Armour and Conquest

17 Pages·2015·0.49 MB·English

Armour and Conquest:
A study of body armour worn by the Anglo-
Normans and the Gaelic Irish at the time of
the Conquest of Ireland

ABSTRACT: In his history of the conquest of Ireland by the Anglo-Normans, Gerald of Wales
contended that the Irish were technologically inferior to the Anglo-Normans as they wore no
armour. Gerald’s conclusion has been perpetuated by later historians, notably Edmund
Curtis, often with an anti-Irish bias. In this essay, I critically examine this accusation of
technological inferiority. The essay can be divided in two: (1) I attempted to assess the kind
of armour worn by both the Irish and the Anglo-Normans during the conquest by looking at
sources such as stone effigies, literary and historical textual descriptions, pictorial depictions
in the Maciejowski Bible and artefacts from the archaeological record and (2) I compared the
effectiveness of these types of armour in an Irish context. The conclusion reached in this
essay is that the Irish were aware of chainmail armour, which was worn by many of the
Anglo-Norman knights, and were able to produce it or acquire it through trade. However, it
is likely that the majority of the Irish did not wear chainmail armour and instead they wore
other types of body armour, such as leather or padded armour. Furthermore, this choice of
lighter armour was more suited to the wooded and mountainous Irish landscape. The
guerrilla tactics of the native Irish emphasised agility over strength, which proved relatively
effective against the heavy cavalry of the Anglo-Normans. These findings suggest that the
‘technological superiority’ of the Anglo-Normans was non-existent or, at least, ineffective in
an Irish context and another reason must be found to explain the success of the conquest.
“But when [the people of Wexford] perceived the troops to
which they were opposed, arrayed in a manner they had never
before witnessed, and a body of horsemen, with their bright
armour, helmets, and shields, they adopted new plans…”1
So Gerald de Barry, also known as Giraldus Cambrensis or Gerald of Wales, the primary
chronicler of the Anglo-Norman invasion into Ireland, described the appearance of the
Anglo-Norman army to the inhabitants of Ireland. He stressed that the Irish were unfamiliar
with the Anglo-Norman armour and that they were intimidated by the apparent strength
the armour signified. This emphasis on the technical inferiority of the Gaelic Irish was just

1 Gerald de Barry, Expugnatio Hibernica in Thomas Right (ed.) and John Forester (trans.)The Historical Works of
Giraldus Cambrensis, p. 191.
part of the propagandist message espoused by de Barry in his two great works dealing with
Ireland, Expugnatio Hibernica (‘The Conquest of Ireland’) and Topographia Hibernica (‘The
Topography of Ireland’), wherein de Barry aimed to delineate the legitimacy and the
inevitability of the Anglo-Norman rule in Ireland. De Barry’s interpretation of the Anglo-
Norman invasion of Ireland was propagated by later historians, particularly G. H. Orpen,
who used the Expugnatio uncritically as a basis for his narrative of the conquest in Ireland
under the Normans.2 However, it is necessary to critically analyse de Barry’s history as well
as other sources, to attempt to define the armour worn by both the Anglo-Normans and the
Gaelic Irish during this period and to attempt to assess the effectiveness of the armour in
the context of the conquest of Ireland.
Any analysis of the body armour worn in twelfth-century Ireland is difficult to
undertake due to the relative scarcity of archaeological sources. Archaeological remains of
chainmail, for example, are particularly rare. Ian Peirce, a historian specialising in eleventh-
and twelfth-century armour, illustrates the rapid deterioration of mail armour by recounting
a discovery of “a knight buried face downwards” in a mail shirt, which deteriorated too
quickly for even a photographic record to be made.3 Only a few rings were recovered from
the site. This paucity of remains can also be seen in an Irish context, as in the entirety of the
Dublin excavations, only a small scrap of chainmail was found, dating from the eleventh or
twelfth century.4 Other forms of body armour, such as leather or padded armour, would
likely not appear at all in the archaeological record. However, the remains of weapons can
often offer an insight into the armour worn, either because the weapon was designed

