The Anglo Saxons at War 800-1066
Page 24
A word that seems to cover a multitude of possibilities is the Old English ‘sagol’. It is interpreted as meaning a club, cudgel, stick, staff or pole. It is possible these simple types of weapons might represent the ancestors of later Medieval pole arms and such like, being distantly related to farming instruments, but again there is not enough evidence to say. What is clear though is that the men who turned up for battle at Hastings were perfectly capable of improvising weapons and using them to some effect, if we are to believe the Norman historians.
Armour and Protection
Mail Armour
Beowulf spoke–on him a mail-coat gleamed,
a net of armour woven by smith’s skilful art–
Mail armour was once endearingly but inaccurately referred to as ‘chain-mail’. This type of armour is not in fact constructed in anything like a chain form, but is most often made up of a series of linked iron rings each one having another four passing through it. Mail armour has a long and distinguished history. Its first appearance in the archaeological record in Britain occurs in the late Iron Age and it continued in use right up until the First World War, when it was used by tank drivers as a form of facial protection known as a ‘splatter mask’. More realistically, however, it saw its last proper usage as a form of bodily protection in the eighteenth century. Mail armour was at its peak by the late twelfth century, when knights seem to have been clad in it literally from head to foot. From that point on, the areas of the body covered by mail seem to reduce in proportion to the arrival on the scene of plate and other forms of metal armour.
A mailshirt from an Iron Age cart burial at Kirkburn, North Yorkshire, ranks as the earliest discovery of mail protection in Britain dating probably to the third century BC. It was made from iron-wire rings each of which was butted (and not riveted) shut. Each of the rings was up to 9.2mm in diameter. There are some other examples of early types of this armour from Britain where the rings of iron are made of rows of alternately butted and riveted rings, or where they are made from alternate rows of riveted and solid rings, perhaps punched from sheets of iron. The basic method of manufacture, whereby iron wire is twisted around a rod forming a spring-like coil and each individual ring is cut from it, is common across Western Europe throughout the subsequent Roman and early Medieval periods, and from the few Anglo-Saxon and Viking examples it appears to have been a method that continues almost unchanged.
Other than the Kirkburn example, there is in Britain a notable very late Iron Age folded mailcoat from Folly Lane in St Albans dating to around AD 50, and a few other similar but smaller examples that continue throughout the Roman period. The Roman finds of mail at Newstead in Scotland datable to c. AD 150 provide some further evidence for mail protection, but it is not until the famous discovery of the Sutton Hoo treasures in 1939 that we come across the first Anglo-Saxon example of a mailshirt. There are a few fragmentary archaeological finds of mail from the Anglo-Saxon period that have not gained much attention due to their highly corroded nature, but with the Sutton Hoo discovery people were able to view the remnants of a garment in its entirety, albeit folded in such a way as to conceal its original form. The Sutton Hoo burial contained a mailshirt with a type of construction that was not able to be determined immediately due to the nature of its preservation. There was some work undertaken in 1969 using standard and stereo radiography which managed to ascertain that some of the rings in the Sutton Hoo coat were about 8mm in diameter and constructed of iron wire with copper alloy rivets where the ring overlapped with itself.
The discovery in 1982 of the Coppergate Helmet (Plate 14) from York, which has been dated to c. 750–75, around about the dawn of the Viking invasions of England, led to a lengthy restoration and analysis of the mail neck guard, which was constructed of alternate rows of riveted and welded rings. Each ring was about 8mm in diameter and made of iron wire about 1mm thick. It is suggested this mail curtain was perhaps the most expensive part of the entire item.
Scandinavian and Frankish examples of mail are a little more plentiful and include the great Vendel period (c. 520–800) discoveries at Valsgärde, one of which uniquely shows a mail protection for the shoulders only (with the main torso area being protected instead by iron strips). In the case of the Frankish examples, the mail is often in the form of a neck guard hanging from a spangenhelm-type helmet, similar in essence to the Coppergate mail. Examples include helmets from Cologne and Morken respectively. The Cologne example is unusual in having an external ring diameter of 15mm with wire of 2mm thickness, nearly twice the diameter of the Coppergate mail.
Other overseas examples from the period of the Viking invasions include a remarkable discovery in Gjermundbu, Norway. A helmet was accompanied in a burial by a mailshirt found in eighty-five fragments. Here the rings were up to 8mm in external diameter and the wire rarely exceeded 2mm in thickness, tending to be mostly around 1.5mm. Another, rather more enigmatic, mail garment hangs proudly in the Cathedral Church at Prague and purports to be that of St Wenceslas (duke of Bohemia from 921–35). It is displayed alongside an iron helmet. The mail item is about knee length and is accompanied by an extravagant mail neck protection in the form of a wide collar, but little is known about it. It is fair to say, however, that the thirteenth-century legend Ut annuncietur mentions that on certain feast days the helmet and the armour of the famous warrior leader were shown to the faithful, perhaps demonstrating a certain antiquity to the artefact by that time, if indeed the presently displayed artefacts are the same ones as those described in that source.
