MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE DARK AGE IRISH

This gallery covers Irish armies from their first exposure to Scandinavian influence until the consolidation of the Norman conquests. The first Viking raids on Ireland are dated to 795 CE, but providing a firm date for Scandinavian “influence” on Irish military technology would be an exercise in futility (some of the innovations may have predated the arrival of the Vikings). Scandinavian martial influence was both material and institutional—i.e., the Irish acquired heavier forms of Scandinavian armor and weapons through trade and war, they adapted and produced native equipment that imitated the Scandinavian's equipment, and the need for larger and better-equipped armies accelerated the consolidation of Irish kingdoms under powerful regional warlord-kings. However, native Irish martial traditions remained dominant until the feudalization of the Norman fiefdoms in Ireland (ca. 1297 CE) changed the fundamental social bases upon which those traditions rested. Therefore, this is a transitional period in Irish warfare, leading from the tribal levies of Iron Age (600 BCE-400 CE) and Early Christian (400-800 CE) Ireland to the mix of feudal and mercenary troops characteristic of the Medieval Irish (1168-1535 CE). Traditional Irish tactics favored individual agility and corps mobility—skirmishing warfare (raiding and ambush) was the norm—but in open battle the Irish had a fierce reputation, and the Irish fight against the Viking invaders soon took on the elements of a crusade that fueled an often impetuous approach to battles, something that could result in spectacular successes but also spectacular defeats.

​

Although the Irish were politically fractious, they had a remarkably consistent island-wide language and culture. This included a large body of traditional native laws called fénechas (“laws of free men”). These fénechas were originally oral legal traditions in the keeping of a class of pan-tribal judges known as breitheam (later Anglicized as brehons), but between the fifth and seventh centuries CE Ireland was Christianized, and by the eighth century monastic scribes had begun to compile the fénechas in written form along with treatises, glosses, and commentaries by contemporary brehons. These written collections are known today as the Brehon Laws.  Fortunately for modern scholars, the Brehon Laws contain a wealth of information regarding military obligations, sumptuary rules (clothing and grooming), and the distribution of military equipment. Irish society was divided into three basic classes, and to a certain extent military equipment and tactical role were determined by where one was ranked (grád) on the social scale. At the top were the Nemed ("Privileged" or "Sacred"), which included several different grades—kings (rí) and clan chiefs (toísechta) and their heirs (tánaiste)—as well as members of the intelligentsia—judges (breitheam), physicians (fisithi), poets (fili and barda), skilled craftsmen (ollam), scholars (clériechta), and Christian clerics (Críostaíochtan/Críostúlachtan). Beneath the Nemed lay the bulk of Irish society, classed as Commoners or Freemen (Aire). As with the Nemed class, the Aire class was divided into grades—landowners (bruig), cattlemen (bóaire), or little freemen (ócaire)—although as with the Nemed grades, the Aire grades do not seem to have been strictly hierarchical (the classes were also somewhat porous). Early Irish society was very egalitarian by the standards of the age (despite the masculine terms, women generally had equal rights to men under the law), and the class of the Doír ("Unfree") was tiny. It included tenants (fuidir), serfs (botachta), bondsmen (bachlachta), and slaves (mug).

 

Armor and Weapons

Most of the written sources regarding arms and armor date to the twelfth century, although they purport to record long-standing practices that go back in some cases to the eighth century. The most important of these sources is the Lebor na gCeart (“Book of Rights”), which indicates that the wearing of armor was widespread among Irish kings and clan chiefs and their household troops/retinues. Indeed, in addition to equipping himself, each patron (pátrún, from Latin, patronus) was legally obligated to provide an annual stipend (tuarastal) to his clients (chéle), so that some of this equipment seems to have trickled down to the elites (clíathaire) of the tribal warbands (ceithearn). Tuarastal often included fine clothing, weapons, armor, and hounds. However, other twelfth-century sources baldly contradict this view. In particular, both the anonymous author of the Irish epic Cogad Gaedel re Gallabh (“War of the Irish Against the Foreigners”) and the works of Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) state that all Irish warriors were unarmored. It has been suggested that the author of the Cogad was using hyperbole (i.e., because God was on their side, they didn’t need armor), and that Giraldus Cambrensis was basing his claims on the native levies (gráscar) called up by the Norman lords to supplement their feudal and mercenary troops. These levies, so the argument goes, would have represented an impoverished subject population not really representative of the native martial traditions that continued outside the pale of the Norman fiefdoms. In support of this, some modern authors have pointed out that Giraldus only visited Ireland twice, he never witnessed a battle, and he never ventured beyond the Norman fiefdoms. Also in support of this theory, one can point both to the Brehon Laws and to numerous incidental references in period annals and literature to the taking of body armor, helmets, and weapons like swords and axes from defeated Irish foes. The overall impression is that it was taken for granted by writers of the time that armor was common enough that it was normally a component of the loot taken by a victorious army. If Irish troops of the period were entirely unarmored, presumably the victors would have found little of value to seize, and the writers would have had little of value about which to write (Flanagan in Bartlett, pp. 70-73; see Sources). The argument and its supporting evidence are compelling reasons to reevaluate the portrayal of Irish troops prior to the feudalization of Ireland.

