Though comparatively few men or horses were killed by arrow wounds at once, few, nevertheless, recovered. The barbed arrow-head was immeasurably more dangerous, imbedded in the flesh, than a mere lump of lead. Hundreds of men, hale and well to-day, have had fire-arm bullets imbedded in their flesh for years. Not so in the time of archery. The arrow-head must be extracted, or mortification came on, and soon a cruel death. Neither was the surgical process of extraction often happy in the results. It would not be easy to extract a barbed arrow-head even now, with all the appliances of modern surgery at hand. ~Arrow wounds more fatal.~ Another fatal consequence of arrow wounds on the field of battle was this: men wounded thus were rarely taken prisoners. Arrows were expensive ammunition. The battle over, detachments were sent out to collect them; and the collection was not done too tenderly. To regain an arrow seemed a far more meritorious act than to save the life of an enemy. The throat of many a wounded wretch was mercilessly cut, that he might be quiet whilst the arrow was being extracted. ~Bows useless in wind.~ ~In rain.~ The defects of archery were these:--the ammunition was expensive, and when lost, not easily replaced. The flight of arrows is never correct on a windy day, from whatever direction the wind may blow. Rain relaxes the bow and bowstring, so that archery then is of little use. All these are serious defects; but there was another of more importance still. When the archer’s ammunition was all expended, he was nearly powerless. A sword, indeed, he carried, for close fighting; and each archer stuck into the ground before him a sharp pointed stake as a protection against cavalry. ~Hand-gun most penetration.~ ~Silent discharge in favor of bows.~ The great advantage of the hand-gun was from its penetration, as no armour could keep out balls, but the _silent_ discharge of the cross-bow rendered it superior in the pursuit of timid animals, and the prodd has continued in use to the present day, for the purpose of killing deer, rooks, and rabbits. NOTE.--The articles on ancient Engines of War, and upon the Bow, are principally taken from the following works, viz:--“Military Antiquities,” by F. Grose, Esq.; “A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour,” by Sir S. R. Meyrick; “Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe,” by John Hewitt; “Projectile Weapons of War,” and “Report of the Rifle Match at Wimbledon Common,” by J. Scoffern, M. B.; “Engines of War,” by H. Wilkinson, and “The Long-Bow of the Past and the Rifle for the Future,” by H. Britannicus. HISTORY OF ARTILLERY. ~Fate of nations depends on arms.~