Irish Knight

One of the major problems faced by English authorities was the tendency
for the Anglo-Irish to 'go native'. I came across the following figure
from Pegaso that depicts an Irish knight, ostensibly from the fourteenth
century, although there is no reason to believe that the Irish knight
dressed too much differently in the fifteenth century. The Anglo-Irish
likely dressed much the same as their native counterparts. The lighter
armour likely helped these people in the attrition-style warfare they
were used to waging. A knight in full armour would have a tough time
maneuvering over much of the Irish landscape.
http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> One of the major problems faced by English authorities was the
tendency
> for the Anglo-Irish to 'go native'. I came across the following
figure
> from Pegaso that depicts an Irish knight, ostensibly from the
fourteenth
> century, although there is no reason to believe that the Irish
knight
> dressed too much differently in the fifteenth century. The Anglo-
Irish
> likely dressed much the same as their native counterparts. The
lighter
> armour likely helped these people in the attrition-style warfare
they
> were used to waging. A knight in full armour would have a tough
time
> maneuvering over much of the Irish landscape.
> http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#
>
I am unsure what point you are trying to make here. The knight
depicted is wearing chain mail armour and, as such, he could well be
from the early 14th century. Full plate armour was not worn at that
time, as I am sure you know. As I understand it, native warriers did
not normally wear armour or any king, their equipment being of the
most primitive kind. One imagines that a member of the knightly class
would wear whatever armour was available at the time.

The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early fourteenth century
is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_1323.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=43&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall

There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in this brass
from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not worn in the
fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to appear. Any sign
of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is shorter in
the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in the Irish
figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish figure is more
of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it can be also
be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his armour is more
from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the fourteenth
century. Note also his tartan.

As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on this forum
about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'. For this
reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1367.
Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which forbade the
Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native Irish
nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying English law is
well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or so of the
Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth century.

I had been looking for an image that showed what native Irish nobility
might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure that I
thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art MacMurrough who
was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in Froissart.

Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@... > wrote:
> >
> > One of the major problems faced by English authorities was the
> tendency
> > for the Anglo-Irish to 'go native'. I came across the following
> figure
> > from Pegaso that depicts an Irish knight, ostensibly from the
> fourteenth
> > century, although there is no reason to believe that the Irish
> knight
> > dressed too much differently in the fifteenth century. The Anglo-
> Irish
> > likely dressed much the same as their native counterparts. The
> lighter
> > armour likely helped these people in the attrition-style warfare
> they
> > were used to waging. A knight in full armour would have a tough
> time
> > maneuvering over much of the Irish landscape.
> > http://www.pegasomo dels.com/ details_en. asp?code= 54-184#
> <http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#>
> >
> I am unsure what point you are trying to make here. The knight
> depicted is wearing chain mail armour and, as such, he could well be
> from the early 14th century. Full plate armour was not worn at that
> time, as I am sure you know. As I understand it, native warriers did
> not normally wear armour or any king, their equipment being of the
> most primitive kind. One imagines that a member of the knightly class
> would wear whatever armour was available at the time.
>
>