 

Lúirech or lúraig (from Latin, lorica) seems to have been a general Middle Irish term that indiscriminately referred both to mail shirts (byrnie, haubergeon, and/or hauberk) and to various forms of leather body armor. We cannot be certain of the exact relative frequency with which each type of body armor may have been worn by warriors of the time—even the legal sources never make clear what type of body armor they are referring to, and the archeological record is incomplete on this subject (in particular, leather armor would not have survived to the present day). The best we can say is that at least the retinues likely had a preponderance of fighters that wore a combination of mail hauberks and/or various kinds of leather armor. Unfortunately, the only specific evidence we have for the construction of the inar/ionar ("jacket") comes from a much later period (13th to 16th centuries), at which time it had become a largely decorative jacket that proclaimed one's status as a professional warrior (bonnacht or galloglaigh) or was worn over mail to better absorb the impact of arrows and crossbow bolts. However, earlier sculptures (e.g., the High Cross of Muiredach) and artwork (e.g., the Book of Kells) portray what appears to be earlier forms of the inar/ionar, presumably worn as a kind of light armor (Muiredach's cross dates to the ninth or tenth century CE, and the Book of Kells was made in the ninth century). The basic form of the earlier versions of the inar/ionar are long-sleeved close-fitting jackets, sometimes closed in the front by buttons, sometimes left open, with the hem of the trunk reaching only to the waist (some appear to be more vest-like) or to just below the chest (often with a fringe similar to ancient Greco-Roman pteruges extending to the waist). The images in illustrated manuscripts like the Book of Kells indicate that these earlier inar/ionar were likely carved and/or painted in intricate designs, like the later versions are known to have been. Later inar/ionar were made of thick wool, sometimes overlaid with leather or reinforced with outer panels of hardened leather, particularly for the sleeves (giving the look of segmented armor) and chest. The images of the earlier forms are not detailed enough to show whether this was also true of the earlier versions, but in light of the other continuities it seems likely. Another potential form of leather armor was the battle-apron or battle-girdle (fúathroc). This seems to have been intended to be worn in combination with other forms of armor, primarily providing added protection for the stomach and groin. The fúathroc seems to have consisted of a kidney belt with a long flap in front that could hang down to the knees. It is sometimes pictured with metal studs or medallions. It was likely made of leather or a combination of wool and leather. Prior to the arrival of the Vikings, most shields (scíath) were small round bucklers (scéithine, “little shield”) or larger oval body-shields (fotal scíath, “oblong shield”), although after the advent of the Vikings both captured Viking shields and Irish imitations came into use. Round shields (native buckler and Viking-inspired) generally varied between 18” and 36” in diameter, while oblong shields could be expected to cover the body from shoulder to knee (probably about 35-36" from top to bottom). A shield was formed from two thin layers of flat wooden boards (the Irish preferred yew), with the grain of each layer at right angles to the other. They were fixed together with small wooden pegs and glue, forming a kind of plywood. The front of each shield was either painted or covered with a tough cowhide that could be painted and/or decorated with embossed patterns. Most shields had a central boss of iron (the handle would be on the backside of the boss), and the larger Viking-style shields seem to have had an iron rim, but the majority of Irish shields were bound around the edges in leather. True heraldry was not yet a feature of Irish warfare, although contemporary sources do mention elaborate designs on both shields and battle-standards (camlinne or meirge). Shields were pretty common both in the retinues and the warbands, although Irish skirmishers often did not carry shields. The sources are also indiscriminate in their references to cathbarr (“battle-helmets”)—like lúirech, the term cathbarr seems simply to be a general term for a helmet, although archeological finds and period art show a range of helmets from the substantial and elaborately decorated helmets of kings and chiefs to the more modest helmets of the warbands.