It is unfortunate that there is scant evidence in the archaeological record for Anglo-Saxon mail armour, but the other available details we have are very telling. The literary evidence is plentiful: the great warrior Beowulf sports a gleaming mailshirt of his own and there are several other references to this type of armour in the poem. There is also the amusing riddle (no. 35) in the Exeter Book, datable to about 975, which indicates that by this time mail body armour must have been common enough knowledge to its readership:
The damp earth, wondrously frozen,
first bore me from its womb.
I know myself not to have been made with wool’s fleeces,
with hairs through high skill, by awareness of myself.
Wefts are not wound on me, not have I warp,
nor through pressure of bunches does thread resound in me,
nor does a shuttle pass singing through me
nor a weaving-slay strike me from anywhere.
Worms do not weave me in the course of time,
those which make the yellow weaving.
Yet nonetheless widely across the world I am
called a splendid garment for heroes.
Say with true speech, wise in skilful thought,
wise in words, what this apparel may be.
‘Widely across the world’ says the riddle writer. He indicates that this garment is very well known indeed, and he also shows with whom it is most often associated. In fact, if we look at other written evidence we can see that he has a point. The mailcoat was a very expensive garment indeed. This item, a garment known as a ‘byrnie’ in Old English, featured in many of the heriots, or wills recorded in the eleventh century, although it seems to only have done so after Ethelred’s 1008 decree, which got armourers working to supply a huge amount of such items. Three in particular are of note. The will of Wulfsige (1022–43) leaves one coat of mail, the will of Ælfwold, bishop of Crediton (1008–12) leaves six coats of mail and Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury bequeaths a huge sixty coats, this most probably being a fully armoured ship’s company. The laws of Cnut (1016–35) seem to suggest that four byrnies would constitute an earl’s heriot and one would constitute a king’s thegn’s. Whichever way we look at it, it is clear that mail armour was highly cherished indeed.
Other written evidence raises more questions than it answers, however. King Æthelred’s (979–1016) order in 1008 that he wanted a helmet and byrnie from every 8 hides of land clearly must have
kept both armourers and merchants very busy. We have already calculated this order to represent around 10,000 mail-clad warriors in England at the time. It again begs the question–where are all these highly prized and very durable garments? Perhaps some of the so-called later Medieval mailcoats hanging in various armouries across Europe are in fact the handed down amended descendants of those from the eleventh century.
Our visual evidence for mail armour is another useful aid, particularly in helping us understand the ways in which the items were worn and how they may have changed their appearance over time. The famous Franks Casket, datable to the seventh century, also shows Anglo-Saxon warriors, some of whom are unmistakably wearing mailshirts down to the waist. A later depiction (from about 1020–50) of a king and his army at war shows only the king himself in a byrnie. It is three-quarter length to just above the knees and has mail coverage of the arms down to the elbows, as seems to be the norm for the ninth–eleventh-century mail depicted in Continental examples. The king’s byrnie is split at the front (and presumably the back as well), perhaps to accommodate the widening of the legs when its wearer is riding a horse.
Another depiction of mail body protection from around 1000 shows a more problematic garment (Fig. 14). Here a warrior with curved shield and a spear wears a mailshirt, or leather jerkin, that covers him down to the waist and the elbows. It has a noticeable flourish to its edges–the sleeves and waist end with a zigzag pattern.
Fig. 14. English warrior from c. 1000 showing
enigmatic jerkin, or mailshirt.
Perhaps the most spectacular of all the visual depictions of mail body armour is contained within the eleventh-century Bayeux Tapestry. There is enough visual material here to ignite a thousand debates, but what can we learn of mail armour depicted therein? It is, in fact, possible to see what seems to be a surprisingly sophisticated range of mail body armour, quite accurately depicted to the point where it is possible to draw tentative conclusions about the differences between the English and the Norman types of protection.
All warriors who are clad in mail byrnies on both the English and Norman sides on the Tapestry are covered by a garment that appears to be about three-quarter length down to the knees and that runs down to the elbows. The edge trim would appear to be either of leather or another type of fabric. The artists of the Tapestry have chosen to depict all these warriors as if their byrnies are ‘trousered’ and not split front and back to accommodate the legs. It is a troubling depiction simply because the discomfort to a mounted warrior in wearing this kind of garment would have surely been immense. However, there is a stone relief sculpture from Winchester datable to the eleventh century that also shows a similar ‘trousered’ appearance to the upper leg and so this cannot be totally ruled out as a possibility (Fig. 15).
