Investigating guild life in medieval cities has been high on the research agenda these past decades. Inspired by concepts taken from the social sciences in the wake of sociologists like Coleman, Bourdieu and Putnam, all of whom worked in one way or another on the notion of social capital, medievalists have not failed to meet the challenge of tracing the consequences of social networking, associational life and collective identities on the rich social fabric of cities. Perhaps no other region has received more attention than the densely urbanised Low Countries. As a result, scholarship on craft guilds (Dumolyn, Haemers, Stabel), cultural guilds like the chambers of rhetoricians (Van Bruaene), devotional fraternities (Trio) and shooting guilds (Arnade) has expanded rapidly. Laura Crombie's comprehensive investigation into the nature of Flemish crossbow and archery guilds thus complements an already diverse field. Unlike many of the aforementioned scholars, her work examines one type of guild, but is all-encompassing in approach, as it attempts to analyse the whole range of guild activities. Moreover it is also radically empirical. Based on an impressive diversity of sources, it brings forward new materials and presents strong counterarguments for some widely accepted claims.

The merits of this study are great, its thoroughness is exemplary and, as such, Crombie succeeds in illustrating how associations are crucial for understanding urban society. She describes how shooting guilds were considered one of the cornerstones of civic pride and as guarantors of social cohesion. Their military achievements were recognised by the urban authorities and the prince. Hence they received formal privileges and money, and they were allowed to wear the princely insignia of power. Crombie claims that, despite differences between towns, the shooting guilds recruited widely in urban society among both elites and the lower middle classes. Women comprised 10 per cent of members on average. Associational life was, as in the other guilds, geared towards unity and collective honour. Perhaps more than other guilds, the shooting guilds also provided a useful bridge between the city and the nobility. Competition spread this message of social cohesion beyond the city borders, creating an interurban identity among participating towns.

All findings are carefully formulated and meticulously crafted, with extensive use of sources. In this context it is perhaps a minor niggle that not all of the analysis is fully convincing. This is particularly true of one of the main arguments: that shooting guilds presented a good likeness to urban society as a whole. A lot of confusion exists about the social profile of the shooting guilds. For some, like Peter Arnade, shooting guilds were elitist organisations that eased political negotiation between urban elites and the prince. Studies of material culture seem to corroborate such an elitist identity. In my own research on Bruges inventories in the late 1430s, only the very wealthiest households possessed a crossbow, for example. Others, including Crombie, claim a more inclusive membership. In a thorough chapter on craft and shooting guilds and multiple membership thereof, she claims that members of shooting guilds tended to be recruited among all but the poorest strata of society. At first glance this seems convincing, but the craft guilds she uses as a marker of status tended to be socially very heterogeneous associations, whose members ranged from very wealthy entrepreneurs to poor artisans working for wages. Crombie makes little attempt to really bring forward the relationship between economic success and membership of shooting guilds. Further investigation would be possible (tax lists are scarce, but some have been preserved), and a more detailed analysis of the urban economy could have nuanced her claim of inclusive guilds. It is striking from the figures Crombie herself presents that those crafts that ‘overachieved’ in the number of archers and crossbowmen among their members were also socially the most heterogeneous, with high levels of inequality (most notably the craftsmen active in the building industries). The social mix and harmony of the shooting guilds, in Crombie's book the real leitmotif throughout, from shooting contests to guild meals, is therefore not conclusively proven.

The laudable source-oriented approach here has a serious downside. Although this book is clearly inspired in part by the often-fierce debates that have characterised the study of craft guilds in particular, Crombie does little to challenge these explicitly. One of the debates concerns the immanent paradox all guilds seem to present. They are functioning at the crossroads of inclusivity and exclusivity. They want to include townsmen and give them access to social networks, opportunity and prestige, but in order to do so effectively, they also have to be exclusive and limit access to all those things. Optimists, like Oxford scholar Gervase Rosser, argue that it is empowerment through multiple memberships that strengthens the social position of townsmen. Others have pointed at the advantages guilds have in transmitting skill, knowledge and reputation. Pessimists, like Sheilagh Ogilvie, on the other hand, highlight the thresholds that guilds impose for entering social networks. In her view, guilds tend to become rent-seeking institutions in the hands of a few. Instead of enabling emancipation of citizens, they serve mainly to restrict opportunity. The image of social unity, so cherished by Crombie, cannot but crumble in these circumstances. Crombie clearly prefers not to enter into these debates. But, in refusing to locate her research in the continuum between guild inclusion and exclusion, she somewhat downplays the potential of her rich analysis. Focusing on the sources and their discourse, notions of civic pride and the ‘common good’ remain central throughout the narrative. But only occasionally do the sources induce Crombie to take a stance on whose civic pride and whose ‘common good’ the texts are really addressing. Unity and social cohesion within or beyond the city walls are, in her view, a given: an automatic result of the guild's actions and ambitions. The guilds are all too rarely seen as an instrument in the hands of elites; as ways for wealthy and politically influential citizens to include whenever they deem it necessary, but also to exclude and protect their social status when required.