 

Traditional Irish weapons consisted of a thrusting spear (gae), several light throwing spears (gaán) or darts (birín), a war-club (maglorg or mádlorcc), and/or a dagger/short sword (claidbíne or claidbéne) up to 24” in blade length. Largely due to Scandinavian influence, to these were added a battle-axe (bíail) and a long sword (claideb), both of which could be found in single-handed or two-handed varieties. By far the most common weapons used by Irish warriors were spears and darts. The Irish used a variety of angular and leaf-shaped blades on their spears and darts, including exotic corkscrew and barbed blades. It seems likely that the gaán (“little-spear”) and the birín (“dart”) were actually the same weapon with two different names—no clear distinction is made between the two in the sources, and it is unlikely there would have been any attempt at standardization of designs (hereafter, both will be referred to as darts or war-darts). The thrusting or fighting spear (gae) was generally longer and heavier (6’ to 7’ total length) and used primarily for thrusting (although it could also be thrown), while darts were smaller, lighter, and used only as missiles (several darts being carried by each warrior). The war-club, ancestor of the famous shellelagh, was traditionally made of blackthorn wood or oak wood.  Most would have been cut and molded so that there was a prominent knob on one end used for striking. It is likely a curing process was used that was similar to that of later shellelagh whereby the club was smeared with butter and hung above a fire—once cured and polished, the club would be rock-hard and would have had a shiny black finish. It is also likely that some poor Irish warriors may have used their hurling stick (camán) as a club (hurling is a traditional Irish sport that dates back to about 1000 BCE). Don’t discount the effectiveness of this simple and easy-to-acquire weapon—many iron-clad foreign invaders came to grief at the hands of club-wielding Irish! Most Irish sword types, regardless of length, would have been double-edged and straight bladed, used primarily for slashing or chopping, although some of the shorter types were designed for stabbing (precursors of the dagger or dirk). Although early Irish long swords were acquired from the Vikings, by the tenth century native Irish smiths were producing distinctive native designs. All the contemporary sources agree that the Irish adopted the use of battle-axes as a consequence of the Viking invasions—by the acquisition of Viking battle-axes through war and trade, via the adaptation of non-martial Irish designs (e.g., wood-axe turned battle-axe), and later through the development of native models. As with armor, it is likely that war spears, long swords, and battle-axes were mostly the provenance of the retinue warriors, while the javelins/darts, clubs, short swords/daggers, and wood-axes predominated in the warbands (both groups would likely have had captured Viking equipment).

 

Clothing and Grooming

The Irish were extremely fastidious by contemporary standards, even going so far as to stipulate appropriate attire and grooming for various classes in the Brehon Laws. How strictly these sumptuary laws were adhered to is a matter of debate, but artwork (e.g., illustrations in the Book of Kells), woodcarvings, and sculpture all provide corroborating evidence.

 