2 G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, vol. i (1911).
3 Ian Peirce, ‘Arms, Armour and Warfare in the Eleventh Century’, in R. Allen Brown (ed.), Anglo-Norman
Studies X: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1987 (1988), p. 239.
4 Andrew Halpin, Weapons and warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin (2008), p. 178.
specifically to be used against the armour, or because the armour was designed to repel the
weapon.
Due to the limited amount of archaeological evidence, it is necessary to look to other
sources to assess the likely body armour worn by both groups during this period. Stone
effigies which depict a knight at rest are an important source of information about Anglo-
Norman armour.5 However, all Irish examples date from the thirteenth century and as they
are works of art, they may not be entirely accurate depictions of the armour worn by the
knight in question: “the artist rarely attempted to do more than present an adumbration of
what he knew existed.”6 Similarly, the depictions of armour in illuminated manuscripts must
be afforded the same critical analysis. Such images are invaluable sources in the study of
medieval armour as vivid representations of the armour worn during the period in which
the images were painted. This essay will pay particular attention to two pictorial sources:
The Bayeux Tapestry and the Maciejowski Bible. The Bayeux Tapestry, an embroidery
probably completed c.1077, is one of the most important pictorial sources for medieval
English history as it is a vivid depiction of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.7 The
Maciejowski Bible, sometimes called the Crusader Bible or the Morgan Bible, was
commissioned by St Louis of France and completed c. 1250.8 This pictorial bible contains a
series of illustrations of war scenes from the Old Testament. However, the soldiers are
presented as contemporary (i.e. mid-thirteenth century) soldiers, and wear the armour of
that period. These pictures also serve as a good resource for depictions of medieval battle.

5 John Hunt’s masterful book, Irish medieval figure sculpture, 1200-1600: a study of Irish tombs with notes on
costume and armour, vol. 2 (1974) is a mine of information on the topic.
6 Ibid, p. 21.
7 Roger Sherman Loomis, ‘The Origin and Date of the Bayeux Embroidery,’ The Art Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1 (Sept.
1923), p. 6.
8 Maciejowski Bible, [http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/maciejowski_bible.htm, accessed: 8 February
2012].
Although these two sources were made roughly a century and a half apart, the kind of body
armour they depict is quite similar. Ewart Oakeshott comments that between two centuries
B.C. and 1300, the kind of armour worn in Western Europe changed remarkably little.9
Finally, contemporary or relatively contemporaneous documents provide a wealth of
information on the armour worn by both the Anglo-Normans and the Native Irish during the
twelfth-century conquest of Ireland. De Barry’s Topographia and Expugnatio have already
been mentioned, but a few Gaelic Irish texts offer insights into the armour of both parties.
Some early twelfth-century literary texts, such as Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, as well as the
quasi-legal tract Lebor na Cert, are useful in establishing the armour of the Gaelic Irish, while
the Gaelic Irish annals offer some information on the armour during the period immediately
under investigation. Through careful analysis and synthesis of all of these primary materials,
it is possible to perceive the type of armour that was worn by both the Anglo-Normans and
the Gaelic Irish during this period, as well as the effectiveness of the armour in an Irish
context.
Although knights loom large in the popular conception of the Anglo-Norman army,
not every warrior who came to Ireland under the banner of an Anglo-Saxon lord was a
knight. Although the mounted knight was an important part of most western armies during
this period, it is important not to neglect the presence of other types of Anglo-Norman
soldiers who took part in the conquest. In the Expugnatio, de Barry outlines the
compositions of the forces of the main lords who came to Ireland during the period 1169-
1171. For example, the first arrival, Robert Fitz Stephen, brought “thirty knights (milites), of
his own kindred and retainers, together with sixty men in half-armour, and about three

9 Ewart Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons: arms and armour from prehistory to the age of chivalry
(1994), p. 261.
Plate 1: Great Seal of Henry II, 1154-1170
hundred arches and foot soldiers.”10 Richard de Clare, also known as Strongbow, a central
figure in the conquest, brought to Ireland with him “about two hundred knights, and other
troops to the number of a thousand.”11 It is clear that the armies brought by these Anglo-
Norman lords were mixed armies. The men in half-armour may refer to wealthy free men
who were below the status of knight. In the slightly later Assize of Arms of 1181, a free man
worth over 10 marks is expected to provide a light hauberk and an iron cap as well as a
lance for military service.12 This can be compared to those of a knight’s rank, who would
have worn a mail-coat and a helmet and carried a shield and a lance.13 Although the Assize
of Arms was a formalization of the military obligation of citizens to their king, rather than a
description of armour worn by men of certain classes during that period, the document may
outline types of armour that could have been worn, even a decade earlier, by men unable to
afford the expensive armour of a knight. Archers, who were a major part of the army
brought to Ireland by Henry II in 1171, would likely have worn padded or leather armour.
However, it is impossible to ignore the knights in a discussion on armour, as they
were the most-heavily armoured of all of these soldiers. The style of armour worn by the
Anglo-Normans was common throughout Western Europe during this period. The Great Seal
of Henry II offers one depiction of the armour worn during his reign. This seal, used between
1154 and 1189, depicts Henry II as a knight, wearing full armour [Plate 1].14 He is wearing a
chainmail hauberk with long sleeves. He is also wearing a chain mail coif to cover his head
underneath his helmet, which has the elongated nasal, similar to those depicted in the
Bayeux Tapestry. Underneath this heavy mail armour, the knight would have worn a padded

