Hopefully this doesn't derail the topic but, has anyone here read the paper re-thinking the origin of the "Irish" hobelar by Robert Jones, and if so what do they think of it?
www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/resources/CHP%202008.1%20Jones.pdf
I have read it before, and there is some good and some bad. He calls the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaib an "eleventh-century poem" when it is a twelfth-century combination of prose and verse, which is perhaps indicative of the author's unfamiliarity with the text. There are references in the pre-Norman annals to mounted soldiers, and a distinction is made between "horse soldiers" and "foot soldiers," with some nobles referred to as "leader of the king of Connacht's horse soldiers" and such. I do not have the references on hand (I am in between teaching classes at the moment) but I can get them when I am home again.
I think his conclusions on the terminology of military history in general is spot on: "heavy cavalry," "light cavalry" and such are more modern terms, and do not necessarly reflect the reality of medieval warfare. I find his conclusions compelling, but I think they do not necessarily negate the presence of Gaels fighting as hobelars. From the description of Gaelic Irish warfare in places like the Triumphs of Turlough, and the description of Gaelic Irish horsemen by other visitors such as the Viscount de Perellos, I think an argument could be made that the Irish fought quite similarly to the hobelar, even if the term itself is not a uniquely Irish one. So, while the term's origin may lie in the muntator of the Welsh Marches, a similar type of warrior may have developed independently among the Irish. Indeed, as current historiographical trends suggest, Ireland was not so "unique" or "fringe" as it has been traditionally conceived: broad trends in European history, military and otherwise, still apply there.
It's worth noting that there are records of the English forces serving in Ireland in the medieval period, I believe I have a paper by Robin Frame that analyzes some of these records, and in them, they include records listing the various contributors to royal armies in Ireland. Native Gaelic noblemen inevitably figure into these armies, and the forces are generally broken down into four broad categories: "Men-at-arms," "foot," "hobelars," and "archers." Hobelars and foot comprise the largest portions of both English and Irish contingents. Archers are typically only in the English contingents, and even then they tend to be rarer than they are in contemporary forces in England of France. Men-at-arms figure in both Irish and English contingents, though they are generally smaller in the Irish contingents. Hobelars, notably, are a very large presence in the Irish forces in particular.
So while not uniquely Gaelic, I think it is safe to say that the hobelar was a sort of soldier employed by both the Irish and the English in Ireland itself as well as outside of it, and while they may have had different terms for it, and the soldier may have occupied different socioeconomic roles in the two countries, they were both broadly similar in equipment and role.
I think his conclusions on the terminology of military history in general is spot on: "heavy cavalry," "light cavalry" and such are more modern terms, and do not necessarly reflect the reality of medieval warfare. I find his conclusions compelling, but I think they do not necessarily negate the presence of Gaels fighting as hobelars. From the description of Gaelic Irish warfare in places like the Triumphs of Turlough, and the description of Gaelic Irish horsemen by other visitors such as the Viscount de Perellos, I think an argument could be made that the Irish fought quite similarly to the hobelar, even if the term itself is not a uniquely Irish one. So, while the term's origin may lie in the muntator of the Welsh Marches, a similar type of warrior may have developed independently among the Irish. Indeed, as current historiographical trends suggest, Ireland was not so "unique" or "fringe" as it has been traditionally conceived: broad trends in European history, military and otherwise, still apply there.
It's worth noting that there are records of the English forces serving in Ireland in the medieval period, I believe I have a paper by Robin Frame that analyzes some of these records, and in them, they include records listing the various contributors to royal armies in Ireland. Native Gaelic noblemen inevitably figure into these armies, and the forces are generally broken down into four broad categories: "Men-at-arms," "foot," "hobelars," and "archers." Hobelars and foot comprise the largest portions of both English and Irish contingents. Archers are typically only in the English contingents, and even then they tend to be rarer than they are in contemporary forces in England of France. Men-at-arms figure in both Irish and English contingents, though they are generally smaller in the Irish contingents. Hobelars, notably, are a very large presence in the Irish forces in particular.
So while not uniquely Gaelic, I think it is safe to say that the hobelar was a sort of soldier employed by both the Irish and the English in Ireland itself as well as outside of it, and while they may have had different terms for it, and the soldier may have occupied different socioeconomic roles in the two countries, they were both broadly similar in equipment and role.
