military archery in medieval ireland: archaeology and history

8/7/2019 Military Archery in Medieval Ireland: Archaeology and History

1/10

Military Studies in Medieval Europe - Papers of the 'Medieval Europe Brugge 1997' Conference - Volume 11

IntroductionIn studying Irish medieval warfare the bow and

arrow is of particular interest for many reasons. It isby far the most frequently represented weapon in thearchaeological record and unlike other weapons ittends to occur in datable contexts on excavated sites.This is largely accidental, because bows and arrowswere of little monetary value and easily broken andlost, but the fortunate result is that a more compre-hensive and reliable archaeolugical study is possib1efor the bow and arrow than for any other medievalweapon. There is also a greater wealth of useful his-torical information available than for other weaponsof medieval Ireland. Thus it is possible not only tostudy the bow and arrow as archaeological artefactsbut to place them in their natural context, which is thehistory of warfare. A study of the history of theweapon reveals that it is particularly appropriate, andnot entirely accidental, that the bow and arrow is sowell represented in the archaeological record ofmedieval Ireland. There is probably no other periodin which the weapon was of comparable militaryimportance.Historical information thus adds greatly to the

value of an archaeological study of bows and arrows.The converse is equally true, however. Military his-tory, not surprisingly, is largely written by historiansusing documentary sources, but even the presentlimited study demonstrates that archaeological anal-ysis of the actual technology of warfare can enrichand, on occasion, be a corrective to received theoriesof military history.

The Hiberno-Norsc period (c_800-1169)The bow was been used in Ireland in the Neolithic

and early Bronze Age periods, but the practice ofarchery seems to have declined in the later prehistoricperiod. There is no definite evidence for the use ofthe bow in Ireland between the early Bronze Age andthe Early Christian period, i.e. c.lSOO Be to 800 AD.

Andrew Halpin

Military Archery in Medieval Ireland:Archaeology and History

The Vikings, it seems, must be credited with thereintroduction of the bow and arrow to Ireland.During the Viking period the bow was widely usedboth in Scandinavia itself and among Scandinaviansettlers in many parts of Europe (Hardy 19S6, 28-30;Bradbury 1985, 23). The use of the bow by theVikings in Ireland is attested above all by bows andhundreds of arrowheads discovered during recentexcavations in Dublin, Waterford and Limerick, incontexts of the 10th to 12th centuries. But documen-tary evidence is also reasonably plentiful. Indeed theIrish word for a bow, bogha, is a Norse loan-word(although curiously enough the word for an arrow,saiget, may be an earlier borrowing [rom the Latinsagitta). References to Viking archery first occur in9th century annalistic entries, and Irish narrative textsalso provide evidence for Norse archery. The authorof an early 12th century text Cogad Gaedel reGallaib, describing the weapons of the Norse at thebattle of Clontarf(1 014), mentions before any otherstheir "sharp, swift...barbed (frithbaccanacha) ... mur-derous, poisoned arrows (saigti)" and their rpolished,yellow-shining bows (bogada blathi blabuidi)" (Todd1867,159-161).

ArrowheadsArchaeological excavations in Dublin have pro-

duced hundreds of arrowheads from contexts of theHiberno-Norse period, i.e. early 10th to late 12th cen-tury (Fig. 1).The Dublin arrowheads can be said to featurethree m ain blade fo rm s: (1) leaf-shaped or shouldered,(2) triangular, sometimes with barbs, and (3) a narrow,solid spike-like blade. Each of these blade formsoccurs in both tanged and socketed forms, producingsix distinct arrowhead types (Types 1-4, 6-7). Aseventh type (Type 5), although it could be consid-ered a triangular bladed form, is in reality quite dif-ferent and must be regarded as a separate type. Asregards the relative popularity of these arrowheadtypes, the overall proportions (regardless of period)

'il


2/10

A. Halpin

GROUP I

1 3

TANGED

2

SOCKETED

Fig. 1. - Typology of Hiberno-Norse period arrowheads from Dublin.

reveal Type 7 to be by far the most common type,with 52% of the total, followed by Types 1 (15%),6(l3.5%), 2 (9%) and 4 (6%). Types 3 and 5 are rareforms, at 2.5% and 2% respectively (Chart 1).

