Armour and Conquest:

Transcription

1 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.

2 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 eleventhand 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 Andrew Halpin, Weapons and warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin (2008), p. 178.

3 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 The Maciejowski Bible, sometimes called the Crusader Bible or the Morgan Bible, was commissioned by St Louis of France and completed c 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, : 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 Roger Sherman Loomis, The Origin and Date of the Bayeux Embroidery, The Art Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1 (Sept. 1923), p Maciejowski Bible, [ accessed: 8 February 2012].

4 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 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.

5 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 Ibid, p Robert Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, , p Ibid. 14 David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, : Western Europe and the Crusader States (1999), p. 56.

6 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 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, (1996), p 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, Hunt, Irish medieval figure sculpture, , vol. 1, p. 24.

7 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 12 th -century propagandist retelling of Brian Boru s wars against the Vikings in the late 10 th and early 11 th 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 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.

8 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 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, , in The Irish Sword, vol. xii, pp Halpin, Weapons and warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p Harbison, Native Irish Arms and Armour, p 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.) ( ), A.D Halpin, Weapons and Warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p. 167.

9 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 ; 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 Halpin, Weapons and Warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin, p Ibid, p Ibid, p De Barry, Expugnatio, p. 321.

10 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 Pierce, The Knight, his Arms and Armour in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, p. 158.

11 falling on one side of the horse and the body of the dying horseman on the other. 32 The brutality of these weapons shows that despite the apparent superiority of the Anglo- Norman armour, it did not protect its wearer from all harm. Furthermore, because of the kind of warfare deployed by the Irish, the weight of the Anglo-Norman armour was actually a hazard. Throughout the conquest, and beyond, the method of warfare deployed by the Irish was asymmetric. The Irish would attack if they saw an advantage, and retreat if they saw danger. Although this behaviour was contrary to Anglo-Norman expectations of knightly behaviour, it should be noted that the bulk of the warfare conducted by the Anglo-Normans during the conquest took the form of forays, raids, skirmishes and burnings, and the capture of fortified positions rather than pitched battles. 33 Nevertheless, it is clear that the Irish hit-and-run style warfare frustrated the Anglo-Normans, who found themselves unable catch this agile race. 34 Even in the fourteenth century, Froissart s informer stressed the speed of the Irish enemy: No mounted man-at-arms, however good his horse, can ride so fast that they cannot catch him. [ ] They take no man for ransom, and when they see that they are getting the worst of a fight, they scatter and take cover in thickets and bushes and under the ground. So they disappear and it is impossible to know where they have gone to. 35 De Barry also commented on this speed and agility, and supported the view that in Ireland, against the Irish, lighter armour would be more effective: 32 De Barry, Topographia, p Marie Therese Flanagan, Irish and Anglo-Norman warfare in twelfth-century Ireland, in Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffrey (eds.) A Military History of Ireland (1999), p De Barry, Topographia, p Froissart, Chronicles, p. 410.

12 In fighting against naked and unarmed men, whose only hope of success lies in the impetuosity of their first attack, men in light armour can pursue the fugitives, an agile race, with more activity, and cut them down in narrow passes and amongst crags and mountains. The Normans, with this complex armour and their deeply curved saddles, find great difficulty in getting on horseback and dismounting; and still greater when occasion requires that they shall march on foot. [ ] a far lighter kind of armour is preferable. 36 It is clear that despite the apparent technological superiority of the Anglo-Norman armour, it was not ideal for war against the Irish in Ireland. During the conquest of Ireland, both the Anglo-Normans and the Irish wore armour. On both sides, it is likely that some wore chainmail. It is also certain that many on both sides would have worn leather or padded armour. Documentary sources and pictorial sources suggest, however, that the Anglo-Norman insistence on the importance of their knights was, in an Irish context, misplaced and that the heavy knight constituted inappropriate technology on Irish terrain. 37 Any technological edge was soon lost by the Anglo-Normans, as de Barry admitted, as they learnt from their fighting with the invaders. 38 Yet still, the native Irish retained, for the most part, their very simple traditional armour, valuing speed and immense agility over protection, even in the fourteenth century. 39 In many ways, the mind-set espoused by these medieval native Irish became central to Irish national identity, and can be seen echoing in the early-modern tories and even in the twentieth-century flying columns. 36 De Barry, Topographia, p Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, (1994), p Ibid, pp. 76-7; de Barry, Expugnatio, p Froissart, Chronicles, p. 412.

13 Plate 1: The Great Seal of Henry II Plate 2: Effigy of Robert Berkley

14 Plate 3: The Brethren, Jerpoint Abbey Plate 4: Label stop, St. John s, Kilkenny

15 Plate 5: A detail from the Maciejowski Bible Bibliography: Primary Sources: Archaeological Reports: Halpin, Andrew, Weapons and warfare in Viking and medieval Dublin (2008). Lyttleton, James, Loughpark Crannog Revisited, in Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, vol. 50 (1998), pp 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 Documents: Froissart, Jean, Chronicles, Geoffrey Brereton (ed. & trans.) (1978) de Barry, Gerald, The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis, Thomas Wright (ed.) and John Forester (trans.) (1894). 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.), ( ). 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).

16 Lebor na Cert, Myles Dillon (ed. & trans.) (1968) ( accessed: 8 February Images: Plate 1: The Anarchy: English History, Great Seal of Henry II, ( accessed: 13 February Plate 2: 12th to 14th Century Armour, ( accessed: 13 February 2012 Plate 3: Hunt, John, Irish medieval figure sculpture, : a study of Irish tombs with notes on costume and armour, vol. 2 (1974), p. 15. Plate 4: Ibid, p. 6 Plate 5: Maciejowski Bible with details, ( accessed: 8 February Secondary Sources: Bartlett, Robert, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, (1994). ---, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, (2000). Bartlett, Thomas and Keith Jeffrey (eds.), A Military History of Ireland (1999). Charles-Edwards, T. M., Irish warfare before 1100, in Bartlett and Jeffrey (eds.), A Military History of Ireland, pp Flanagan, Marie Therese, Irish and Anglo-Norman warfare in twelfth-century Ireland, in Bartlett and Jeffrey (eds.), A Military History of Ireland, pp Harbison, Peter, Native Irish Arms and Armour in Medieval Gaelic Literature, , in The Irish Sword, vol. xii, pp & Hunt, John, Irish medieval figure sculpture, : a study of Irish tombs with notes on costume and armour, vol. 1 (1974). Loomis, Roger Sherman, The Origin and Date of the Bayeux Embroidery, The Art Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1 (Sept.,1923), pp Nicolle, David, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, : Western Europe and the Crusader States (1999).

17 Oakeshott, Ewart, The Archaeology of Weapons: arms and armour from prehistory to the age of chivalry (1994). Orpen, Goddard Henry, Ireland Under the Normans, vol. 1 (1911). Peirce, Ian, 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 , Arms, Armour and Warfare in the Eleventh Century, in R. Allen Brown (ed.), Anglo- Norman Studies X: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1987 (1988), pp , The Knight, His Arms and Armour, c in Marjorie Chibnall (ed.), Anglo- Norman Studies XV: Proceedings of the XV Battle Conference and of the XI Colloquio Medievale of the Officina di Studi Medievali, 1992 (1993), pp Rudorff, Raymond, The Knights and their World (1974). Simms, Katharine, Warfare in the Medieval Gaelic Lordships, in The Irish Sword, vol. xii, no. 47 (Winter 1975), pp , Gaelic warfare in the Middle Ages, in Bartlett and Jeffrey (eds.) A Military History of Ireland, pp Strickland, Matthew, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, (1996).