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early fourteenth
century
> is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
> http://images.google.ca/imgres?
imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13
23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&
h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=4
3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall
>
> There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in this
brass
> from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not worn in
the
> fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to appear. Any
sign
> of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is
shorter in
> the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in the Irish
> figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish figure is
more
> of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it can be
also
> be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his armour is
more
> from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the
fourteenth
> century. Note also his tartan.
>
> As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on this
forum
> about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'. For this
> reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny in
1367.
> Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which forbade the
> Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native Irish
> nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying English law
is
> well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or so of
the
> Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth century.
>
> I had been looking for an image that showed what native Irish
nobility
> might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure that I
> thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art MacMurrough
who
> was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in Froissart.
>
> Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > <bbarber@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > One of the major problems faced by English authorities was the
> > tendency
> > > for the Anglo-Irish to 'go native'. I came across the following
> > figure
> > > from Pegaso that depicts an Irish knight, ostensibly from the
> > fourteenth
> > > century, although there is no reason to believe that the Irish
> > knight
> > > dressed too much differently in the fifteenth century. The
Anglo-
> > Irish
> > > likely dressed much the same as their native counterparts. The
> > lighter
> > > armour likely helped these people in the attrition-style warfare
> > they
> > > were used to waging. A knight in full armour would have a tough
> > time
> > > maneuvering over much of the Irish landscape.
> > > http://www.pegasomo dels.com/ details_en. asp?code= 54-184#
> > <http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#>
> > >
> > I am unsure what point you are trying to make here. The knight
> > depicted is wearing chain mail armour and, as such, he could well
be
> > from the early 14th century. Full plate armour was not worn at
that
> > time, as I am sure you know. As I understand it, native warriers
did
> > not normally wear armour or any king, their equipment being of the
> > most primitive kind. One imagines that a member of the knightly
class
> > would wear whatever armour was available at the time.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

In 1300, knights were still wearing chain mail, though by the time of
Agincourt they were protected by plate armour. The intervening
century was a period of transition - elements of plate armour are
shown on tombs, etc by the 1320s, but at the start of the century the
only elements of plate armour worn were "poleyns" which protected the
knees, and perhaps "ailettes" on the shoulders.

I do not know what, if any, research went into the prpduction of the
figure to which you refer and cannot comment on its accuracy, other
than to say that it looks about right to me. The "kilt" looks a bit
suspect to me - it looks almost Russian.

Well, what the heck...he has red hair. Can't get much more Irish than
that :-)

I remember painting 54 mm figures from this period, and they all seemed
to have some plate. I do see your point, but from what I learned of the
Irish nobility, they liked hit and run tactics which were difficult for
a heavy cavalryman.

It was the major nobility who were most annoying to the English crown.
They just seemed to be...well...too Irish. I need to do more reading on
Richard of York, who seems to have gotten on somewhat famously with
these people: not an easy task. Am looking forward to Ian Mortimer's
book on the good Duke.

Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early fourteenth
> century
> > is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
> > http://images.google.ca/imgres? <http://images.google.ca/imgres?>
> imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>
> 23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>
> h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=4
> 3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
> 26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall
> >
> > There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in this
> brass
> > from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not worn in
> the
> > fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to appear. Any
> sign
> > of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is
> shorter in
> > the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in the Irish
> > figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish figure is
> more
> > of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it can be
> also
> > be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his armour is
> more
> > from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the
> fourteenth
> > century. Note also his tartan.
> >
> > As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on this
> forum
> > about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'. For this
> > reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny in
> 1367.
> > Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which forbade the
> > Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native Irish
> > nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying English law
> is
> > well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or so of
> the
> > Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth century.
> >
> > I had been looking for an image that showed what native Irish
> nobility
> > might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure that I
> > thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art MacMurrough
> who
> > was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in Froissart.
> >
> > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > > <bbarber@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the major problems faced by English authorities was the
> > > tendency
> > > > for the Anglo-Irish to 'go native'. I came across the following
> > > figure
> > > > from Pegaso that depicts an Irish knight, ostensibly from the
> > > fourteenth
> > > > century, although there is no reason to believe that the Irish
> > > knight
> > > > dressed too much differently in the fifteenth century. The
> Anglo-
> > > Irish
> > > > likely dressed much the same as their native counterparts. The
> > > lighter
> > > > armour likely helped these people in the attrition-style warfare
> > > they
> > > > were used to waging. A knight in full armour would have a tough
> > > time
> > > > maneuvering over much of the Irish landscape.
> > > > http://www.pegasomo dels.com/ details_en. asp?code= 54-184#
> > > <http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#
> <http://www.pegasomodels.com/details_en.asp?code=54-184#>>
> > > >
> > > I am unsure what point you are trying to make here. The knight
> > > depicted is wearing chain mail armour and, as such, he could well
> be
> > > from the early 14th century. Full plate armour was not worn at
> that
> > > time, as I am sure you know. As I understand it, native warriers
> did
> > > not normally wear armour or any king, their equipment being of the
> > > most primitive kind. One imagines that a member of the knightly
> class
> > > would wear whatever armour was available at the time.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> In 1300, knights were still wearing chain mail, though by the time of
> Agincourt they were protected by plate armour. The intervening
> century was a period of transition - elements of plate armour are
> shown on tombs, etc by the 1320s, but at the start of the century the
> only elements of plate armour worn were "poleyns" which protected the
> knees, and perhaps "ailettes" on the shoulders.
>
> I do not know what, if any, research went into the prpduction of the
> figure to which you refer and cannot comment on its accuracy, other
> than to say that it looks about right to me. The "kilt" looks a bit
> suspect to me - it looks almost Russian.
>
>

