I recently got side-tracked into digging up information about gallóglaigh and was wondering whether anyone in the know could confirm that their equipage was as anachronistic as it appears. From the scant period art sources I've been able to find (and more modern examples which must be taken with a grain, or two, of salt), it appears that apart from helmet styles, very little changed about their appearance or arms from the 13th to the 16th century.

Take for example this image from a 14th century carving:
[ Linked Image ]

The visor-less bascinet is not exactly out of place but notice the lack of plate, and short sleeved, knee length hauberks?

Next is a 16th century image (1528 I believe):
[ Linked Image ]

Still wearing the short-sleeve, full length hauberk with no plate and either a conical or a bascinet.

And lastly, perhaps the most well-known depiction of gallóglaigh, from Durer, 1521:

[ Linked Image ]

Besides a change in helmet style and the addition of a bishops mantle, not at all that different from the appearance of their predecessors.

Is this essentially unchanged appearance accurate, was military technology so stagnant in Ireland compared to the mainland? Are all of these derived from an unchanging stereotype? Or is there some other explanation?

Hi Ian

The galloglass or gallóglaigh as you more correctly name them did seem to use the same base equipment for a very long period or time. There are a couple of excellent threads already on myArmoury about the kit.

There is a note in Halpin - Irish medieval swords c1170 - 1600 that reads "...the heavy armour and improvised weapons that were developed in other parts of Europe to meet the demands of warfare on the grand scale ... were of little use in the local raiding and skirmishing that was endemic in the West Highlands..". In other words, most "war" was raids and guerrilla tactics.

In Harbison Native irish Arms and Armour in Medieval Gaelic literature 1170 - 1600 he mentions "..The gallowglass was, according to Sentleger writing in 1543, a footman 'harnessed in mayle and bassenettes' and each having his own weapon called a sparre.."

Hayes-McCoys book Irish Battle A Military History of Ireland also talks about gallóglaigh being armed as you described in mid 16th century battles, even tough firearms were known and in play. Again if you raid from cover, early firearms are less effective than against massed charges.

I'd be interested if there are more well versed scholars on the forum that can confirm or deny the sources I've noted, my material on the gallóglaigh is still a work in progress! Its a warrior I have the kit for as its what I normally used for fighting purposes.
The sparre or sparth is a fearsome damn thin, that's for sure. My blunt one still smashes up my pell with no difficulty.

cheers
mike

Trinity College,Dublin holds MS 1440, The Book of De Burgos, c.1571-1580. Lough Henney style "barbutes" or conical style helmets and mail seem to be common, though plate legs seem more common. Folio 19r, Riocard mór mac Uilliam cungcur, is an example of the fullest plate armor shown, though the breast might be interpreted as an anime style or brigandine work.
http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._43_LO.jpg

[ Linked Image ]

Folio 20r, Sor Uilliam William II: http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._45_LO.jpg
Folio 21r, Tomás Mac Emoind: http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._47_LO.jpg
Folio 22r,Riocard mac Emoinn na féasóige: http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._49_LO.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
Folio 22v,Sedhan Mac Riocaird Shean: http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._50_LO.jpg
Folio 24r, Seaan MacUilliam Mhic tSeaain/Sheaan son of Oliverus, son of Sheaan son of Richard: http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/content/1202..._53_LO.jpg
[ Linked Image ]

Thanks for the replies, I had assumed that the reason behind the arms and armor not changing was wholly economic, I completely forgot that, of course, there would be much less change without some impetus or good reason.

Now, given that their equipment was comparatively obsolete, what made them desirable as mercenaries outside of Ireland?

My take on the lack of change in gallowglass equipment has always been that, there was no need for change. In the rest of Europe the heavy cavalry charge, and massed archery, were two of the main driving forces which lead to change in arms and armour. Heavy cavalry were never very successful in places like Ireland, and the Scottish highlands, because of the terrain. This boggy and mountainous terrain also ment that small scale raiding was preferable over large scale warfare, and so massed formations of archers weren't used. So although the gallowglass may seem to carry on using outdated equipment, it must have suited their needs just fine to have been in use for so long.

