of crossbowmen and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics." On Wikipedia we see "slingers" instead of "crossbowmen", but I found both translation on the internet, and "ballistariorum" only makes sense as a "crossbowmen" to me.
@@akai4942 I didn't know but I'm not surprised. I know in at least one XIVth century Latin source they are still called "ballista". But I found the "slinger" translation, so I had to mention it out of honesty.
@@steevemartial4084 Funnily enough, it can be hard in the period to tell when someone is referring to slingers/slings or not, because there are multiple terms that one can use... And the writers themselves can get confused. Distinguishing between meanings such as Lingatores (Slingers) and Legnatores (Labourers) can get really confusing really quickly in Medieval texts.
Benedict XVI needed this place to preach his esoteric theological neoplatonist doctrines that nobody understood or cared to listen. It helped preserve his sanity.
I refuse to believe its a coincidence that a week before this video was published that there was a crossbow shooting in the UK and people were talking about banning crossbows again.
Funny, in History classes I learnt about this weird rule that medieval battles should take place only monday-wednesday and only during the day but no one answered me what happened if the battle took a little longer
@@nilsd4899 There's a difference between there being a law saying battles were only allowed on these days and people actually respecting that law to the degree that it simply didn't happen. This law WAS REAL, but nobody really cared about it.
Battles were limited to a few days a week... so that peasants could get out in the fields and make food on the "off days"....( Instead of cowering in hiding 7 days a week.)
The idea that being able to kill one another so easily from distance being a bad sign for future wars, weapons, & the people who fight them ended up being pretty spot on. Frankly some impressive foresight here imo
If history matters sees this I think you should do some more ten minute history videos every once in a while this is just an idea though but I really liked this vid
Yes but it's kind of like pandora's box. Once one kingdom starts using it all it's neighbors have to as well to not be at a massive disadvantage. Then those kingdom's neighbors would have to do the same and so on and so forth.
video ideas: How did Singapore get so rich with no natural resources? What was life like in Vietnam after the Vietnam War? How come Japan, Germany and Italy lost W W2, yet are some of the richest and strongest countries in the world?
It's also worth noting that in the same bull that banned crossbows they also condemned and banned other missile weapons such as bows and most weaponry, jousting etc.
As soon as I get notified of the next History Matters video I'm just going to go straight to the comments and post "Enough with the James Bissonette jokes!"
@Briselance I think he was basically saying that it’s too psychologically easy to kill someone if you fire a projectile from a distance and never need to hear their agony, see their human face, and push a blade deeper.
Wait... Do you make these videos based off recent events or was this just a really well timed video? Cause it's really impressive you wrote, animated, and recorded all this within a week timespan!
The Pope: “I hereby ban the crossbow.” The English (with their Longbows): “We have no problem with that.” The ‘Battle of Crecy’… ‘Agincourt’… How many times did French hubris and other continental European forces have to have unfortunate, disastrous, and woefully lopsided run-ins with the English Longbow? Before the dominance of gunpowder weaponry, it was truly the super-weapon of Medieval warfare.
Fun fact: some nobles and even kings were actually proficient with bows. Two examples thar come to mind were William Wallace and Richard I. The Lionheart actually led the attack on Acre, crossbow in hand.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 yes, at first, because we were a part of France (literally) and, so, they wanted to europeanize us. But even after our independance, we were still in the EU
I mean, it makes perfect sense. The Church would absolutely want wars between Christians to be less lethal, after all, both sides ultimately paid taxes to the Church. So as far as the Vatican was concerned, every loss hit their bottome line, no matter the side.
I like the way that the video claims that as soon as the crusades were over, it was back to fighting. Who had that kind of patience? Henry I? Philip II? John? Richard couldn't even restrain himself on the trip over!
If I remember correctly, there was also a practical reason regarding the safety of crossbows, since the triggers used to fire didn't have any form of safety and were essentially proto-hair triggers, which made accidental firings (and accidental deaths) pretty common.