Prevalence of arrowhead typesIn view of the historical and archaeological evi-

dence that archery was essentially unknown in Ire-land until its reintroduction by the Vikings, one of themost interesting things about the Dublin arrowheadassemblage is that the typically Scandinavian tanged

5

GROUP II

6 6A 6B

7

forms (i.e. Types 1, 3 and 6), while present, are farfrom being dominant. Together they account for nomore than 31% of the total assemblage. A furtherfeature of the Dublin assemblage is the decline in therepresentation of these Scandinavian-derived tangedtypes, from the 10th to 12th centuries.

The Scandinavian forms represent 46% of the totalassemblage of arrowheads from 10th century contexts(Chart 2), but this falls to 28% in the 11th century(Chart 3) and 32% in the 12th century (Chart 4).

This decline is particularly marked in the case ofType 1, which could be described as the Vikingarrowhead type par excellence, and is the most com-

%

4lYPE

5 6

Chart 1. - Dublin arrowheads, Hiberno-Norseperiod: Proportions of types (by percentage oftotal).


3/10

Military Archery in Medieval Ireland: Archaeology and History

Chart 2. -Dublin arrowheads, 10th century:Proportions of types (bypercentage of total).

%

2 3 5 6 74lYPE

mon arrowhead type found on Viking-period sites inScandinavia. In Dublin, Type 1 is (along with Type7)the most common arrowhead type in the 10th cen-tury, with 32% of the total. Indeed, in the first half ofthe 10th century it accounts for over 60% of the(admittedly small) total. The popularity of Type 1falls dramatically, however, to 12.5% in the 11th cen-tury and 7% in the 12th century.

The implication that Scandinavian influence inthe Dublin arrowhead assemblage declined steadilyfrom the 10th century onwards is, perhaps, not sur-prising. What is surprising, however, is the appar-ently low level of Scandinavian influence even in the10thcentury. The majority of Dublin arrowheads areof forms which, it seems, were not commonly used inScandinavia. Indigenous Irish development seems

Chart 3. -Dublin arrowheads, 11th century:Proportions of types (by percentage of total). 58.5

,,1 0 / 0 3 0 \I

50 ,I50 II40-

2 5 73 4lYPE

6

unlikely but other sources of inspiration are difficultto identify. Theoretically, the most likely source ofinfluence is contemporary Anglo-Saxon England, butthe known assemblage of Anglo-Saxon arrowheadsis extremely small (Manley 1985) and while formssimilar to Type 2 are common, the other socketedChart 4. - Dublin arrowheads, l Zth century(to c.l J 70): Proportions of types (by per-centage of total).

forms, Types 4 and 7, are not well represented.Arrowheads of Types 4 and 7 were widely used bythe Normans, but their popularity in Dublin canhardly be attributed entirely to Norman influencesince itpredates the Norman conquest of England. Interms of popularity, Type 7 forms a striking contrast

%

2 4lYPE

5

. . . . .3


4/10

A. Halpin

c- -o rs 30 em s

Fig. 2. - Bow from BalIinderry crannog, Co. Westmeath (after Hencken 1935-37).

to Type 1.This type accounts for 32% of the total inthe 10th century, although it is present only from themiddle of that century. In the 1Ith and 12th centuriesit is by far the most common type, at 58.5% in the11th century, falling slightly to 52.5% in the 12thcentury.

FunctionA particularly interesting issue is the functions

of the arrowhead types, specifically the question ofwhether they were used for warfare or hunting. Thespike-like blades of Types 6 and 7 are clearly desig-ned to penetrate body armour and these armour-piercing types make up 65.5% of the total. The rareType 5, which represents only 2% of the total, isinterpreted as an incendiary arrowhead and thusshould also be classified as military in function. Theother types, with leaf-shaped or triangular blades,could have been used either for warfare or huntingbut there are grounds to suggest that a considerableproportion of them were also intended for militaryuse. For instance, the relative frequency patterns ofTypes 1 and 7 suggest that Type I was effectivelyreplaced by Type 7 from the mid-Iuth centuryonwards. This would imply that Type 1 was alsosubstantially military in function. Overall, it cansafely be argued that at least 70-80% of the Dublinarrowheads are definitely military in function, whilethe number that Candefinitely be classified as hunt-ing arrowheads is probably little more than 5%.These statistics are confirmed by similar propor-tions in the second largest Irish arrowhead assem-blage, from another Hiberno-Norse town at Water-ford (Halpin 1996) and they strikingly demonstratethe essentially military nature of Viking archery inIreland.