I often wonder if the Hobelar is related to the continental Coutilier. Though they only appear on paper in the 1450s I have a hunch they were around earlier.
Graham. If you do find references to pre-Norman Gaelic cavalry, I'd love to see them. I think Dr. Andrew Haplin also briefly covers this topic in one of his books. I'll see if I can dig it up.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| Graham. If you do find references to pre-Norman Gaelic cavalry, I'd love to see them. I think Dr. Andrew Haplin also briefly covers this topic in one of his books. I'll see if I can dig it up. |
Sure thing! From the Annals of Tigernach, 1114 CE, entry 5:
| Quote: |
| A great hosting by Toirdhealbhach Ó Conchobhair, king of Connacht, with his army from Leth Cuinn, together with Domhnall son of Mac Lochlainn with the north of Ireland and with the men of Meath as far as Tulach Uí Dedaig. And a combat took place between the cavalry of Connacht and that of Munster, and the Munstermen were routed, and a multitude was slain there including Cathal Ó Duibhcinn and Ó Gráda. |
The word used is, I believe, marcṡluag, which literally means "horse-soldier." References are common enough in the early 1100s. No clues as to whether they fought mounted or not, but the terminology crops up a bit suddenly, and certainly they are differentiated from the general foot soldiers or warband.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| Hopefully this doesn't derail the topic but, has anyone here read the paper re-thinking the origin of the "Irish" hobelar by Robert Jones, and if so what do they think of it?
www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/resources/CHP%202008.1%20Jones.pdf |
I believe this article is more anti-irish anglophile propaganda, they also cite it on wikipedia as fact on the hobelar, very annoying.
This High cross is in Kells and if I remember correctly is dated 10th century. They sure look like hobelar's to me, some people just refuse to give the Gael credit for anything IMO. Can they document an earlier example in England or Wales, I doubt it.
BTW this is the best thread I have seen here in years! I do like what Graham said about the subject and I like the Irish term marcṡluag/ "horse-soldier." And Graham you are my new hero please continue to post.
Attachment: 59.92 KB
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| Hi Pedro. I don't know much about medieval Wales, but you might find this link of interest.
http://warfare.altervista.org/WRG/Feudal-48-Welsh_Uchelwyr.htm |
Interesting, but I had some doubts: these armor worn by UCHELWYR were always imported from England or Wales actually had significant workshops that manufactured mail and plate armour pieces?
These UCHELWYR were like feudal lords of small estates, right? In the research I had been conducted, it appears that there was a difference between them and the marchogs, which are literally translated as "Knights". What was the difference between them?
Also, this caught my attention:
| Quote: |
| It seems likely that in the course of the 13th century the uchelwyr would have been influenced by the styles of arms and armour in use amongst the contingents of the marcher lords, and that an even more 'Anglicised' harness would have resulted; in 1316, for instance, the confiscated armour of the rebel Llywelyn Bren (of the royal house of Sengbenydd in Glamorgan) is recorded to have comprised an aketon; a gambeson, 3 haubergeons, an iron breastplate, a buckram armour (doubtless a coat-of-places), an iron helmet, 2 pairs of maunc' (vambraces), a shield, and a pair of plate gauntlets. Though this harness is somewhat more comprehensive than that generally in use at the end of the 13th century, the significant point is that it would have made Llywelyn Bren indistinguishable from his English adversaries. In addition heraldry was in use amongst the Welsh nobility by the late-12th century, as is confirmed by surviving seals. |
Principalities of Welsh's borders saw more access to English's weapons and armours? Why they called "buckram armour" for Coat-of -Plates? Even exist vambraces and gauntlets in England in 1316?
After re-reading though the relevant parts of Andrew Haplin's Weapons and Warfare in Viking and Medieval Dublin. I see that Dr. Haplin is very much in agreement with you Graham. He cites many references of pre-Norman Gaelic cavalry, or at least mounted infantry. I do get the impression however that these men usually raided and skirmished from horseback, but dismounted for pitched battles. I'll have to do more research, but at the moment my feelings are that Irish nobles dismounted for pitched battles up until the second half of the 13th, when gallowglass took over the roll of heavy infantry. Of course this is probably a major over-simplication on my part. Perhaps these nobles only dismounted if they felt that their numbers of heavy infantry weren't enough. Afterall Norse mercenaries had been used for this purpose long before the gallowglass.