Great question.
As Stephen writes "It must have suited their needs just fine to have been in use for so long.". The Galloglaigh didn't really last long after the widespread introduction of firearms into Ireland. Bows were hugely popular among the Anglo-Irish and yew wood and bow staves were imported into the pale in large numbers. According to tests conducted by the Royal Armouries mail and padding effectively resists arrows shot from heavy bows. Mail and cotun type armour was probably enough to mean that Galloglaigh remained effective against missile troops. Spencer is clear that Scottish bows were weaker than those used by the English, that said there is a surprisingly large number of Gaelic chieftains who were killed or seriously wounded by arrows.
Archers were effective against Galloglaigh at Cnoc Tuagh (Knockdoe 1504) though the battle was still decided with hand weapons. Hayes McCoy states that the Irish were resistant to martial innovation though anglo Irish did take up Gaelic Irish arms and tactics, hinting that they were suited to the conditions in Ireland. As Gaelic chieftains often supplied armour it may well be that the "resistance" to innovation was financial.
On the one hand this on the other hand that......
I haven't read that Galloglaigh were particularly sought after outside the Gaelic world. I know that kern were considered excellent light skirmishers and "foragers" by English armies who used them on the continent.

More battles here:
http://ceathairne.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/reve...rning.html

@ Andrew. Yes you are right. I had forgotten how common bows were among highlanders. I was thinking more of the Irish.

@ Neal. Hayes McCoy raised a good point. Anglo-Irish lords very often adopted Gaelic tactics and equipment. The Irish landscape just wasn't well suited to the kind of warfare practiced in England, and on the continent.

Neal,

What evidence is there that Scot archers were weaker than English. Strickland and most seem to indicate the issue was more a volume issue or quality. In the 15th the Scots make rather good movements to fix this after I think James got back from his capture by the English but increasing demands for archers by law, increasing their numbers. AS well the same bows made in England were exported to Scotland so it'd be rather odd if they were weaker but we have evidence from Ed I onwards basically of this as part of the arms trade to the north, usually at the start of a war the king orders all armour sales during much of the 14th and 15th bows listed.

RPM

Though it's worth pondering on how much those Sweden mercenaries depict actual usage (bow shooting in the second plane) and how much just presentation of 'national types".

Didn't Scottish and Irish people had ban on leaving Britain with anything other than bow and dirk?

It's possible that those are just their personal belongings, while in army majority of them were grabbing pikes/muskets and joining the Swedish well oiled warmachine.

As far as I am aware at least, foreigners formed 'standard' regiments of Swedish army. In fact in many campaigns Swedish armies were mostly composed out of Germans anyway.

Hello Randall, Sorry I should have written "Highland" not Scots.The Source for weaker bows comes from Spencer (among others) who was an eyewitness to highland mercenaries serving in Ireland. There were a number of differences between arms used by Highland and Lowland Scots. My research is largely about Gaelic cultures but my understanding of Lowland Scotland is that they tried to raise and maintain "English" style archers, including using powerful warbows.
Lewis, my understanding is that galloglagh is a specific Irish term for Hebredian (hence Gall) mercenary families setting up "shop" in Ireland not a general term for mercenaries. Later Highland mercenaries were considered distinct from Galoglaigh. Yes Highland and Scots mercenaries fought all over Europe. I'm not sure they were particularly prized though. Again outside Gaelic Ireland/Scotland I am not that well researched and would be interested to read more.

" The weapons sent to Norway by Christian IV included a large number of 16th century German basket hilted swords and dussacks which he had purchased from German armouries keen to get rid of old and obsolete weapons. The dussacks were misinterpreted as Scottish weapons and connected with Sinclair by 19th Century historians but there is no evidence at all supporting this."
That's pretty much what they said at the RA when I went there. The "sinclair hilt" we handled was pretty nasty and clumsy.

Neal,

That may be. I tend to look from the lowland side in general so when you said that I was curious to look into it.

Thanks,

RPM

Hi Randall,
Yes I should look a bit more at what went on in the Lowlands and actually feel a bit silly for making that mistake.
Neal

On the topic of Highland mercenaries being sought after outside of the Gaelic world. Does Highlanders fighting on the continent indicate that they were sought after, or that they themselves were seeking out employment?