ArmourThe prevalence of armour piercing arrowheads in

these assemblages clearly raises questions about theuse of armour inHiberno-Norse Ireland. Itis particu-larly interesting that armour piercing arrowheads first

become common in Ireland in the second half of the10thcentury, at almost precisely the period when thewearing of chain mail armour seems to have becomemore common among Anglo-Saxon warriors in Eng-land (Brooks 1978, 87-93). In contemporary Irishsources armour seems to mark a significant differ-ence between Irish and Viking, with the consistentsuggestion that the Irish did not wear armour, whilethe Viking did. Both annalistic and narrative textsfrequently refer to coats of mail and helmets worn bythe Vikings, and contrasts are often drawn betweenthe mailclad Vikings and the unarmoured Irish.Indeed, in two early 12th century texts, CogadGaedhel re Gallaibh (Todd 1867, 53, 67-69) andCathreim Cellachain Chaisil (Bugge 1905, 65-66,102-03), Irish military failures are specifically attrib-uted to the ineffectiveness of their weapons againstthe armour of the Vikings. Such testimony to the useof armour in Hiberno-Norse Ireland has not, ingeneral, been taken very seriously by historians, butthe evidence of the arrowheads, although indirect,suggests that it may have a greater basis in fact thanhas hitherto been recognised.

. .Native Irish archeryThere is little evidence to suggest that the Irish

learned to use the bow from the Norse, and archaeo-logical evidence for archery on native Irish sites of theperiod is almost non-existent. Remarkably, however,one of Europe's finest early medieval longbows wasfound in a late 10th century context at the crannog ofBallinderry, Co. Westmeath (Hencken 1935-37, 139,225; Fig. 8:D). The bow (Fig. 2), of yew wood, is cur-rently 185cm in length but one end is missing and itsoriginal lengthwas probably c.190cm. The crannog ofBallinderry, in the midlands oflreland, produced a fullrange of "classic" Viking weaponry: A sword, battle-axe, two spearheads and a socketed knife were alsofound and together with the bow, seem to provide agraphic example of the extent to which Viking weap-onry could on occasion be adopted by the Irish.Regardless of whether it was used by an Irish or aViking archer, there can be little doubt that this bow isultimately of Viking background.


5/10

Military Archery inMedieval Ireland: Archaeology and History

The Anglo-Norman period (1169-c.1350)Thus the bow can hardly have been unknown to

'the Irish on the eve of the Anglo-Norman invasion of1169-70. Nevertheless when confronted by Anglo-Norman archers the Irish were, in the words of thecontemporary chronicler Giraldus Cambrensis, "para-lysed and panic stricken by...the sudden woundsinflicted by our arrows" (Scott & Martin 1978, 231).Itmay be that what terrorised the Irish was not bowsin themselves, but the effectiveness with which theywere used by the Anglo-Normans. While the Norseclearly used bows in Ireland, there is nothing to sug-gest that they ever employed organised corps ofarchers as the Anglo-Nonnans did, and thus the Irishhad probably never experienced anything like thefirepower of the Anglo-Norman archers.Archers were an important part of most Norman

and Anglo-Norman armies. Hastings, in 1066, wasperhaps the first medieval European battle in whicharchery demonstrably played a major role (Bradbury1985, 25) and the bow was widely used in post-Conquest England. It is thus not surprising thatarchers were present in large numbers in the Anglo-Norman forces that invaded Ireland. Analysis of thecontingents for which detailed figures are given byGiraldus Cambrensis (Scott &Martin 1978) revealsthat archers account for over 85% of the total.Giraldus describes these archers as being "the flowerof the youth of Wales", but unfortunately says verylittle about their role in the conquest of Ireland - anexample of aristocratic chroniclers' prejudice againstarchers (who were invariably commoners) and infavour of cavalry, noted by Bradbury (1985, 1-3,40,76) in medieval sources. Practically Giraldus' only