A video idea how did the British Dominions work like Canada was basically a independent nation but why was it considered apart of the empire after that.
it's like in japan in 1603 as the era of waring states came to an end the winners were very upset by the idea of commoners with a musket could shoot a noble samurai from the saddle, so instead of changing tactics as the europeans did they just collected all the guns and pretended they didn't exist. worked great until the 1860's and no one knew how to use the port cannons to keep the americans out
The US government saying we need to ban the guns so the US government can take over totally just craaaazy rhetoric. Believe me bro. It's just common sense musket control bro.
!. Samurai in the Edo period more often fought on foot 2. Japanese warlords did change tactics, about 50 years before 1603 3. Not all guns were collected and nobody pretended they didn't exist. Japanese domestic gun manufacturing actually increased during its time of isolation 4. I can't find any source for the last claim
It's a good video, but it oversimplifies or misunderstands certain points. The fear of crossbows did exist to a very limited extent, but not because peasants can kill knights more easily. It was because the usage of crossbows required little training, making peasants much more deadly, and making the kings less dependent on noble houses for when they wanted to fight a war. Before the invention of crossbows, the king depended more on the nobility, because they had the armor, weapons, horses, and training. Crossbows became an equalizer, and some nobility feared losing their power. Of course, this concern never had any real repercussions, since killing the enemy was far more important than reducing your power a little bit. And besides, if the enemy uses new war technology, you're kind of forced to do so as well, otherwise they'd have a massive advantage against you. Also, I have a pet peeve with this: Yes, the Pope wasn't fond of Christians killing each other, but a better way to state this is by saying that the Pope was more powerful when the Christians were united. It's a very small gripe, but it reframes the statement from an ideological one to a political one. In today's world, too much ideological and legal nonsense is thrown around when it comes to wars and conflicts, and people stray far away from realism.
It’s something that often gets overlooked in discussions about the church and its history. A lot of focus goes on the negative, but the church actually put in a lot of effort in the 10-12th centuries to define “innocents” and limit conflict or at least establish rules around it. One attempt was disguising rules around combat as stories of heroic knights, giving rise to chivalric tales of Arthur and other romances
The myth first started seeming less feasible when i heard "penetrate armour better" which set off alarm bells with crossbows not deviating much from bow penetration and often putting out less energy
pretty sure because despite being communist it didnt have good relations with the ussr it received no help from them and the west did not want to help a communist country by giving them that sort of information
Or as Tom Lehrer put it, on the Pope lifting the ban on eating meat on a Friday in the second Vatican council, he was happy that this point had been clarified because he had always felt it inconsistant “The church said it was alright for a soldier to kill a man on a Friday but it was a sin to eat him”.
Abstaining from meat on Fridays is still widely practised in the Church. But the ban itself is pronounced by the national episcopal conference rather than Rome. A study has shown that tons of carbon dioxide emissions would be avoided if people would listen to the Church
Wait untill the pope hear about gunpowder
I wonder what they thought of Greek Fire.
WW1
Or condoms 😮
Here before 750 replies
@@deletdis6173 I thought its capped at 500.
The Pope that enacted the original ban on crossbows must've been horrified when he looked down from heaven and saw that those Christian kingdoms had developed firearms
And then Missiles and Nukes a few hundred years later
Considering how many deaths were caused by them, he was probably more like " Hey Jesus, better check your phone because I CALLED IT".
I bet he's weeping blood when he found out we've developed biological and chemical weapons.
Yet the gunpowder to fire them was made in China
Like a pope would get to heaven. C'mon.
The pope: "please stop killing each other, you're supposed to be on the same side"
Kings: "... no"
Kings: "shut up, nerd."
Well.. except for those Protestants later on. That was encouraged, but then they were considered a different "side" at the time.
"How can he be on my side when I'm the Roman Emperor and he won't listen to me?"
@@DISTurbedwaffle918 The Holy Roman Emperor, but yeah it was an awkward period.
@@frostyblade8842Actually 🤓
It was Roman Emperor, the holy part was added in 1157
King: Wait a minute, I’m the king! You can’t depose me, you’re deposed!
Pope: Aww. Wait a minute. I’m the Pope, you can’t depose me, you’re deposed!