Pedro. As I said above I'm not very familiar with medieval Wales, but from a quick google search, uchelwyr seems to simply mean a nobleman, whereas marchog mean a cavalryman. I'd guess that you could look at it like knights and men-at-arms. One is a social status, and the other a military status. Of course you could be both of these things at the same time, or you might only be one of them, but there is a difference.
Again I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that most of the armour in Wales at this time was either imported, or taken from the enemy.
As for the buckram armour. Buckram is a textile like canvas, so it could be a coat of plates faced with buckram, or it could be a gambeson made from buckram. If I was a betting man my money would be on the later.
As for vambraces and gauntlets. We know from the wills of wealthy individuals that these items existed at this time, though I don't know if anyone actually know what from they took at this point.
Again I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that most of the armour in Wales at this time was either imported, or taken from the enemy.
As for the buckram armour. Buckram is a textile like canvas, so it could be a coat of plates faced with buckram, or it could be a gambeson made from buckram. If I was a betting man my money would be on the later.
As for vambraces and gauntlets. We know from the wills of wealthy individuals that these items existed at this time, though I don't know if anyone actually know what from they took at this point.
An interesting read, on a different note, has anyone done any experimentation on using mainstream European type harness in bogs and mountains? There are a number of sources showing plate armours being used in Gaelic areas by specific individuals but lighter type armours are far more frequently represented and mentioned.
On various threads here the point is often made that padded armour represents good protection but at an increase in weight and, er awkwardness. Would they therefore represent a "light" armour suitable for raiding etc. Chain would certainly seem very suitable for mountain raiding but again here on myArmoury I have read that full plate harness is not overly restrictive or heavy yet as Stephen Curtin has written here, the Gaelic chieftains and senior retainers did not adopt plate armours despite having the means to do so.
Would mounted warriors need to be wealthy? Rough ponies don't require too much looking after and Burt reports huge horse herds in the Scottish highlands.I think a similar point is raised in "Woden's Warriors" about Anglo Saxons. I've recently moved from Southern England where owning or even riding a horse is hugely expensive and has class connotations to Northern France where horses are common and carry little baggage.
On various threads here the point is often made that padded armour represents good protection but at an increase in weight and, er awkwardness. Would they therefore represent a "light" armour suitable for raiding etc. Chain would certainly seem very suitable for mountain raiding but again here on myArmoury I have read that full plate harness is not overly restrictive or heavy yet as Stephen Curtin has written here, the Gaelic chieftains and senior retainers did not adopt plate armours despite having the means to do so.
Would mounted warriors need to be wealthy? Rough ponies don't require too much looking after and Burt reports huge horse herds in the Scottish highlands.I think a similar point is raised in "Woden's Warriors" about Anglo Saxons. I've recently moved from Southern England where owning or even riding a horse is hugely expensive and has class connotations to Northern France where horses are common and carry little baggage.
Froissart describes the Scottish army as being entirely mounted on ponies at one point in his chronicles. If that's somewhat true then it would indicate the maintenance requirement for them are not that high. Some 19th century writers serving as light cavalry in Africa and in Eastern Europe note how the 15-16 hand thoroughbreds died by the dozen while the smaller local horses survived and required way less care.
How is France by the way? I thought horses were expensive everywhere in Europe.
How is France by the way? I thought horses were expensive everywhere in Europe.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| After re-reading though the relevant parts of Andrew Haplin's Weapons and Warfare in Viking and Medieval Dublin. I see that Dr. Haplin is very much in agreement with you Graham. He cites many references of pre-Norman Gaelic cavalry, or at least mounted infantry. I do get the impression however that these men usually raided and skirmished from horseback, but dismounted for pitched battles. I'll have to do more research, but at the moment my feelings are that Irish nobles dismounted for pitched battles up until the second half of the 13th, when gallowglass took over the roll of heavy infantry. Of course this is probably a major over-simplication on my part. Perhaps these nobles only dismounted if they felt that their numbers of heavy infantry weren't enough. Afterall Norse mercenaries had been used for this purpose long before the gallowglass. |
The hobelar themselves, if I recall correctly, fought often as mounted infantry.