comment on the archers concerns their role in pro-tecting formations of milites from sudden Irishattacks, and he makes a point of warning all futurecommanders to ensure that large numbers of archerswere maintained in their forces (Scott & Martin1978,249).However, the sheer numbers of archers involvedsuggests that their role extended far beyond merely

protecting the cavalry. Against unannoured oppo-nents with no experience of archery, such as the Irishwere, the impact of large numbers of archers actingin a coordinated manner could have been enormous.In a particularly relevant parallel, Strickland (1990,192&n.l 01)notes the "devastating effect" of Anglo-Norman archers against unannoured Scots at thebattle of the Standard in 1138. The importance ofarchers in the Anglo-Norman conquest ofIreland hasalmost certainly been underestimated, and it seemsinconceivable that the Anglo-Nonnans would nothave exploited the obvious potential of their archersin battle.

13th century IrelandThe continued importance of archery in theAnglo-

Irish colony in the 13th century is indicated by sub-stantial archaeological evidence and documentaryevidence including records of craftsmen manufact-uring bows and arrows and also, apparently, profes-sional archers in Dublin (Martin & Connolly 1994,23, 44, 57, 71, 72, 91, 105). A poem dated 1265claims that the town of New Ross could muster 363crossbowmen and 1200 other archers (Shields 197~-

76, 11.168-177).A lack of detailed information pre-

Chart 4. - Irish arrowheads. late 12th/13th century: Proportions of types (by percentage of total).

%

49

3 6 741YPE

5


6/10

A. Halpin

eludesdefinitive statements about the relative impor-tance of archers and other forms of troops in Anglo-Irish forces of the 13th and early 14th centuries.However, while archers were undoubtedly present inmost cases, the indications are that archery was sub-ordinate in importance to cavalry (both heavy andlight) in the military economy of the Anglo-Irishcolony. During the 13th century, too, annalistic refer-ences to individuals killed by Irish archers indicatethat for the first time the native Irish were makingwidespread use of the bow.Despite theprominence of archers, theAnglo-Nor-

man conquest does not appear to have led to the intro-ductionofnew arrowhead types to Ireland; if anything,indeed, the range of arrowhead forms decreases.Arrowheads are found in late 12th/13th century con-texts on a wide range of sites, including many earlyAnglo-Norman castle sites, although Dublin still pro-vides the majority. By this date the Scandinavian types(Types 1,3 and 6) have almost entirely disappeared,apart from a small number of late 12th centurysurvivals, and the assemblage is dominated by twotypes,Types 4 and 7 (Chart 5). Curiously, the armour-piercing Type 7 is actually at a slightly lower level ofpopularity(49%) than in the lith and earlier 12thcen-turies.This isunlikely to reflect any significant declineintheuse of armour, however, but rather is due mainlyto a dramatic increase in popularity of Type 4. Thissocketed, triangular-bladed arrowhead occurs in thisperiod in a distinctively Anglo-Norman form, withparticularly large, broad blades with marked midribs.Arrowheads of this form have, in many cases, beenconsideredas hunting forms, but the contexts inwhichthey occur in Ireland, including several early castlesites,poiirt in the strongest possible manner to a mili-tary function.

Welsharchers and the longbowThe Welsh archers who were so important in the

invasion ofIreland, and are graphically described byGiraldus Cambrensis in other works, are importantfigures in the military historiography of the MiddleAges. Oman (1885) and Morris (1901) saw them ascrucial to the 14th century emergence of Englishmilitary archery, based on the longbow, as a potentforce that revolutionised warfare, not only in Britainbut inmuch ofEurope. They claimed, firstly, that theWelsh developed the longbow as a distinctive weaponand secondly, that Edward I (1272-1307) recognisedthe potential ofthe longbow as used by the Welsh andintroduced large numbers of Welsh archers into hisarmies,while atthe same time encouraging the use ofthe longbow among the English peasantry.- .

