Hi. I'm in need of some help with Gerard of Wales' description of Norwegians and men of [Norwegian controlled] northern isles attacking Dublin in 1171 armed in the Danish fashion. I know the question has been raised before, but I need help to untangle the interpretations.

Not having my hand on Scott & Martin's 1978-translation from Latin, I'm starting with Forester's from 1905. I'm not sure if it is based on the National Library of Ireland, MS 700 or other extant manuscripts.

Quote:

chapter XXI: "[...] sailed into the Liffy with sixty ships full of Norwegians and men of the isles [...] Landing from their ships, in all haste, they sat down before the east gate of the city, prepared to assault it. [...] and were all warriors, armed in the Danish fashion, some having long breastplates, and other shirts of mail; their shields were round, and coloured red, and were bound about with iron. They were iron-hearted as well as iron-armed men."

The text is slightly different in Furniwall's Middle English edition based on the early 15th century MS. Trin. Coll., Dublin, E. 2. 31:

Quote:

chapter XIX: "come wyt men of northwey & of þe north ylondes, with ful grett folk, yn furty grett shyppes, [...] Thay wenten out of har̛ shyppes, men well I-wepned, sum with longe swerdes, some with Iren pletes & round sheldes well I-bound about with Iren, swerdes & speres & axys ynowe, & comen̛ well ordeynly for̛ to assaylle the toun on the eest half. "

and in the early 15th century MS. Rawl. B. 490, Bodl. Libr.:

Quote:

Chapter XIX "[...] come wyth men of North-Wey and of the North ylondys, wyth many pepil, in fourty grete shippys, and londyd in the hauyn of Amlyffy, [...]] Thay wentyn out of har shippis, men wel wepenyd, Some with longe Swerdys, Some with Iryñ Platys and roune sheldys, wel bound aboute with Iryñ, Swerdys and Speres and axes ynow, and comyn wel ordeynly forto assayle the toun on the Eeste halue."

Blair (1959: 37) interpret this as the first reference to plate armour, laminis ferreis arte consutis, i.e. lamellar, scale or some kind of coat of plates, with Dan Howard leaning towards scale. Direct translation is "iron plates skillfully sewn together", or more genrally "artfully made plates of iron". The distinction is lost in the two Middle English versions, citing only iren plates.

More interesting for my part, but less discussed, is the reference to round shields bound about with iron. How common is the reference to their colour red in the latin manuscripts?

And why on earth does not Forester have any reference to sword, spear or axe like the Middle English translations?

Are these differences between the Latin and Middle English versions only, or can they be explained by differences between Latin versions themselves?

[Ed: Adding text from the Nat. Lib. of Ireland, MS 700, in 1832 said to be from "a very fine MS, of the time of John, in the possesion of Sir Thomas Phillipps." See also the 1603 edition.

Quote:

"[...] cum Norwagiensibus & Insulanis iu sexaginta naubius vrbem expugnaturus, Auenliphense littus obtinuit. A nauibus igitur certatim erumpentes, [...] viri belhcosi Danico more, vndique ferro vestiti, alii loricis longis, alii laminis ferreis arte consutis, clypeis quoque rotundis et rubris, cirvulariter ferro munitis, homines tam animis ferrei quàm armis, ordinatis turmis, ad portam orientalem muros invadunt."

Thanks for the input, Niels. The reference to the Danish fashion might just be the Welchman explaining their apearance to a latin speaking world more familiar with Danes. (You'll find more references to Danish arms in Giraldus' other work)

Unfortunately Forester 1905 is not the kind of work to state its sources. It is somewhat funny that the term "long" is present on virtually the same spot in all versions, describing either the mail, a sword or breastplates.