Aww. Wait a minute
Oversimplified gang
And this question will rage on all the way to European colonial imperialism which was around the 16th to 1700s I believe might need to check my history
Oversimplified reference yeah there's a tax for that
Pope deposed many rulers,like my country king Sancho II was deposed by the Pope.
Because James Bisonette is really more of a longbow kinda guy
Haaaaaa, another James Bisonette joke, what a true novelty.
Damn oscar worthy comment
He made the world
Quite the opposite. The ban was ignored because James Bisionette was the largest supplier of crossbows, and a little Papal ban wasn't going to get in the way of business.
the james bisonette joke was fun at the begginign but now it is becoming repetitive
This is one of the unexpectedly amusing titles to a video that I’ve ever seen on this website
I was not expecting to see the king of Spongebob memes in here!! 😂
what are you doing here?
AreaEightyNine in a History Matters comment section? What is this, a crossover episode?!
Well there's someone I didn't expect to see on history youtube
There he is
- Did the weapon make you…
- Don’t say it…
- … cross?
- Okay, you are now assigned to burning.
The original name is "Besta" or the beast ... now it makes more sense
Maybe it was that stupid... it's "Armbrust" in german which directly translates to "armbreast".
The pope didn't want the "cross" to be involved in any weapons -- and sure ah stay away from those breasts...
Thomas Aquinas famously felt that crossbows were unethical because they were too powerful and because you couldn't see the person you were killing due to range, thus making it inhumane. At least that's what I remember from university
Average medieval crossbow only had a range of about fifty yards which is well within sight. A longbow could manage four or five times further than that.
@@DomWeasel to be fair Aquinas wasn't exactly on the field testing it himself
I was taught that the ban came about because of the ability to pierce armor and nobles were not pleased with that.
@@JohnHerzfeld-on3og
When crossbows became prolific on the battlefield, mail was the standard armour for knights and arrows from regular bows were capable of piercing that. The Papal ban came about before plate armour became common.
Where did he say this?
Imagine banning a weapon in order to lessen the amounts of Christians that die only to be told by the kings “yeah they’re Christian…. But they’re French too….”
Lol typical English vs. French / Spanish vs. French / German vs. French / Italians vs. French moment
@@deutschermichel5807 dont forget about french vs. french
@@lebronjames-eb4pe Damn french, they ruined France
Pope: we need common-sense crossbow reform
Medieval rulers : You can try to take it from my cold, dead hands!
*rulers
@@Lex_Aradenwhat did it say before?
@@bornstar481 Mediaeval James Bizonette
@@bornstar481 rules I think
@@bornstar481 I forgot the 2nd "r" in "rulers "
With melee weapons, it was common to for one party to get slightly injured, surrender and be taken hostage. This was especially common for nobles who would fetch a much higher ransom.
You can't really surrender to an arrow/bolt, so there was a higher chance ranged exchanges would end... fatally.
My guess why crossbows were banned and not all bows, was bows took years of training to use effectively, crossbows allowed a similar level of power to be available to anyone who had access to a crossbow and maybe a few weeks to practice.
The council also banned bows, I'm not sure why it's always just reduced to crossbows. There can be some debate over what's actually meant by the terms, but it was more of an attempt to ban all ranged weapons.
@@varana Bows seem much more present in medieval art and such (I am thinking of depictions of the Hundred Years war, for example). While crossbows too are well-known to be (late) medieval weaponry, they seem rarer (despite having significant advantages over regular bows), thus making a ban more believable.
I’ve tried replying multiple times on this subject but youtube keeps deleting my comments here for whatever reason.
@@Mimi.1001 probably because bows are easier to draw
@@Mimi.1001 Which is funny because crossbows have been used by Europeans since Classical Antiquity.
Longbowman jobs matter.
Doesn't matter the British were protestants.
Longbows have good range and rate of fire but usually do not penetrate plated armor. Crossbows lack range and rate of fire, but can usually penetrate plated armor. I dont think there was much competition there.