10 De Barry, Expugnatio, p. 189.
11 Ibid, p. 211.
12 Robert Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225, p. 253.
13 Ibid.
14 David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350: Western Europe and the Crusader States
(1999), p. 56.
tunic (called a gambeson) and a padded arming cap, sometime termed ‘soft armour’.15
These items were used both as added protection and to ensure increased comfort for the
knights while in full armour. Although not depicted in this seal, mail chausses, or leg
coverings, were becoming more popular during the period after c.1150 and mail mittens
were more popular from c.1175.16
Other representations of this kind of armour can be found in sculpture. One English
example is that of the tomb of Robert Berkley [Plate 2], which dates from c.1170, and is
therefore contemporaneous with the conquest itself. The attention to detail in this effigy is
quite outstanding. The artist clearly depicts the outline of the padded arming cap that would
have been worn under the coif in this effigy. The figure is also wearing mail chausses, as was
typical during this period. Plates 3 and 4 are Anglo-Irish sculptures, although both are
thirteenth century. The figure on the right in the carving known as ‘The Brethren’ [Plate 3],
from Jerpoint Abbey, clearly depicts the coif and mail chausses. It is also just possible to
observe the padding of the arming cap underneath the coif. The second figure [Plate 4] is a
label stop from the church of St. John’s, Kilkenny, and depicts the head of a knight.17 The
arming cap is visible around the face, peeking out below the chain coif. These
representations of armour offer a fairly contemporary view of the type of armour that was
worn by the knights of the Anglo-Norman armies. As stated above, many of the soldiers who
came from England and Wales during this period would have not worn this entire set of
armour, but may have worn simply a hauberk and a helmet, or possibly simply the padded
gambeson.

15 Matthew Strickland, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of Warin England and Normandy, 1066-
1217 (1996), p. 170.
16 Peirce, ‘The Knight, his Arms and Armour in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,’ in Christopher Harper-Bill
and Ruth Harvey (eds.), The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood: Papers from the first and second
Strawberry Hill conferences (1986), pp. 158, 159.
17 Hunt, Irish medieval figure sculpture, 1200-1600, vol. 1, p. 24.
Armour in Ireland is more difficult to approach as a topic because it has mainly been
assumed that the native Irish wore no armour. Depictions of Irish soldiers during this period
are rarer than those of mainland Europe and therefore textual descriptions of the armour of
the native Irish are very important sources. Due to the lack of artistic depictions of native
armour, Gerald de Barry’s assertion that the Gaelic Irish wore no armour has been largely
taken as true: “they go to battle without armour, considering it a burden, and esteeming it
brave and honourable to fight without it.”18 Many Gaelic Irish sources support this assertion.
The Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh is an 12th-century propagandist retelling of Brian Boru’s
wars against the Vikings in the late 10th and early 11th centuries and is considered to be an
accurate description of warfare at the time in which it was written. Before the battle of
Clontarf, there is a description of the armour worn by both sides. The Vikings are described
as wearing “corslets of double refined iron and of cool uncorroding brass, for the protection
of their bodies and skin, and skulls,” while the Irish represented as wearing only shirts and
“enfolding tunics over comfortable long vests.”19 Although this passage accentuates the
difference between the clothes of the Vikings and the Irish, likely in an effort to make the
Irish appear more heroic, the description of these “enfolding tunics” seems to suggest that
they were a form of padded armour, similar to the gambeson worn by the Anglo-Normans.
This theory is strengthened by the fact that they are worn “over comfortable long vests”,
indicating that the tunic may itself be heavy or uncomfortable. The word used by the writer
of Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh is ‘inair’ (ionair in modern Irish), a term which today carries
exclusively militaristic connotations. It appears similar to the cotún identified by Peter

18 De Barry, Topographia, p.123.
19 Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh: The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill or The Invasions of Ireland by the Danes
and other Norsemen, James Henthorn Todd (ed. & trans.) (1867), pp. 159, 163.
Harbison in later Irish sources.20 In a summary of the documentary sources, Andrew Halpin
concludes that textual evidence points to the fact that the native Irish wore organic armour,
most likely leather, in contrast to the mail worn by the Vikings.21
Harbison highlights that there are many pre-Norman references to chainmail –
described in Irish sources using the word ‘lúirech’ – related to both the Vikings and to Old
Irish heroes.22 Although it is difficult to find evidence of native Irish wearing mail armour
during this period, it is clear that they had access to it through Viking trade. Documentary
sources indicate that there was some desire for it in Ireland during this period, as the
twelfth-century Lebor na Cert, termed “a pseudo-historical text” by Marie Therese Flanagan,
rules that the King of Ireland must give the King of Ailech fifty suits of armour (“luirech”) in
return for military services. The value placed on armour within the Gaelic society is also
signified by the fact that it was taken as booty from the castle of Kildare in 1187.23 It appears
likely that, like elsewhere in Europe, armour, particularly mail armour, was a luxury provided
only for the richest in society.
The most compelling evidence for Irish use of mail armour has come from the
archaeological remains from the excavations at Dublin. The most prominent remains of
warfare found during these excavations were arrowheads, 502 of which could be assigned
contextual dates. Halpin identified seven types of arrowhead in his analysis, and indicated
that two types, called type 6 and 7 are “armour-piercing types”.24 Armour-piercing
arrowheads have been found in many different contexts outside Dublin, such as the castles