A triad of léine (“tunic”), bratt (“cloak” or “mantle”), and triús (“trousers”) remained the standard garments for Irish men (after the Christianization of Ireland, women generally did not take the field). Many Irish warriors were barelegged and barefoot, but trousers and shoes (bróc or bróg) or boots (búatis) were gaining traction by the seventh century. Trousers would have been tight fitting, and they came in two lengths—the legs either extending all the way to the ankles (sometimes with stirrups) or to just below the knees. The longer trousers were also called berrbróc (“above the shoes”). Tunics from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries were generally of tube-woven linen, they were pulled on over the head, and they had sleeves that tapered to the wrist (the baggier version with exaggerated sleeves belongs to a later era). Some would have had decorated trim, embroidery, or piping at the hem, wrists, and/or neckline. The most common colors were saffron (orange-yellow), white, rust (brown-red), and un-dyed linen (various shades of gray)—in that order—but wealthy nobles would have had access to a wider spectrum of fabrics and dies, particularly after the Viking colonies began to be subjected by various Irish lords, giving them access to the trade networks of the Northmen. For men, the length of the tunic indicated rank—the highest-ranking men generally wore tunics the hem of which lay around their ankles (possibly as a symbol that they did not need to perform manual labor that would require a shorter garment), while lower-class men had tunics that extended only to the knees or to mid-thigh. Regardless, men usually wore the tunic in combination with a belt (crois or cris), and the longer forms of tunic could be pulled up so that the fabric would drape down over the belt on all sides, hiding the belt from view. Neither the Irish nor the Scottish wore kilts until the seventeenth century, but the cinched-up and draped tunics give the mistaken impression of a kilt in contemporary woodcarvings, which has led many modern observers to speculate that the wearing of kilts had earlier origins (I do not agree with these theories). Hooded tunics were called culpatach or culpaideach—the hood being a rectangular cape-like piece of fabric attached across the shoulders (or draped across the shoulders) that could be draped over the head in inclement weather. The cloak was rectangular in shape and made of linen or wool. Some had a fringe border. There was also a version of cloak called a findchaide bratt (“shaggy mantle”), which was a wool cloak that had a thickly fulled nap in order to imitate the appearance and qualities of fur—the “fur” side would have been worn on the inside for comfort and heat retention, although the upper edge could be turned out around the neck and across the shoulders. Cloaks could also be made from animal hide, although options would have been limited—the only large predator that had not gone extinct in Ireland  by the first millennium BCE was the wolf, and in fact wolf pelts were sometimes used for cloaks, although rabbit, hare, fox, stoat/ermine, mink, and marten would have been far more common. The cloak could either be attached by one brooch (or pin) beneath the chin or on the front of a shoulder, or by two brooches (or pins), one on the front of each shoulder. Finally, tunics were generally one color with decorative trim (or no trim), but cloaks and trousers could be striped or checkered or breacan. Breacan was the Gaelic word for the type of cloth known today as tartan or plaid. It was a widespread style of weave throughout the Celtic world, including both the Iron Age continental Celts and those of the British Isles until modern times. Initially, breacan had no direct association with clan or tribal affiliation. The colors and patterns were largely the product of the availability of natural dyes in the region in which it was produced, as well as the tastes of the weavers and wearers, although over time the consistent use of local dyes and traditional patterns (sett) led to cloth produced in particular regions having distinctive characteristics. However, it was not until the nineteenth century in Scotland when any attempt was made to establish a system that governed the association of particular setts with clan affiliation. At that time, breacans began to be called tartans ("crossed" patterns), while a large piece of such cloth—appropriate for the making of a kilt, cloak, or shawl—became known as a plaid (in modern North America, the words tartan and plaid are often used interchangeably, but technically this is a misnomer). The Brehon Laws indicate that the numbers of colors permissible in a man’s clothing, as well as the length of his cloak, were used as identifiers of rank. Without going into excruciating detail, the more colors the higher the man’s rank, and the longer the cloak the higher the man’s rank. Indeed, these stipulations may have eventually led to the development of true tartans/plaids, since only men of high rank—generally those most closely associated with clan or tribal dynastic affiliations—were allowed to have cloaks with breacan patterns that wove different colors into the basic checkered pattern.

 

The sumptuary laws and contemporary artwork reveal a variety of hairstyles from short-cropped (mael, moel, or mail) to longhaired (cuircech or cuirce), and from beardless (amulchach) to bearded (feósach, fésach, or fésocach). The Irish were preoccupied with personal cleanliness, and personal grooming was supposed to reflect self-respect—unkempt or disheveled hair (fráech) marked one out as a churl or a barbarian.  Hair or beard (fésóc) could be braided or plaited (clechtach) in the Viking style, and each braid (clecht) could be tied or interwoven with fabric (including imported silk).  Sometimes small amulets were tied into the braid-ends. Irish monks and some warriors used the so-called “Celtic tonsure” whereby the front half of the head was shaved (ear to ear) and the back half was left long (called the cúlán in Irish sources). Warriors that wanted a particularly fearsome look (e.g., see díbergachta below) combined the cúlán with braids—i.e., the front half of the head was shaved and the long tresses in the back were braided. Finally, another hairstyle unique to Irish warriors was the mongach, which consisted of shaving both sides of the head and leaving a crest of hair (mong) along the top (like the modern Mohawk). The mong is usually pictured long and wavy, similar to a horse’s mane (which it may have been intended to imitate).