WEAPONS AND WEAPONRY
Ballinderry crannog, County Westmeath, may illus-
trate how far this process had advanced by the tenth
century. This Irish site produced Ireland’s finest
“Viking” sword, a bow that must be ultimately of
Viking background, and other typical “Viking” weap-
ons. Borrowing of weaponry is not easily detected in
the historical record because, on paper, few new
weapon types were introduced by the Vikings (with
the exceptions of bows and axes). Spears and swords
continued to be the main offensive weapons, and
shields the main means of defense. Undoubtedly, the
form and technology of spears, swords, and shields
developed, but this must be investigated through sus-
tained archaeological research (such as works by
Walsh and Pierce), rather than documentary sources.
Swords were always expensive and only available
to the relatively wealthy. The Viking Age saw the intro-
duction of finer but even more expensive swords, and
among the Irish, swords were largely replaced by the
cheaper axe. Introduced by the Vikings, axes were so
widely adopted by the Irish that in the late twelfth
century Giraldus Cambrensis portrays them as a veri-
table national weapon. Axes feature throughout Giral-
dus’ Expugnatio Hibernica, culminating in his parting
advice that the English “must never grow careless of
the axes of the Irish.” Such major figures as Hugh de
Lacy, Miles de Cogan, and Ralph FitzStephen met their
deaths by the dreaded Irish axe, while Meiler
FitzHenry is described as having three axes stuck in
his horse and two more in his shield during an Irish
attack in 1173. Giraldus knew the Irish had borrowed
the axe from the Norse, and the earlier twelfth-century
Cogad Gáedel re Gallaibalso refers to the Irish using
“Norwegian axes.” This is confirmed by archaeology,
since all known battle axes of this period are derived
from a Scandinavian type, Petersen’s Type M.
Archery was apparently unknown since prehistory
in Ireland, until reintroduced by the Vikings in the
ninth century. Indeed, there is little evidence for Gaelic
Irish use of archery before the thirteenth century.
Archaeological evidence is largely confined to the
Hiberno-Norse towns, where surviving bow fragments
indicate an established bowmaking tradition, largely
anticipating the better-known late-medieval English
tradition. The sheer volume of archaeological evidence
(mainly arrowheads) testifies to widespread Hiberno-
Norse use of archery, but its military significance is
less clear. Archery was apparently used mainly in pre-
liminary missile exchanges prior to battle. There is no
evidence for its exploitation to anything like the same
extent as in the later Middle Ages, nor is there evidence
for specialist archers—the bow was simply one of the
weapons used by Viking warriors.
In contrast to weaponry, the use of armor clearly
distinguishes the Irish from the Vikings. Irish sources
indicate that the Irish did not wear armor, while the
Norse are consistently described as doing so. Armor
of this period rarely survives, and is discussed largely
on the basis of representational evidence. The main
body armor was a mail shirt reaching usually to the
knees (the hauberk or byrnie), worn over a padded
undergarment (the aketon or gambeson). Helmets were
typically simple and conical, either of single-piece
construction or formed of triangular plates riveted to
a framework of iron bands—the Spangenhelm. Circu-
lar shields were replaced by triangular or kite-shaped
forms in the eleventh century, but it is unclear when
this happened in Ireland. Both forms were constructed
of wooden boards covered with leather or other mate-
rial, with a central iron boss and, probably, an iron
binding strip around the edge. Clothing worn in battle
by the Irish, even the nobility, did not differ signifi-
cantly from civilian dress. This probably explains
Giraldus’s statement that the Irish went “naked and
unarmed into battle.” The contemporary Song of Dermot
and the Earldescribes the Irish as quite naked,” with
neither hauberks (haubers) nor byrnies (bruines).
Undoubtedly, some Irish warriors could have obtained
Norse armor through trade or combat, but such bor-
rowing clearly did not happen to the same extent as
with weaponry.Anglo-Norman Period (c.1170–1300)
Anglo-Norman weapons and armor were little differ-
ent from those of Hiberno-Norse warriors; their mili-
tary success must be explained in terms of organization
and tactics, rather than technology. Hauberks remained
the main body armor, supplemented from the later
twelfth century by separate mail chausses, mufflers,
and coifs, worn over the legs, hands, and head and
neck, respectively. Conical helmets continued in use
alongside hemispherical and cylindrical forms, which
developed by around 1200 into the “great helm,” fully
enclosing the head. Triangular shields tended to
become broader and shorter in the thirteenth century.
Knights used spears and swords, much like those of
the Hiberno-Norse period; long, double-edged blades,
designed for cutting blows either from horseback or
on foot, predominated. A series of surviving Irish
swords, of twelfth- to fourteenth-century date, are typ-
ical of what would have been used by the first Anglo-
Normans and their successors. Maces with spiked
heads of bronze were also used, but the bow and arrow
remains the most common weapon in the archaeolog-
ical record. Archers made up the bulk of Anglo-Norman
forces, and in the thirteenth century there is the first
clear evidence for the use of archery by the Gaelic
Irish. References to the capture of English armor imply
that the Irish were also using armor in the thirteenth