20 Peter Harbison, ‘Native Irish Arms and Armour in Medieval Gaelic Literature, 1170-1600,’ in The Irish Sword,
vol. xii, pp. 183-4.
21 Halpin, Weapons and warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p. 20.
22 Harbison, ‘Native Irish Arms and Armour,’ p. 187.
23 Annala Rioghachta Eireann: Annals of the kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, from the earliest period to
the year 1616, vol. 3,4 and 5, John O’donovan (ed. & trans.) (1848-1851), A.D. 1187.
24 Halpin, Weapons and Warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p. 167.
of Adare, Ferns and Trim and also, tellingly, at Loughpark Crannog.25 Due to the number of
examples found in the Dublin excavations, Halpin was able to analyse their prevalence
during certain periods. Over all, he found that military arrowheads (type 6 and 7 combined
with type 5, an incendiary arrowhead) accounted for 67% of all arrowheads found across all
contexts.26 During the period directly prior to the Norman invasion, armour-piercing arrows
account for over 70% of the arrowheads found.27 What makes this evidence even more
compelling is that “the fact that armour-piercing arrowheads are in fact less effective
against bare flesh than broad-bladed arrowheads.”28 This preponderance of armour-piercing
arrows strongly suggests that some form of body armour was more popular among the
native Irish than has previously been assumed.
If the above descriptions of both the Anglo-Norman and Gaelic Irish armour can be
accepted it necessary to consider the relative effectiveness of these types of armour in an
Irish context. It is generally held that the Anglo-Norman army was so technologically
superior than the native Irish, that the conquest was inevitable. However, as many medieval
commentators, Gerald de Barry included, have remarked, despite this perceived
technological superiority, the native Irish were not easily defeated. This they accounted to
the lay of the land in Ireland. Gerald de Barry commented that “in France [war] is carried on
in a champaign country, here it is rough and mountainous; there you have open plains, here
you find dense woods.” 29 Jean Froissart, writing two centuries later, recorded an account of
the Irish and Ireland given by a man called Henry Crystede:

25 Lyttleton, James, ‘Loughpark “Crannog” Revisited,’ in Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical
Society, vol. 50 (1998), pp. 151-183; Sweetman, P. David, G. F. Mitchell & B. Whelan, ‘Archaeological
Excavations at Ferns Castle, Co. Wexford,’ in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology,
Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, vol. 79 (1979), pp. 217-245.
26 Halpin, Weapons and Warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p. 167.
27 Ibid, p. 169.
28 Ibid, p. 179.
29 De Barry, Expugnatio, p. 321.
I must tell you, to give you a clearer idea of the campaign, that Ireland is one
of the most difficult countries in the world to fight against and subdue, for it
is a strange, wild place consisting of tall forests, great stretches of water,
bogs and uninhabitable regions.30
These descriptions suggest that warfare in Ireland was quite different than elsewhere and
that the technology that was advantageous elsewhere was not necessarily helpful within an
Irish context.
Mail armour was certainly less than completely effective. Its aim was to protect the
wearer as “the force of the blow should be distributed over a large area, and thus
absorbed.”31 The weakness of chain armour is depicted in the battle scenes of the
Maciejowski Bible (Plate 5). Although marginally later than the Anglo-Norman conquest of
Ireland, this image shows a sword cutting through a helmet, arrows piercing armour and a
man being hacked in two, right through his chainmail. Some of the weapons frequently in
use in Ireland would therefore have been very dangerous for the Anglo-Normans, despite
their chainmail. De Barry describes the use of the battle axe in Irish hands:
But in striking with the battle-axe, they use only one hand, instead of both,
clasping the haft firmly, and raising it above the head, so as to direct the blow
with such force that neither the helmets which protect our heads, nor the
platting of the coat of mail which defends the rest of our bodies, can resist
the stroke. Thus it has happened, in my own time, that one blow of the axe
has cut off a knight’s thigh, although it was encased in iron, the thigh and leg

30 Jean Froissart, Chronicles, Geoffrey Brereton (ed. & trans.) (1978), p. 410.
31 Pierce, ‘The Knight, his Arms and Armour in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,’ p. 158.