[quote="Mark Lewis"]

Niels Just Rasmussen wrote:

Håvard Kongsrud wrote: What is really interesting is that the Norwegians are armed in the Danish fashion (in the Forester translation)... So unless the chronicler have only seen Danish vikings and thus had to comment that Norwegian vikings look the same; I have to take the remark as indicating that the Norwegians have changed something, that makes them more like Danes. I would suggest that "armed in the Danish fashion" at this time could mostly likely be a reference to the use of two-handed axes, ie. "Dane axes". Two-handed axes are singled out for depiction on the Bayeux tapestry as characteristic Anglo-Saxon weapons, and were in use by earlier Anglo-Danish huscarls and Vikings. They continued to be used by the Norse-Gaels for a long period of time, and would likely be the most memorably distinct feature to Norman observers. The term "Dane" is used fairly indiscriminately in earlier chronicles (like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles) and may not accurately indicate any real ethnic distinction in Viking forces (which could be multi-national anyway). The term might have been retained until Gerald's time as describing something that was viewed as characteristically "Viking"... much like how we still discuss "Viking swords" today.

Hi Mark
Good guess.

Yet, as far as I know the use of two-handed axes it seems to be mostly a "hird" weapon (especially under Canute the Great) - the comitatus elite around Kings and Earls and not part of a normal leding army. So the number would be fairly restricted on the battlefield like the crossbows in 1200's Danish leding armies.
If the Dane Axe name comes from the use of the "Hird"/huscarls around Canute the Great, it could explain they were "armed like Danes"; but Norwegians would certainly have "Dane axes" way before 1171, so then the remark shouldn't hint to any recent change in Norwegian weaponry.

Also important to state that a viking (as profession) army would often be multi-ethnic, whereas a leding army would be national (in the ethnic sense).
In that regard the "sea-kings" of merchant raiders who became rulers in the west, but weren't originally of "kingly" blood, were real "vikings"; whereas the army of Svend Forkbeard attacking England was a drafted Danish national army for an offensive campaign of war (later in latin expeditio) which was only legal to be called once every 4 years (as we a least see in the later land-laws) and so not at all "viking" as profession, but comprised of free farmers called by duty by the King's call and then going home to farm.

Whether the Norse armies at Dublin are true "viking" volunteer brotherhoods (ship-crew merchant/raiding mafia) or "leding" armies - or both - would be interesting to investigate further.
These "sea-kings" could with time after conquering territory in the west have incorporated the leding system into their holdings; but it is possible that they continued to attract volunteers to join a ship-crew from all over the Northern World and so remain "viking" in profession.
If the army is described as "Danish" it should technically be a leding army if the writer is well informed and consistent; but that its true that for some writers "Danish" and "Viking" could become synonymous as it it still misunderstood in the English world today. Sadly our knowledge to what extent the "Danish" raids in England in the 800-900 AD's are done by free-booting viking attacks (pirate raids), privateers (see below) or military leding campaigns (warfare) is obscure because of the lack of sources.

Later in time English Privateer captains (like Francis Drake) were hired to conduct piracy by the English monarchy against the Spanish.
A system of privateering could have been used by Danish Kings against the Franks and English as part of the warfare strategy. Some of the more successful could have gone solo (Rollo in Normandy?) and established their own holdings no longer controlled by Scandinavian Kings of the "right" bloodlines - but being New Sea Kings paving their way to power through might alone (and acknowledgement by their crews as leader) and so not being elected at a Ting by their people(s) as Scandinavian Kings were.

In the Baltic the Jomsborg viking brotherhood (originally Danish under Thorkell the Tall and with time Danish/Slavic) were originally (somewhat) loyal to the Jelling Dynasty, but later became a viking scourge on the Danish shores. So an example of Danish King's loosing control of likely an original privateering viking group.

Just missed your post, Mark. Good point about the axe.

This is degenerating into a rant on my part, but here goes. Going back to Furnivall 1896, and his reading of Dimock 1867 gave some answers but a few remain. They identified three editions of the text, the last probably made after Gerhard's death. Copies of the first edition is found in
- Lambeth Palace Library MS 371, 13th century and
- Bodleian, Rawlinson MS B. 188, dated to the first half of 13th century.
- British Library, Royal MS 13 B VIII, dated to c 1196-1223 - is based on the first edititon, with marginal additions constituting the second edition, also found in
- Cambridge University Library, MS Ff I. 27. A third edition of the latin text is probably made after Gerards death. It is shortened quite a bit by omitting rather than by condensing, but with a more "advanced" text:
- British Library, Harley MS 177, no earlier than the second half of the 13th century. It is this third edition that is the closest fit with the Middle English translations cited in my first post, allthough the Middle English version is elaborated somewhat. Furniwall supposed the first translation, now represented by the early 15th century Dublin MS, was made in the 14th century.