Also, the impact of the galloglas has been, in my opinion, somewhat overstated. They are often portrayed as revolutionary due to being heavy infantry in an area where heavy infantry was not used, but it seems clear that Irish nobility fought as heavy infantry both before and after the introduction of the galloglas. The Triumphs of Turlough, for example, show the Irish nobles dismounting to fight in ranks and it describes events from 1270-1318. The galloglas' impact was not necessarily their method of warfare, which was not revolutionary to either the Irish or the English, but rather their availability: there was only so many nobles a clan might have or support, and so galloglas provided a larger pool of quality soldiers than was otherwise available.
And again, as the above article on the hobelar mentioned, strict divisions between "heavy infantry," "cavalry," and "light infantry" do not necessarily reflect the reality of medieval warfare. An Irish nobleman probably did fight from horseback, throwing javelins and striking overarm with his long spear, as well as skirmishing on foot, or fighting in ranks, as circumstances demanded. Certainly, certain troops from certain backgrounds would specialize, and sometimes this specialization was not rooted in what was "tactically" or "strategically" useful, at least as we would recognize it (though this is not to imply that medieval peoples were idiots, or impractical: they were warriors, and they meant to win, and by and large, that is what they did, regardless of their culture). However, I do think it would be a mistake to look at the hobelar or the Irish nobleman or the galloglas or the English knight or the "kern" (a very broad, not terribly useful term for most of the medieval era) and say that they always fulfilled the same role, as if they were troop types in a table-top wargame. Not saying anyone is doing this here, just an observation of how these assumptions sometimes go (assumptions I admit I have been guilty of in the past, and will probably be guilty of in the future.)
EDIT: In reply to Neal Matheson: plate armor is not overly heavy and restrictive, that is true. However, it is still 35-50 pounds (give or take) added onto to your own bodyweight: as any combat athlete could tell you, that's a lot of weight to add on to someone. If I weigh 175 pounds, and after I strap on my armor, I weigh 210 pounds, I just effectively increased my bodyweight by 20%. In boxing terms, I just went from a light heavyweight (fighting with guys like Sergey Kovalev, or Bernard Hopkins), to a heavyweight (fighting Wladimir Kilitschko, and Tyson Fury).
It will no doubt tire you out more quickly than you would if you were wearing less armor, even if you are conditioned to fight in that heavy armor. So, if you're fighting in a warzone that privileges high moblility (which means a lot of movement to the battlefield, on the battlefield, and away from the battlefield), then it may be an intelligent decision to wear lighter armors. There is also the issue of armor transportation, and actually putting on one's armor. If you're in a warzone where the front is fluid, and you regularly expect to see battle while on the march, in your camp, or in other areas where you may be generally considered "unprepared" for a fight, you now have to deal with the unenviable choice of whether to wear your armor at all times (even if only partially), or risk taking the time to strap it on; time you may not have if battle occurs at an inopportune moment. Mail and padded armors may be easier to throw on at a moment's notice, and less onerous to keep on while marching, giving them another advantage over more complex and protective plate armors. The English themselves often wore lighter armor as time wore on as well, almost certainly in order to deal with the conditions of warfare in Ireland.
That being said, there is some evidence the Irish would have worn plate armor, or at least, some of them may have. We have one effigy on a Gaelic nobleman who seems to be wearing plate armor similar to that seen on Anglo-Irish effigies: Malachy McOwney O'More. Using artwork such as this as evidence for armor-wearing habits of an entire culture are, of course, problematic, but it at least points to the idea that the Gaels saw plate armor as something desirous for a chief to wear, or at least be seen as wearing.
| Graham T. W. wrote: |
| The hobelar themselves, if I recall correctly, fought often as mounted infantry. |
True. Hobelars in English service did fight both mounted and dismounted. I think that there has even been some disagreement as to which was their primary role. I'll have to look through the sources again to verify this when I get time, but foreign descriptions we have of Gaelic cavalry in the 14th through 16th centuries do not actually described them fighting in large battles, but in raids or ambushes. I wonder if these men dismounted for battle like their ancestors sometimes did earlier.