@@hanswoast7 try telling that to the French at Agincourt
@@hanswoast7bruh, windlass crossbow and high poundage warbow has more or less the same power, they're definitely could penetrate lighter armor like gambeson and brigandine, when it comes to plate they're better off fire at the gaps of the armor
@hanswoast7 I think the issue was, in order to keep projectile units ready for the crusades, the pope needed archers to maintain training, so they didn't ban bows. But they didn't need to maintain training for an army of crossbowmen, so in the off years it was banned
1:19 He was right about that. We know the proportion of casualties in battles went up massively once firearms were introduced and not just because of the improved weapons. We also know that early modern battles where bayonets were used had lower casualties because one side will break and objectives will be taken sooner. European observers in the American Civil War were shocked that they just stood and shot each other until everyone was dead instead of using bayonets.
(That doesn't translate exactly to crossbows because they're not as deadly and army composition was very different but still)
I can see that happening, battles back then were not about killing your opponent, but routing them, though I'm sure once a rout happened, the slaughter did too in some instances.
Nonsense... The losses during the American Revolution were insignificant, compared to European and Asian battles, in which tens of thousands of soldiers died. This is due to the fact that American soldiers simply could not withstand large losses and fled.
@KaL_69_ The American Revolution and the Civil War aren't the same war. 80 years apart, in fact.
Everyone always talks about James Bisonette but no one ever even mentions “spinning 3 plates” or even care to ask how or why he is spinning those 3 plates. These are the real questions that need answering people!🤔
Well, the why answers itself. And the how is just a matter of practice and perfecting your technique.
Source: often spin plates on weekends, although usually just casually with two plates
I bet Sky Chappelle has the answer to that question
@@2LinksThe why is his own business. The how is obvious: he's using his arms 😏
we the masses are in fear of the person who spins three plates, so we do not ask, in fear that we become corrupted by such evil knowledge D:
I really wanna know how much money Kelly Moneymaker makes.
Because Thunderers are objectively the better choice for a Dwarf battle line over Quarrelers.
That's fighting talk.
@@vorynrosethorn903
That's a grudgin'!
Did you just say SHORT! Oh no, you didnt
Warhammer references are always welcome.
Skaven: laughs in Jezzails and Ratling Guns, yes-yes
If you think about it, that's actually quite a "nice" reason. It's one of the many occasions the church truly tried to make things better. A shame that most people who know about the ban still believe the old trope that it was just about perserving the existing social order.
Blame Age of Empires 2 handbook. That was written there and I, among many others, may have read the same information there
Exactly. Honestly it was the secular kings that made things bad. If everyone went along with the program Europe would’ve been a peaceful utopia.
the Catholic church in its own way did attempt to maintain the peace and not have kings fight each other, much like the EU does today
@@MrMustang13Those are holy kings lmao. How can you call them secular when they uphold state religion
@@chrosairs7057 they weren’t clergyman were they?
I want to make it known to all that there wasnt plate armor at that time.
Mail armor was the standard for knights
Plate armor would develop later, proper full plate armor is 14th-16th.
And one reason for the plate armour developed later was because no one listened to the pope in the first place.
@@mightypirat9875 Which became useless once gunpowder started being mass-produced.
Brigandine also appeared between the transitional time from Mail to Plate.
@@DoomsdayR3sistance Correct.
@@brandonlyon730 15-16th century was when gunpowder warfare came to Europe, you got it backwards they where developed partially because of firearms.
Thank you so much for keeping the short topic as a short concise video instead of extending it to a 2 hour video essay.
The problem here was that the Pope was trying to use soft power to enforce his will in a manner that requires hard power. The Pope may have a grip on the hearts of the people but the rulers aren't gonna listen to him if he doesn't have an army to back up his more bold proclamations.
And even if he did have an army, they would have been at a distinct disadvantage due to their lack of crossbows
@@tomtomtrentthat’s what happens when all you do is talk about religion instead of useful things 😂😂😂😂
@@tomtomtrent
The Pope did have an army in the form of the military orders, the nearest things to Roman legions in the 12th century, but I dunno whether they would be prepared to fight other Christians.