To answer a couple of my own questions: 1) Yes, most differences are between latin versions rather than between latin on one hand and Middle Englis hon the other. 2) The description of the Norwegians' shields as round, red and iron bound are from the first edition. While the colour seem to be skipped by the mid 13th century third edition, their round shape and iron bonds are remarked in all editions. 3) The desciption of the iron plates as "skillfully sewn together", is skipped by the mid 13th century, because it is no longer considered special?

But a few remain: 1) I'm still not sure what Forester based his strange 1905 translation on. Could it be the third edition? 2) And I still cannot place the National Library of Ireland, MS 700 among the editions cited above. I guess both answers lie in Scott & Martin's 1978-translation? Here's text from the first (and second) edition as in Royal MS 13 B VIII:

Quote:

"[...] cum Norwagiensibus et insulanis in sexaginta navibus urbem expugnaturus [...] viri bellicosi, Danico more undique ferro vestiti, alii loricis longis, alii laminis ferreis arte consutis, clipeis quoque rotundis et rubris circulariter ferro munitis, homonies tam animis ferrei quam armis, ordinatis turmis ad portam orientalem muros invadunt."

Finally, could i have some translation help with a detail? In book II, cap I, there seem to be a second reference to some kind of plate armour:

Quote:

"Prælio itaque navali consert, dum isti lapidibus et securibus acriter impetunt, illi vero tam sagittis, quam laminis ferreis quibus abundabant, promptissime resistunt."

something about 'his iron plates resisted arrows etc'?

Concerning the round shields with iron rims. My theory is that this is an early literary example of a kind of buckler, particular to Scandinavia, which was popular in the 13th century. Here's an image of a reproduction of one of these bucklers.

---

 Attachment: 20.34 KB

I believe it was fellow forum member Elling Polden who once said that that the use of bucklers by Scandinavians of the 13th, weren't typically not used in battle, but were more used by bodyguards and the like. If I'm misremembering what you said Elling, my apologies. I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that even in the 13th Norwegian infantry stil fought in a shieldwall formation. This is mentioned in The King's Mirror written in about 1250. Now by this time the kite/heater shield had taken the place of the large round shields of the Viking Period. I believe that kite shields were introduced into the Scandinavian lands some time in the 11th century, and for a time were used alongside the old large round shields. As far as I know kite had completely replaced large round shields by the time of Giraldus' writings. So why does Giraldus mention round shields? As I said I believe these to be bucklers, like the one I attached to my last post. So why would the Norsemen in Ireland be using bucklers instead of the larger kite/heater shields which were typically used at this time? Well I believe that this might have been a response to the conditions in Ireland. In Ireland skirmishes and raids were far more common than pitched battles. The Irish themselves used shields very much like a "viking shield" only smaller, essentially bucklers. My thought is that the Norsemen in Ireland preferred bucklers to larger kite shields as this better suited the combat style that was most useful in that country.

How is a regular viking shield any different to a buckler? How small does it have to be to be called a "buckler" and not a "round shield"? Does it really matter? Gerald wouldn't have cared less.

Dan. I'm just using the words "viking shield" and buckler here for the sake of convenience, as apart from the obvious size difference there isn't much else to distinguish between the two. Also I believe that these Scandinavian bucklers were larger than was typical. If I remember correctly they were often between 16" and 18" in diameter. As far as I know the only shields used by Scandinavians that had an iron rim was the kind of buckler that I referred to above. I think that there is little doubt that a larger shield is a better choice when fighting in a shieldwall, but my speculation is that a buckler might have been better suited to fighting in Ireland.