| Graham T. W. wrote: |
| Also, the impact of the galloglas has been, in my opinion, somewhat overstated. They are often portrayed as revolutionary due to being heavy infantry in an area where heavy infantry was not used, but it seems clear that Irish nobility fought as heavy infantry both before and after the introduction of the galloglas. The Triumphs of Turlough, for example, show the Irish nobles dismounting to fight in ranks and it describes events from 1270-1318. The galloglas' impact was not necessarily their method of warfare, which was not revolutionary to either the Irish or the English, but rather their availability: there was only so many nobles a clan might have or support, and so galloglas provided a larger pool of quality soldiers than was otherwise available. |
I agree with everything you say here. As I said. Gaelic lords also made use of foreign mercenaries before the gallowglass came, but not in as much numbers. My thoughts were that, before the arrival of the gallowglass Irish armies may not always have had a substantial amount of mail armoured infantry, and perhaps the nobles chose to strengthen these battalions, rather than harass the enemy from horseback. Of course even if these men fought on foot during a battle, they could still mount and chase down a broken, fleeing enemy.
| Graham T. W. wrote: |
| And again, as the above article on the hobelar mentioned, strict divisions between "heavy infantry," "cavalry," and "light infantry" do not necessarily reflect the reality of medieval warfare. An Irish nobleman probably did fight from horseback, throwing javelins and striking overarm with his long spear, as well as skirmishing on foot, or fighting in ranks, as circumstances demanded. Certainly, certain troops from certain backgrounds would specialize, and sometimes this specialization was not rooted in what was "tactically" or "strategically" useful, at least as we would recognize it (though this is not to imply that medieval peoples were idiots, or impractical: they were warriors, and they meant to win, and by and large, that is what they did, regardless of their culture). However, I do think it would be a mistake to look at the hobelar or the Irish nobleman or the galloglas or the English knight or the "kern" (a very broad, not terribly useful term for most of the medieval era) and say that they always fulfilled the same role, as if they were troop types in a table-top wargame. Not saying anyone is doing this here, just an observation of how these assumptions sometimes go (assumptions I admit I have been guilty of in the past, and will probably be guilty of in the future.) |
Again well said. I lazily use these terms for the sake of simplicity, as I often do not have as much time as I'd like for writing my responses. Perhaps I should have said mail armoured infantry as I did this time.
| Neal Matheson wrote: |
| An interesting read, on a different note, has anyone done any experimentation on using mainstream European type harness in bogs and mountains? There are a number of sources showing plate armours being used in Gaelic areas by specific individuals but lighter type armours are far more frequently represented and mentioned.
On various threads here the point is often made that padded armour represents good protection but at an increase in weight and, er awkwardness. Would they therefore represent a "light" armour suitable for raiding etc. Chain would certainly seem very suitable for mountain raiding but again here on myArmoury I have read that full plate harness is not overly restrictive or heavy yet as Stephen Curtin has written here, the Gaelic chieftains and senior retainers did not adopt plate armours despite having the means to do so. Would mounted warriors need to be wealthy? Rough ponies don't require too much looking after and Burt reports huge horse herds in the Scottish highlands.I think a similar point is raised in "Woden's Warriors" about Anglo Saxons. I've recently moved from Southern England where owning or even riding a horse is hugely expensive and has class coyynnotations to Northern France where horses are common and carry little baggage. |
Good questions Neal. As for the cotún intended as a stand alone defence. You raise a good point. I remember reading on the Armour Archive forums of a reconstruction of a 27 layer padded jack (incidentally the same number of layers used in Cu Chulainn's armour). The thing weighed 25 lbs, and was stiff enough to hold it's shape and stand upright when it wasn't being worn. A garment like this probably provided a comparable level of protection to a mail hauberk, but wasn't as flexible.
Both Cu Chulainn's and Fionn mac Cumhaill's linen armours were said to be waxed, and board like. Also there is John Major's 1521 description of highlanders. He states that the common highlander wore a "linen garment manifoldly sewed and daubed with pitch with a covering of deerskin". This to me seems like the same type of cotún, only using pitch instead of wax to stiffen the linen(it may also have served to waterproof the garment). Now given that this thick type of cotún was stiff/inflexible and weighed as much as if not more than a mail hauberk (with padding), how does this fit into our image of a lightly armed agile warrior?
Other sources also mention the outer layers of gambesons being waxed. The wateproofing could be reason for it seeing how much heavier a gambeson can become when its soaking wet. However making it more resistant to damage could also have been the primary reason, I do not know of any practical experiments or other sources that test this.