@@bornstar481 The religion in question is literally trying to reduce conflict between nations and decrease the likelihood of people killing each other during war and peacetime. Tell me then how is the preservation of peace and lives not "useful"? Unless your one of those warmongering jingoistic imperialists.
Everyone should absolutely read this comment in Dale's voice, it made it 1000 times better
Innocent II was secretly a Vampire trying to get his hands on the Vatican's treasurrrreeeee
Random stoney stoner spotted
The crossover nobody expected
UKRAYINI SLAVA!!!!
How does a VAMPIRE infiltrate THE VATICAN? There's a cross on every other wall!
Did not expect you to be here
It should be noted that contrarly to a great myth, the ban was not only on crossbows, but every ranged weapons.
I think shortbows might still be allowed. And hunters were fine regardless. Longbows were apparently also out.
@@zincwing4475 The text only says "crossbowmen and archers". No distinction between different types of bows. Maybe a historian will provide evidence for the distinction being obvious at the same and thus, not specified ; but until then I would take it literally.
@@steevemartial4084
Looks like catapults were in the clear.
@@alanpennie8013 Ninja Stars too. Japan should've invaded.
One of the most amusing moments of caesaropapism is King John of England being excommunicated and basically Enemy #1 as far as the Pope was concerned, but when John relented and accepted his crown as a fief from Rome, he became the apple of the Pope's eye overnight and had the assistance of the church in defending against the French invasion attempting to depose him (because the Pope had asked them to).
@@JudgeEomer
A bit unfair to The French, but it was a good outcome from the Papal pov.
I love this channel, it is educational and wonderfully sarcastic. While there are no comments, I have a question. Is there any subject "too recent" to cover? Like some of the post-Soviet Wars or Yugoslav Wars? Also, would consider doing more medieval videos. Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, perhaps?
The art and the illustrations keep getting better and better
And SimpleHistory keeps on getting worse and worse. After they started hiding sponsors in the middle of the video this is my new favorite channel.
What most people don't say, for some reason, is that bows were banned literally in the same sentence. One doesn't seem to be have been considered worse than the other.
The original text in Latin (Canon 29 of the Council of Lateran) : "Artem autem illam mortiferam et deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus christianos et catholicos exerceri de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus."
In English it becomes: "We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of crossbowmen and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics."
On Wikipedia we see "slingers" instead of "crossbowmen", but I found both translation on the internet, and "ballistariorum" only makes sense as a "crossbowmen" to me.
@@steevemartial4084 I speak spanish. Ballistariorum definitely means crossbow. Ballista = Ballesta.
@@akai4942 I didn't know but I'm not surprised. I know in at least one XIVth century Latin source they are still called "ballista". But I found the "slinger" translation, so I had to mention it out of honesty.
@@steevemartial4084
Well done for digging this out.
I agree that the text is completely clear.
All missile weapons were banned.
@@steevemartial4084 Funnily enough, it can be hard in the period to tell when someone is referring to slingers/slings or not, because there are multiple terms that one can use... And the writers themselves can get confused. Distinguishing between meanings such as Lingatores (Slingers) and Legnatores (Labourers) can get really confusing really quickly in Medieval texts.
I love the "Papal Void Room"
…where the Holy Black Cat's litterbox is set 😸😹
Benedict XVI needed this place to preach his esoteric theological neoplatonist doctrines that nobody understood or cared to listen.
It helped preserve his sanity.
“Because I’m more of a longbow kind of guy” said James Bisonette calmly, while spinning 3 plates.
And calling Dr. Howard Dr. Fine Dr. Howard about his huge long wang.
"But Your Holiness, it is a *CROSS* bow?"
*Badumtsih*
wish these were longer. every history matters video is gold
It's mainly known that the Pope was banning crossbows when, in fact, he tried to ban all ranged weaponry like Crossbows, Bows and Slings.
Lucky David for not being born in this time if the Pope really banned it 😂
Thou shalt not kill .... other Christians with ranged weapons!
Did David not kill Goliath with a sling?
@@TheHatersarebad Yeah but I'm pretty sure nobody follows the bible 100% at any point, sooo...