This theory is based on entirely inadequate evi-dence and must be rejected. Bradbury (1985, 71-79)argues that Welsh archery has been given inordinateprominence because of the influence of Giraldus'writings, combined with the mistaken belief thatthere is little evidence for archery in 12th and 13thcentury England. In fact, there is evidence for thewidespread use of the bow, particularly in warfare, inAnglo-Norman England and there is little to suggestthat Edward I ever used Welsh archers to teach theEnglish how touse the longbow (prestwich 1972,95-97, 109-112; Prestwich 1988,485). There is no evi-dence that the longbow was peculiar toWales in the12thand 13thcenturies, still less that it was inventedthere. Indeed, to the writer's knowledge, no medievallongbow has ever been found in Wales. Giraldushimself never refers to longbows being used by theWelsh; he describes Welsh bows as:"not made of hom, nor of sapwood, nor yet ofyew. TheWelsh carve their bows out of the dwarfelm trees in the forest. They are nothing much tolook at, not even rubbed smooth, but left in arough and unpolished state. Still, they are firm andstrong. Not only could you shoot far with them,but they are also powerful enough to inflict seri-ous wounds in a close fight" (Thorpe 1978, 112).

Bowsfrom WaterfordOn the basis of historical evidence alone, the

suggestion that the longbow was invented in Walesis untenable and archaeological evidence makes thiseven clearer. Bows are rarely found 0 1 2 excavatedsites but excavations in the town of Waterford haveproduced one complete bow and fragments of sixothers (Fig. 3). All are simple yew bows dating bet-ween the mid-12th and mid-13th centuries, and theyprovide one of the first opportunities to look indetail at actual bows of this crucial period (Halpin1996).At first glance one thing seems clear: the Water-

ford bows are not longbows. The only completeexample is 125 em long and the other survivingbowstaves were probably of much the same length.The arrowheads found with the bows are as stronglymilitary in nature as the Dublin arrowheads, so it isimpossible to argue that these bows were for huntingand that longer bows were used in war. These aremilitary bows and, what is more, most of them seemto be Anglo-Norman. Indeed, it is not beyond thebounds of possibility that some could be the actualbows used by Giraldus' Welsh archers in 1170. Thiscannot be proved but the Waterford evidence surelydemonstrates that Anglo-Norman archers of the late


7/10


Fig. 3. - Bows from Wa-terford city (after Hurleyand Scully, J 996). - ~ - . U - . .

(~

_ .< " ~ ': - - ,

'\I',I~ p \

\: , ' \ - I :

\'';1 "

c- - =o 5netai! of necks

12th and early 13th centuries were not using bowswhich would be recognised as longbows.However, to say that the Waterford bows were notlongbows begs the question: what is a longbow?

Much confusion has been caused in earlier literatureby the mistaken assumption that the longbow is a dis-tinct type of bow, qualitatively different from otherwooden self-bows. In fact, the bows from Waterfordare essentially identical to the later medieval long-bow in all respects except length. Some even displaya technique of manufacture characteristic of latemedieval longbows, in which most of the staveconsists of heartwood, but sapwood is retained alongthe back (i.e. the outside bend of the bow, facing thetarget); the strong and resilient heartwood gives thebow its strength and resistance to compression whilethe elastic sapwood on the back prevents the bowfrom breaking under the stress of bending (thisfeature is alsopresent on the 10th century Ballinderry

- I-,

-,-I

- - ,

. , - .

I, !'I

- .

- / - .- . - .

I

10 o 15how:,-

301 __

em s

-I

I_I

- . - .\

bow). Any attempt to distinguish the longbow fromother wooden self bows purely on grounds of lengthmust always be entirely arbitrary and ultimatelyunsustainable. Rather than treating "longbows" and"ordinary" wooden bows as two separate species, itis more helpful to see the wooden bow as a singletype, within which length (like other characteristics)was a variable factor, depending on circumstances.

Bows and armourThe evidence suggests that inHibemo-Norse and

Anglo-Norman Ireland shorter bows were in usealongside what we might recognise as "longbows".This was not because longbows were unknown - wehave already noted a perfect longbow at Ballinderryin the 10th century. Rather, it was because theirmakers chose not to make these bows particularly. . . ..7


8/10

A. Halpin

long. This may tell us something about the conditionsof warfare at the time, and specifically about thequality of armour and the prevalence of its use. Sincethe force of a bow depends largely on its length, theWaterford bows must have been somewhat lesspowerful than a typical late medieval longbow.Nevertheless, they may have been quite efficientagainst chain mail.

Inthe 14th century chain mail was largely replacedby plate armour, and this may have been due in greatmeasure to the impact of the armour-piercing arrow-heads noted earlier. These arrowheads had long beenin use (since the mid-LOth century in Ireland) but if,as seems likely, there was a major increase in thenumber of archers in many European armies in thelater 13th and early 14th century, they would havebecame a much more serious problem. Plate armourwould, in most cases, have been an effective defenceagainst such arrowheads, fired from bows of the typefound in Waterford (Jones 1986). In turn, it may wellbe that the increasing use of longer, more powerfulbows - what we would recognise as "longbows" - inthe 14th and 15th centuries was a response to themore widespread use and improving quality of platearmour.Alongside these changes in the form of bows,

there were also developments in the forms of mil it-ary arrowheads. In England, the old, long and slen-der armour piercing heads (e.g. Type 7 above) werelargely replaced by newer forms in the 14th century.Two of these newer forms are represented in Ire-land, reflecting two different responses to the chal-lenge of plate armour. One response was a thicker,squatter armour-piercing type (e.g. Fig. 4: Type 8)which was'lstrong enough to penetrate plate armour,when fired with sufficient force. The second res-ponse was quite different - a relatively light, barbedhead (e.g. Fig. 4: Type 8) which clearly was notintended to penetrate armour at all, but was prob-ably used, as Payne-Gallway (quoted in Pratt 1986,201) suggested, "to harass an enemy, especially hishorses, at a distance beyond the reach of heavier wararrows". While both these types are represented inIreland, they are so far only known in very smallnumbers and are not nearly so common as in Eng-land and elsewhere in Europe. This is a matter ofsome interest, in view of suggestions from othersources that plate armour was never widely used inlater medieval Ireland (see Halpin 1986). Unfor-tunately, because of a general scarcity of stratifiedlater medieval archaeological deposits in Ireland,arrowheads of this period, of any type, are rare andlittle can be said with confidence about the popular-ity of individual types.

co

The late medieval period (c.1350-1600)The 14th century saw the beginning of the great

age of the English longbowman, whose full militarypotential was revealed in France during the HundredYears' War, which began in 1337. Huge numbers ofarchers were employed and the firepower of massedbodies of archers was decisive in most English suc-cesses of the War, notably at Crecy and Agincourt.Inevitably these developments affected Ireland andthis can be seen from the mid-14th century on twolevels. The Anglo-Irish government made repeatedefforts to encourage the use of the longbow amongthe colonists, clearly with the aim of developing anentire class of archers on the English model. But amore immediate response was to make use of Englisharchers for the defence of the colony. From the1340's onwards the chief governors of the colonytended to be provided with retinues of English troopspaid for by the English exchequer. In the later 14thcentury these usually accounted for at least 65%-75%of the entire retinue and for most of the 15th centurythe royal army in Ireland was composed almost ex-clusively of archers.

Efforts to encourage archeryA centralised royal army could only achieve a

limited amount in medieval Ireland, however, and theAnglo-Irish colonists were aware of the need to pro-vide for their own defence. Not surprisingly, theyincreasingly emphasised archery and the Irish par-liarnenr.of 1460 must have expressed contemporaryperceptions in stating that:

"the defence of the English nation of this landfrom the danger and malice of the Irish enemies ofthe same land rests and depends on English bows,which to the said enemies give the greatest resist-ance and terror of any weapon of war used in thesaid land" (Berry 1910,647-649).The later medieval period saw repeated legislative

efforts to encourage the development of a large pool ofproficient archers among the colonists. This reached apeak in the later 15th century when several parlia-mentspassed laws (Berry 1910,647-649; Berry 1914,293-298; Vesey 1765, 48) requiring, among otherthings:- that every man of the colony provide himself witha longbow and arrows;- that every lord or large landowner provide bowsand arrows for his servants and maintain a fullyequipped mounted archer for every 201. of lands orproperty held- that every town of more than three houses erect a


9/10


pair of butts at which the inhabitants were to practicearchery on each feast day between March and July.The supply oflongbows was a recurring problem.In 1460 parliament noted that the colony was "verynearly destitute" of bows and a law passed in 1473(and re-enacted in 1495 and 1516) compelled mer-chants importing goods from England to bring withthem longbows for sale in Ireland, in proportion tothe value of their merchandise (Morrissey 1939, 99).The effect ofmeasures such as these is hard to gauge;many of them echo previous enactments in Englanditself and their introduction in Ireland may have beena more or less perfunctory operation. Itis clear thatthey did have some impact; we have records ofarchery butts in Dublin, Waterford, Drogheda, Kil-kenny and other towns, while the act compellingmerchants to import longbows was actually enforcedup to the late 16th century, when complaints weremade that it was being abused (Calendar of theCarew Mss 1575-88,401). As shall be seen, how-ever, there are indications that archery was morewidely practiced inAnglo-Irish towns than in the sur-rounding countryside.

Limited adoption of archeryIn the late 15th and early 16th centuries the earls

of Kildare as chief governors tended to provide theirown retinues, composed mainly of native troops(gallowglass and kerne) rather than archers (Ellis1986, 54-55). This may have been largely forpolitical, rather than military reasons but it never-theless raises the question of how successful were theefforts to foster archery among the Anglo-Irishcolonists. It seems that in the relatively stable andAnglicised heartlands of the Pale - essentially thearea along the east coast between the towns of Dublinand Drogheda - a tradition of yeoman archery on theEnglish pattern may indeed have developed. Else-where, however, it seems likely that a distinctivelyIrish military pattern of horsemen, gallowglass andkerne predominated (Ellis 1986, 55).Even in the heyday of English military archery,there is little evidence of archery having been used todecisive military advantage in Ireland. Two main

reasons can be advanced for this failure to exploit thefull potential of the longbow. Firstly, the colony wasnever able to assemble the large numbers of trainedarchers needed to use the longbow effectively. Theattempt to develop within the colony a corps ofpeasant archers on the English model largely failed,with the exception of the Anglicised core of the Paleand, perhaps, some of the larger towns elsewhere.Even more fundamentally, the pattern of warfare in

. . . .

8

Fig. 4. - Later medieval Irish arrowheads, Types 8 and 9.

late medieval Ireland was such that there were veryfew pitched battles in which classic English archerytactics could be employed.

Gaelic Irish arch elYThe use of the bow by the Gaelic Irish is first

noted in 13th century Irish annalistic sources, andincreased in the later medieval period. Both the com-mon footsoldiers ("kerne") and the "knaves" (i.e,pages) of the gallowglass tended to be armed withbows, as isnoted by the English writers Nowell inthe1480's, Sentleger in 1543, Spenser in 1596 andDymmok in c.1600. In the 16th century there is alsoevidence for the use of the bow in Ireland by Scottishmercenaries. The effectiveness of these Scottisharchers was most clearly seen in 1584 when a forceof2400 Scots, of whom 1100 were archers, landed inUlster. Lord Deputy Perrot noted soon after that "theScotts bowmen have donemore hurt in the skirmishesthen our shott have done" and such was the Scots'impact that it prompted the English administrationinto efforts to reverse the trend towards the abandon-ment of archery in the army and among the generalpopulace (C.S.P.I. 1574-85,524; McNeill 1943, 15).Scottish archers also figured prominently in the greatUlster wars of the 1590's, while native Irish archerswere also employed.

The end of military archeryThe military significance of archery began a slow

decline from the early 16th century in the face of

. . .


10/10

A. Halpin

competition from the gun. The main advantage ofguns was that they could be used effectively by almostanyone with little or no training whereas militaryarchery, to be effective, required highly skilled menand in large numbers: Maintaining this large pool oftrained archers was a constant struggle for Englishkings, but Henry VIII made strenuous efforts through-out his reign (1509-47) to retain archery as a majorcomponent of his armies and it was probably not untilthe reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) that guns replacedthe longbow on a large scale (Hardy 1986, 133-35;Bradbury 1985, 155). In Ireland the fate of archeryagain followed the English pattern, in broad terms, asthe use of guns increased slowly but steadily from theend of the 15th century. The 1570's was the crucialdecade in which the longbow was replaced by themusket in English forces in Ireland (Falls 1954-56,104). Ironically, the native Irish (and their Scottishallies) continued to make military use of archery tothe end of the 16th century and even, in some cases,into the 17th century. Nevertheless, by the end of the16th century the longbow had effectively been aban-doned as a weapon and would not be used again inwarfare in Ireland.

ReferencesBERRY H.F. (ed.) 1910: Statute rolls oJ the parlia-

ment oj Ireland: reign oj King Henry VI, Dublin,Irish Record Office Series of Early Statutes, ii.

BERRY H.F. (ed.) 1914: Statute rolls oJ the parlia-ment oJlreland: reign of King Edward IV, Dublin,Irish Record Office Series of Early Statutes, iii.

BRADBURYJ. 1985: The medieval archer, Wood-bridge, Boydell Press.

BROOKSN.P. 1978: Arms, status and warfare in Late-Saxon England, in: D. HILL (ed.), Ethelred theunready, B.A.R. British Series 59,81-103.

BUGGEA. (ed.) 1905: Caithreim Cellachain Caisil,Christiania (Oslo), Det Norske Historiske Kilde-skriftfond.

C.S.P.I.: Calendar of the state papers relating to Ire-land oJthe reigns of Henry VIIL Edward VL Maryand Elizabeth, 1509-[1603J, London, PublicRecord Office, 1860-1912.

ELLIS S.G. 1986: ReJorm and revival. Englishgovernment in Ireland, 1470-1534, Royal Histor-ical Society Studies in History 47, Woodbridge.

FALLS C. 1954-56: The growth of Irish militarystrength in the second half of the sixteenth cen-tury, Irish Sword 2, 103-108.

HALPINA. 1986: Irish medieval swords c.1170-1600,Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 86C,183-230.

HALPINA. 1996: The archery material, in: Hurley &Scully, Section 15:ix.

HARDYR. 1986: Longbow: A social and military his-tory, 2nd edn, Portsmouth, Mary Rose Trust.

HENCKENH. O'NEILL 1935-37: Ballinderry crannogno. 1, Proceedings oj the Royal Irish Academy43C, 103-238.HURLEYM.F. &SCULLYO.M. 1996: Late Viking ageand medieval Waterford excavations 1986-1992,Waterford Corporation.

JONESP. 1986: The target, in: Hardy 1986,204-208.MANLEYJ. 1985: The archer and the army in the late

Saxon period, Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeo-logy and history 4,223-235.

MARTING. & CONNOLLYP. 1994: The Dublin GuildMerchant Roll, Dublin Corporation.

McNEILL C. 1943: The Perrot papers, AnalectaHibernica 12, 1-65.

MORRIS J.E. 1901: The Welsh wars oj Edward I,Oxford, Clarendon Press.

MORRISSEYJ.F. (ed.) 1939: Statute rolls oJthe parlia-ment oj Ireland: reign oj King Edward IV, Dublin,Irish Record Office Series of Early Statutes, iv,

OMAN C. 1885: The art oJwar in the Middle AgesA.D. 378-1515, Oxford and London, B.H. Black-wellfT. Fisher Unwin.

PRATTP. L. 1986: The arrow, in: Hardy 1986,198-204.PRESTWICHM. 1972: War, politics and finance under

Edward I, London, Faber.PRESTWICHM. 1988: Edward I, London, Methuen.SCOTT A.B. & MARTIN F.X. (eds) 1978: Giraldus

Cambrensis: Expugnatio Hibernica, Dublin, RoyalIrish Academy.

SHIELDSH. 1975-76: The walling of New Ross: Athirteenth-century poem in French, Long Room12-13,24-33.

STRICKLANDM. 1990: Securing the north: invasion andthe strategy of defence in twelfth-century Anglo-Scottish warfare, in: M. CHIBNALL(ed.), Anglo-Norman studies XII: Proceedings of the Battle Con-ference, 1989, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 177-198.

THORPEL. (trans.) 1978: Gerald oJ Wales: Thejour-ney through Wales and The description oJ Wales,London, Penguin.TODD J.H. (ed.) 1867: Cogad Gaedhel re Gallaibh.London, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

VESEYF. (ed.) 1765: TIle statutes at large, passed inthe parliaments held in Ireland. vol. i(1310-1612), Dublin, Boulter Grierson.

Andy HalpinIrish Antiquities Division, National Museum ofIreland

Kildare StreetDublin 2Ireland

military archery in medieval ireland: archaeology and history

Documents