As for the Gallowglass, their popularity can also be ascribed to them being foreigners both in the literal sense and being political foreigners. Throughout history we got a load of similar mercenaries hired both for fighting capability and the fact that they aren't involved in local politics.
As for the Gallowglass, their popularity can also be ascribed to them being foreigners both in the literal sense and being political foreigners. Throughout history we got a load of similar mercenaries hired both for fighting capability and the fact that they aren't involved in local politics.
I am the first to admit I have limited Irish familiarity but I can say that the hobelar in English armies in my opinion has never clearly been proved to be mounted infantry. There is pretty limited info on it but I am really hesitant to assign them so. Conflict on the borders with Scotland have many examples of light cavalry activity (men fighting mounted).
I saw above mention that Ireland was not as poor as often assumed. This is indeed likely true as we often have funny ideas on wealth but it is relative. I'd love to see any evidence on this. While researching Scotland I was impressed to see the variation of wealth between the various kingdoms of the British Isles. Economics and war are rather permanently linked with many ties and impacts.
RPM
I saw above mention that Ireland was not as poor as often assumed. This is indeed likely true as we often have funny ideas on wealth but it is relative. I'd love to see any evidence on this. While researching Scotland I was impressed to see the variation of wealth between the various kingdoms of the British Isles. Economics and war are rather permanently linked with many ties and impacts.
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| I am the first to admit I have limited Irish familiarity but I can say that the hobelar in English armies in my opinion has never clearly been proved to be mounted infantry. There is pretty limited info on it but I am really hesitant to assign them so. Conflict on the borders with Scotland have many examples of light cavalry activity (men fighting mounted).
I saw above mention that Ireland was not as poor as often assumed. This is indeed likely true as we often have funny ideas on wealth but it is relative. I'd love to see any evidence on this. While researching Scotland I was impressed to see the variation of wealth between the various kingdoms of the British Isles. Economics and war are rather permanently linked with many ties and impacts. RPM |
I know little of the hobelar's usage by the English. I do think there is sufficient evidence that Gaelic nobles fought as both cavalry and infantry, but that does not say anything about the English hobelar.
Unfortunately, the institution I am currently working and studying at does not subscribe to many of the journals that would have the relevant information, and economics are not my forte, so I cannot speak much to that. As you say, wealth is a rather relative concept, and if we're discussing material wealth in the form of weapons and armor, an academically useful study of the subject comparing English norms and Irish norms (and even defining who counts as English and who counts as Irish for the purposes of such a study; i.e. is Uilleac mac Uilliam Burke counted as an Englishman? for certainly his ethnic identity was English albeit with Irish influence, but its possible the expression of his identity in material culture was closer to Irish norms than English ones) does not, to my knowledge, exist at this point.
I suspect the English had greater access to the materials and the means necessary to create and/or purchase weapons and armor, simply due to England's larger economic footprint in the medieval period. How that actually ends up expressed in-period, however, is not for me to say without further data.
Graham,
Some good points.
Since many of the Hobelars are originally recruited from Ireland I suspect we can say there is likely a strong connection. I have a levy of Edward II for war with the Scots I think for 7000 Irish with 1000 to be hobelars. All were fairly well equipped. I suspect these are from the more heavily English areas but there is not real documentation past Ireland.
I think it is important to look at the economics as we have largely been seeing the top in the equipment while the lower classes likely had far less.
Relative wealth is a big but not the only factor for sure. England's king into the 100 years war made about 33,000 pounds a year. The French king made many times over this and some. Part is the ability to access wealth but a part is how it is used as well.
Where are you studying?
RPM
Some good points.
Since many of the Hobelars are originally recruited from Ireland I suspect we can say there is likely a strong connection. I have a levy of Edward II for war with the Scots I think for 7000 Irish with 1000 to be hobelars. All were fairly well equipped. I suspect these are from the more heavily English areas but there is not real documentation past Ireland.
I think it is important to look at the economics as we have largely been seeing the top in the equipment while the lower classes likely had far less.
Relative wealth is a big but not the only factor for sure. England's king into the 100 years war made about 33,000 pounds a year. The French king made many times over this and some. Part is the ability to access wealth but a part is how it is used as well.
Where are you studying?