This channel is quite literally the definition of answering questions I never knew I had
You'd think the Pope would be a fan of something shaped like a Cross.
👍
Christians aren't big fan of crosses made to kill.
I am still surprised that after all these years you keep on coming up with very interesting topics. Thanks a lot for that!
Good news: hundreds of years later people finally didn't use crossbows in wars anymore.
Nah, we actually still do. Much rarer but we still do and the Chinese and Indians used it in a border clash a while ago.
@@MorrisJohn-vo2vn Are they christian though?
@@MorrisJohn-vo2vn also we use melee ones not crossbow or longbow, beating with sticks/police baton and shield on both side mostly
I refuse to believe its a coincidence that a week before this video was published that there was a crossbow shooting in the UK and people were talking about banning crossbows again.
@@aidan-4759
That incident may have affected the time of release.
Funny, in History classes I learnt about this weird rule that medieval battles should take place only monday-wednesday and only during the day but no one answered me what happened if the battle took a little longer
It went into overtime.
That's very obviously untrue, simply look up all the battles happening on other days lol
@@nilsd4899 There's a difference between there being a law saying battles were only allowed on these days and people actually respecting that law to the degree that it simply didn't happen.
This law WAS REAL, but nobody really cared about it.
Battles were limited to a few days a week... so that peasants could get out in the fields and make food on the "off days"....( Instead of cowering in hiding 7 days a week.)
@@thedeadpoolwhochuckles.6852 Sudden death???
The idea that being able to kill one another so easily from distance being a bad sign for future wars, weapons, & the people who fight them ended up being pretty spot on. Frankly some impressive foresight here imo
If history matters sees this I think you should do some more ten minute history videos every once in a while this is just an idea though but I really liked this vid
Did anyone try to ban/regulate cannons and other gunpowder weapons?
The ATF.
That list would be too long to name them all here.
Rifles were outlawed in Europe by no one cared.
Yes but it's kind of like pandora's box. Once one kingdom starts using it all it's neighbors have to as well to not be at a massive disadvantage. Then those kingdom's neighbors would have to do the same and so on and so forth.
Once the Ottoman Empire started using them it would be very stupid to not use them as well.
Thank you for speaking 12% slower so i can watch the video at 125% speed wihout missing anything.
They did not successfully ban crossbows. Widely used in Eurasia until reliable firearms arrived
I think a cool video idea would be what happened to the Scandinavian settlers of north eastern England and when did they become English?
video ideas:
How did Singapore get so rich with no natural resources?
What was life like in Vietnam after the Vietnam War?
How come Japan, Germany and Italy lost W W2, yet are some of the richest and strongest countries in the world?
this sounds like some topic i would discover and get into a deep dive into after reading through wikipedia pages for like an hour straight
Only an hour?
Holding up a sign that says "Am I in trouble?" to Jesus is the single best thing I've seen in my years following this channel.
Last year I was at the Vatican and asked to see the Papal Void Chamber. They told me it was there, but I couldn't see anything.
I was expecting something like “the use of a holy symbol like the cross as a weapon was sinful”
This is surprising
Casually dropping the secret of the Vatican Void Room
It's also worth noting that in the same bull that banned crossbows they also condemned and banned other missile weapons such as bows and most weaponry, jousting etc.
As soon as I get notified of the next History Matters video I'm just going to go straight to the comments and post "Enough with the James Bissonette jokes!"
Heresy!
Yes please. It stopped being funny years ago.
I don’t know what I enjoy more: the actual history or the names at the end
Bro was a Crossbow-Hater
Yeah. Why the hate against missile weapons, anyway?
@@Briselance The pope obviously was more into melee, duh!
@Briselance I think he was basically saying that it’s too psychologically easy to kill someone if you fire a projectile from a distance and never need to hear their agony, see their human face, and push a blade deeper.
yo guys you can’t use this because its ga-
@@laughinggiraffe9176 nah man, he just had a muscle fetish and wanted to see more hunks out there
Wait... Do you make these videos based off recent events or was this just a really well timed video? Cause it's really impressive you wrote, animated, and recorded all this within a week timespan!
The ban was so effective I just learned it was attempted at all
The Pope: “I hereby ban the crossbow.”
The English (with their Longbows): “We have no problem with that.”
The ‘Battle of Crecy’… ‘Agincourt’… How many times did French hubris and other continental European forces have to have unfortunate, disastrous, and woefully lopsided run-ins with the English Longbow? Before the dominance of gunpowder weaponry, it was truly the super-weapon of Medieval warfare.
Fun fact: some nobles and even kings were actually proficient with bows. Two examples thar come to mind were William Wallace and Richard I. The Lionheart actually led the attack on Acre, crossbow in hand.
hey, i have a suggestion for the next episode : How did Algeria manage to stay in the EU until 1976 (14 years after its independance)
Algeria was in the EU for 14 years?
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 yes, at first, because we were a part of France (literally) and, so, they wanted to europeanize us. But even after our independance, we were still in the EU
@@akrammenaceur did Algeria get any economic benefits of E.U membership?
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 I really don't know, that's why i asked for the video. But i think Algeria probably didn't
@@akrammenaceur maybe you should've been europeanized then. Now you are african and poor
i love how short the video is despite being packed with all the info
Deus Vult, yo.
I love this channel.
I mean, it makes perfect sense.
The Church would absolutely want wars between Christians to be less lethal, after all, both sides ultimately paid taxes to the Church. So as far as the Vatican was concerned, every loss hit their bottome line, no matter the side.
it's very likely that missile weapons raised casualties numbers. I'd say it's fairly indisputable.
I like the way that the video claims that as soon as the crusades were over, it was back to fighting. Who had that kind of patience? Henry I? Philip II? John? Richard couldn't even restrain himself on the trip over!
lol. The Duke of Austria be like:
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:*
Why does San Marino exist?
"I ban the use of crossbows!"
Pope Innocent II, posting on Twitter.
Yep, that's about how effective it was
If I remember correctly, there was also a practical reason regarding the safety of crossbows, since the triggers used to fire didn't have any form of safety and were essentially proto-hair triggers, which made accidental firings (and accidental deaths) pretty common.
A video idea how did the British Dominions work like Canada was basically a independent nation but why was it considered apart of the empire after that.
Guy with the commonly held believe has a killer stache
This feels like those old school videos, I really like this vibe
it's like in japan in 1603 as the era of waring states came to an end the winners were very upset by the idea of commoners with a musket could shoot a noble samurai from the saddle, so instead of changing tactics as the europeans did they just collected all the guns and pretended they didn't exist. worked great until the 1860's and no one knew how to use the port cannons to keep the americans out
Gun control being used as a means of keeping the upper crust in power? Man, good thing that doesn't happen nowadays
The US government saying we need to ban the guns so the US government can take over totally just craaaazy rhetoric. Believe me bro. It's just common sense musket control bro.
@@GravesRWFiA
Probably the most successful gun - control campaign in history.
!. Samurai in the Edo period more often fought on foot
2. Japanese warlords did change tactics, about 50 years before 1603
3. Not all guns were collected and nobody pretended they didn't exist. Japanese domestic gun manufacturing actually increased during its time of isolation
4. I can't find any source for the last claim
It's a good video, but it oversimplifies or misunderstands certain points. The fear of crossbows did exist to a very limited extent, but not because peasants can kill knights more easily. It was because the usage of crossbows required little training, making peasants much more deadly, and making the kings less dependent on noble houses for when they wanted to fight a war. Before the invention of crossbows, the king depended more on the nobility, because they had the armor, weapons, horses, and training. Crossbows became an equalizer, and some nobility feared losing their power. Of course, this concern never had any real repercussions, since killing the enemy was far more important than reducing your power a little bit. And besides, if the enemy uses new war technology, you're kind of forced to do so as well, otherwise they'd have a massive advantage against you.
Also, I have a pet peeve with this: Yes, the Pope wasn't fond of Christians killing each other, but a better way to state this is by saying that the Pope was more powerful when the Christians were united. It's a very small gripe, but it reframes the statement from an ideological one to a political one. In today's world, too much ideological and legal nonsense is thrown around when it comes to wars and conflicts, and people stray far away from realism.
Pope: crossbows are gonna kill way more people than swords!
What I hear: Too OP pls nerf
Second Lateran council has got to be in my favourite 3 Papal councils of all time
Video idea : how harsh were the taxes that caused the American revolution
I live in a country where more than 50% of our money goes to taxes, i want to know it too 😂
So you’re telling me the highest authority banned crossbows and everyone just… ignored it?
We really should learn from history more
The pope only had the highest authority in theory, there weren't really any mechanisms for him to enforce anything really.
It’s because James Bisonette used them to commit massacres
Can you do more scandinavian history please? Thank you for anoter great video. 😀
can you start including sources for these?
It’s something that often gets overlooked in discussions about the church and its history. A lot of focus goes on the negative, but the church actually put in a lot of effort in the 10-12th centuries to define “innocents” and limit conflict or at least establish rules around it.
One attempt was disguising rules around combat as stories of heroic knights, giving rise to chivalric tales of Arthur and other romances
I first misread the title, and I was very curious what on earth the problem with eyebrows would be.
I guess if you wanted to one-up Peter I of Russia, who didn't like beards...
Three history and one Western Civ class and I have never heard of this before, I thought it was an April Fools joke until I saw the date. Wild
Pope: I have authority over you all!
Kings: No.
Hey Words About Books Podcast, you're appreciated
Because James Bisonette and Kelly Moneymaker found them annoying
The images in this were perfect!
Growing up Protestant, I had no idea about any of these Papal requests this is wild!
Well, at least you have a better idea of why Luther had so many theses to nail to the door!
Yeah, i wander if this pope would take the pope Gregory path after the reformation
The myth first started seeming less feasible when i heard "penetrate armour better"
which set off alarm bells with crossbows not deviating much from bow penetration and often putting out less energy
James Bisonette 🦬 used to be favourable to the use of crossbows, but then he took a crossbow-fired arrow to the knee.
Tis a bolt
It be an arrow with shorter shaft and non elastic fletching, often very thin wood
@@theprancingprussian What are you? A doctor in bowology? /s
Didn't know James Bisonette used to be an adventurer
So the viewer looks fabulous with their commonly-held belief, this is good news.
Conrad III did, at least for a while, follow this law.
Hello. When will you finish the Great Britain saga? Thank you!
Why didn’t Yugoslavia have nukes?
Because Yugoslavia was barely a nation
pretty sure because despite being communist it didnt have good relations with the ussr it received no help from them and the west did not want to help a communist country by giving them that sort of information
my reply got deleted
I have another one, why wasn't the USSR a communist utopia? And I think I know the answer: because it was not real communism
well how would yugoslavia even get nukes?
Nice vid!😉
You should make one about the division of Istria.
Istria is Austria
Istria in the balkan peninsula.
idk how but clearly James was involved
For some reason, the "Vatican Void Room" seems to me one of the funniest and most imaginative bits you've come up with to date.
Maybe it was due the name, having a similar name to the crucifix must’ve made the Pope quite cross.
Crossbows - shaped like a cross
Happybows - shaped like a smile
That works only it you are speaking English. From the Popes's point of view, Latin, Italian, French and German were much more important.
@@thiloreichelt4199tbh nobody gave a shit about English
For a few seconds, I thought 'The Void' was my monitor messing up.
☮
It seems that the crossbow was cross-banned across Europe hehehe
*a-cross* Europe
Or as Tom Lehrer put it, on the Pope lifting the ban on eating meat on a Friday in the second Vatican council, he was happy that this point had been clarified because he had always felt it inconsistant “The church said it was alright for a soldier to kill a man on a Friday but it was a sin to eat him”.
Abstaining from meat on Fridays is still widely practised in the Church. But the ban itself is pronounced by the national episcopal conference rather than Rome.
A study has shown that tons of carbon dioxide emissions would be avoided if people would listen to the Church
He was a lib and opposed the second amendment
Always enjoy your posts!👍