Many of the mailed warriors of both sides are shown with the mail continuing from the main body of the suit onto the head and disappearing beneath the helmet. The suggestion is that these warriors are wearing what has become known as a ‘hauberk’–an all-in-one mail suit with the hood integral to the main part of the suit. The Old English word ‘Healsbeorg’ is probably the origin of this term, but it is thought this word referred to just the head protection itself and somehow got corrupted into hauberk and was used to refer to the suit as a whole. While it is certainly the case that the Tapestry shows integral mail hoods, it is interesting to note that the artist has occasionally chosen to show some warriors with a clearly independent mail coif (head protection) finished off with a fabric or leather trim around the neck. One such wearer is King Harold himself. As if to add to the possibilities, it seems that the mounted Norman who is cutting Harold down with a sword in one of the final battle scenes is himself wearing neither an integral or independent mail coif, but one that appears from inside the mailcoat and seems to be of fabric. What is not clear, however, is how many of the depictions on the Tapestry that seem to show an independent mail coif, are in fact depicting an aventail, or mail curtain suspended from the rim of the helmet.
Fig. 15. A fragment of eleventh-century Winchester
sculpture showing either a split mailcoat or the
more controversial ‘trousered’ byrnie.
There is one important difference between the Norman and the English mail-clad warriors on the Tapestry and this concerns the curious mail square depicted in the chest region of many of the Norman knights. This has aroused much debate. It was once considered to be an additional mail protection for the vital organ areas of the upper body, but it is too small for that. From some depictions that seem to show additional strap attachments hanging down from this open square of mail, it is reasonable to conclude this is an additional curtain of mail that can be pulled up underneath the helmet and attached at both sides, thus leaving the wearer with a fuller facial protection. This view might be borne out by the square depicted on William in the scene from the Bayeux Tapestry where he is holding a mace over his right shoulder and pointing forwards. Here, the square section is depicted as if it is lined on the inside with material that is in contrast to the mail depicted on the rest of the hauberk. All these arguments notwithstanding, the absence of such a device on the byrnies of the Anglo-Saxons remains a complete mystery. It may be that the Norman knights, so used to fighting on horseback, had developed this additional protection because of the likelihood of receiving blows from below towards their faces.
Fig. 16 Possible fabric coif of a Norman cavalryman and possible independent mail coif worn by King Harold, from the Bayeux Tapestry.
Perhaps the most telling scene on the Tapestry–a scene that provides the exception that proves the rule–is that which shows Duke William conferring arms and armour onto Earl Harold after his help in the Breton campaigns (Fig. 17). Here, in this highly symbolic section, Harold is wearing a full Norman-style hauberk with square mail section at the chest, the only time an Englishman wears such a garment in the whole work. It might be argued that this phenomenon occurs only because all the English warriors have their mail patches pulled up to the helmet ‘at the ready’ so to speak, but this is unlikely. The scene of the conferring of arms between the two main protagonists is the best example of something depicted elsewhere on the Tapestry. Harold’s sword can clearly be seen as having been slotted into an aperture in the mail on the left-hand side at the waist. The implications here are that the scabbard is held in position by strapping beneath the mail and the weight of the mail keeps the scabbard and sword from waving around loosely.
Fig. 17. Harold receiving Norman
armour, showing square chest patch,
from the Bayeux Tapestry.
The Bayeux Tapestry then, is a mine of information for the student of mail armour. It seems just right for its time. For example, there are no full-length suits with mail down to the wrists and beyond the knees like the ones depicted in manuscript drawings from the twelfth century onwards. So, if the Bayeux Tapestry’s mail armour is reasonably accurate, what else can we determine about what it was actually like to wear mail in the Anglo-Saxon period?
In a famous scene on the Tapestry where the Normans are transporting their baggage there are two mail hauberks being carried by two unarmoured men. Both men hold opposing ends of what seems to be a huge pole which passes through the sleeve holes of the two garments thereby suspending them on the pole, giving the appearance of washing hanging out to dry. It must have been just the same for the Anglo-Saxon byrnies. It is the only practical way to carry these garments other than actually wearing them. The depiction gives a good idea of their weight. In fact, surviving mailshirts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries now in the Wallace Collection in London can weigh anything up to 9kg, and these are not as long as those depicted on the Tapestry. One can only imagine what it must have been like to fight for your life with such an amount of armour weighing down exclusively on top of your shoulders.
But what type of blows could a mail byrnie stop? Some experiments with modern mail suggest that slashing blows are well catered for b
y mail armour. But it has been made painfully clear to those who have carried out the experiments that without the additional cushioning protection provided by a padded undergarment to dissipate the shock of the blow, the concussive effects of a blow are made worse by mail armour. Therefore–just as the Romans are known to have done–it is very likely that in the Anglo-Saxon period mail was worn with an attendant padded undergarment. It is quite possible that the edges of such garments are shown peering out of the mailcoats on the Bayeux Tapestry. It is also possible that the byrnie was made with its own fabric padded lining stitched into it, as is hinted at by the depiction of William’s hauberk mentioned above. However, we might expect this to be evident from the marginal drawings on the Tapestry which show warriors having their byrnies pulled off over their heads, presumably revealing what would be the inside of the garment. Infuriatingly, none of these depictions show anything of an attached undergarment.
Clearly, the mailcoat, mailshirt, hauberk or byrnie were valued items in the Anglo-Saxon period, coming second only to the sword in terms of the huge amount of work and expense that went into their manufacture. There must surely have been, however, other forms of body armour that have escaped the evidential record.