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| Graham,
Some good points. Since many of the Hobelars are originally recruited from Ireland I suspect we can say there is likely a strong connection. I have a levy of Edward II for war with the Scots I think for 7000 Irish with 1000 to be hobelars. All were fairly well equipped. I suspect these are from the more heavily English areas but there is not real documentation past Ireland. I think it is important to look at the economics as we have largely been seeing the top in the equipment while the lower classes likely had far less. Relative wealth is a big but not the only factor for sure. England's king into the 100 years war made about 33,000 pounds a year. The French king made many times over this and some. Part is the ability to access wealth but a part is how it is used as well. Where are you studying? RPM |
Agreed on all counts. The hobelars were most likely drawn from more heavily English areas, as you say, but as has been pointed out, the line between "English" and "Irish" was sometimes a bit thin in practical terms, and the Irish of course fought alongside the English all the time. Even when Edward Bruce was declared High King of Ireland upon invading it, that was only really recognized by some of the northerners (O Neills, O Donnels and the like. And not even all of them) while the English army that eventually killed Bruce included, ironically enough, some of the most powerful Gaelic lords as well, such as the O Brian (who ruled Thomond, which was notoriously resistant to English rule, and indeed in the same year Bruce died at Faughart, the O Brian killed Richard de Clare and his son at Dysert O'Dea, and then burned Bunratty).
I know there have been efforts to create databases on the late medieval soldier in England. Perhaps there exists information that might give us a look at the ethnicity of some of these hobelars? I am unsure of how exactly the English recorded individual soldiers name and occupation (if they indeed did at all, though the existence of the database implies they did), but perhaps if we see a profusion of hobelars named McSween and Obreen and other such Anglicisations of Irish names, we might be able to get a better picture of the ethnic composition of these units.
I am in the graduate program for Rhetoric and Composition at Miami University of Ohio currently. Thesis focuses on early medieval Irish rhetoric and cultural identity, and I spend quite a bit of time researching medieval Irish military history on the side (perhaps more time than I should!). Military histories are important rhetorical documents in many ways, particularly when so much of the historical narrative in Ireland has been colored by military action, so despite my departmental distance from the history fellows, there is a great deal of practical overlap.
We have spoken a bit about how one tactic (though far from the only one) employed by the Irish was to make quick attacks on the English, then retreat through the woods, where their had the advantages of being lighter and knowing the landscape better.
Well we have stories of the legendary fianna, which although most likely exaggerated, tell us how the Irish envisaged an ideal warrior. One of these legends tells us that before someone was granted membership to the fianna, he had to be an expert poet and had to pass certain trials. One of these trials involved the hair of the perspective member being braided, then he had to run through woods while being chased by the fianna, he would be given a head start, but if he was caught, injured or overtaken, he failed the trial. He also failed if his braids were in any way disturbed, or if he broke a branch lying on the ground. The next trial involved the perspective member running and jumping over a tree branch that was chest height, then going under a branch the height of his knee all at full speed, without breaking his stride. If at any point during these trials the perspective member got a thorn stuck in his foot, he had to remove it while on the run. The last trial had the perspective member buried up to the waist, then he had to defend himself, against nine opponents throwing spears, with a shield and a hazel rod. If any of the spears got past his defence he failed.
As I said, these are only legends, but if an Irish warrior was anywhere near these standards, he would be very difficult to deal with with in a wooded environment.
Well we have stories of the legendary fianna, which although most likely exaggerated, tell us how the Irish envisaged an ideal warrior. One of these legends tells us that before someone was granted membership to the fianna, he had to be an expert poet and had to pass certain trials. One of these trials involved the hair of the perspective member being braided, then he had to run through woods while being chased by the fianna, he would be given a head start, but if he was caught, injured or overtaken, he failed the trial. He also failed if his braids were in any way disturbed, or if he broke a branch lying on the ground. The next trial involved the perspective member running and jumping over a tree branch that was chest height, then going under a branch the height of his knee all at full speed, without breaking his stride. If at any point during these trials the perspective member got a thorn stuck in his foot, he had to remove it while on the run. The last trial had the perspective member buried up to the waist, then he had to defend himself, against nine opponents throwing spears, with a shield and a hazel rod. If any of the spears got past his defence he failed.
As I said, these are only legends, but if an Irish warrior was anywhere near these standards, he would be very difficult to deal with with in a wooded environment.
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum