Before the simple weapon of the British archer, itself but a larger form of the simplest plaything of a child, all the gorgeous display of knighthood, the elaborated panoply of steel, the magnificent war-horse, the serried ranks, the ingenious devices of tacticians and strategists, at once gave way; nothing can withstand the biting storm of the “cloth-yard shaft.” It was equally efficacious in the field and in the siege. The defender of town or castle could not peep beyond his bretèche or parapet, but an English arrow nailed his cap to his head. In a field, provided the archers were, by marsh, wood or mountain, secured from a flank attack, they would bid defiance to any number of mounted men-at-arms. Their shafts, falling thick as hail among the horses, soon brought them to the ground, or threw them into utter disorder; then the armed footmen advanced and commenced a slaughter which was scarcely stayed but by weariness of slaying; the archers meantime continuing their ravages on the rear of the enemy’s cavalry by a vertical attack, prolonged, when the ordinary supply of their quivers had been exhausted, by withdrawing them arrows from their slain enemies, to be sent forth on new missions of death:--here is encouragement for our modern marksmen who are armed with a far more deadly weapon. ~Opinion on English archers by Napoleon III.~ ~Destroyed the prestige of cavalry.~ ~Estimation of infantry by continental nations.~ The most complete and philosophic digest, which relates to the system of British archery, considered from a military point of view, is that given by the present Emperor of the French in his treatise “_Sur le Passé et l’Avenir de l’Artillerie_.” That the British victory at Cressy was wholly attributable to the prowess of British archers, is well known; not so well, a circumstance pointed out by the Emperor of the French, that thenceforward, and in consequence of that victory, the prestige of cavalry declined. Now, there is a political, no less than military significance in this lowering of the esteem in which cavalry had previously been held. Horsemen were gentlemen, and infantry men of inferior degree. Whenever and wherever British archery were _not_ brought to bear, horsemen were omnipotent, and infantry of little avail. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries--the golden age of archery in this land, when yeomen or archers were in such high repute,--France and continental nations generally, treated foot soldiers with disdain. The Emperor of the French, in his systematic book just adverted to, mentions several examples where foot soldiers were ruthlessly cut down and ridden over by their own cavalry--the men-at-arms; not that the infantry fought ill, but that they fought too well. They were slaughtered lest the men-at-arms should have no scope for the exercise of their skill. ~Archer a yeoman.~ ~Political results.~