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> Well, what the heck...he has red hair. Can't get much more Irish
than
> that :-)
>
> I remember painting 54 mm figures from this period, and they all
seemed
> to have some plate. I do see your point, but from what I learned of
the
> Irish nobility, they liked hit and run tactics which were difficult
for
> a heavy cavalryman.
>
> It was the major nobility who were most annoying to the English
crown.
> They just seemed to be...well...too Irish. I need to do more
reading on
> Richard of York, who seems to have gotten on somewhat famously with
> these people: not an easy task. Am looking forward to Ian
Mortimer's
> book on the good Duke.
>
> Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > <bbarber@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early fourteenth
> > century
> > > is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
> > > http://images.google.ca/imgres? <http://images.google.ca/imgres?
>
> >
imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13

> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>
> >
23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&

> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>
> >
h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=4
> > 3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
> > 26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall
> > >
> > > There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in this
> > brass
> > > from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not
worn in
> > the
> > > fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to appear.
Any
> > sign
> > > of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is
> > shorter in
> > > the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in the
Irish
> > > figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish figure
is
> > more
> > > of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it can
be
> > also
> > > be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his armour is
> > more
> > > from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the
> > fourteenth
> > > century. Note also his tartan.
> > >
> > > As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on
this
> > forum
> > > about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'. For
this
> > > reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny
in
> > 1367.
> > > Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which forbade
the
> > > Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native
Irish
> > > nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying English
law
> > is
> > > well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or so
of
> > the
> > > Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth century.
> > >
> > > I had been looking for an image that showed what native Irish
> > nobility
> > > might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure that
I
> > > thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art
MacMurrough
> > who
> > > was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in
Froissart.
> > >
> > > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > > > <bbarber@ > wrote:
> > > > >


Osprey Men-at-Arms Series No.191 (Henry VIII's Army) has an
illustration of an "Irish Auxiliary", wearing a saffron tunic and
Erse mantle. He would probably be fairly typical of the earlier
periods. Knights would, by definition, have been more well, I
suppose, "knightly" in appearance - I am trying to avoid the word
Anglo-Irish because I think that is a meaningless term which has, in
later years, been used by so-called "nationalists" almost as a term
of abuse for Irish Protestants.

In the time of Elizabeth I there are records of Lord Tyrone's men
being dressed in red coats and morion helmets, "like English
soldiers", but that is obviously a later period.

There were conventional sieges and battles in Medieval Ireland
though, as you say, lightly armed bands would also have conducted
guerrilla warfare, as there were in Scotland. Knights would be not be
expected to take part in such campaigns because it was considered to
br unchivalrous - I think that is why William Wallace was punished so
severely (see Arthur Bryant's comments in The Age of Chivalry).

Understood. I'm using 'Anglo-Irish' in the old sense. English who went
over and became acclimatized.

Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, what the heck...he has red hair. Can't get much more Irish
> than
> > that :-)
> >
> > I remember painting 54 mm figures from this period, and they all
> seemed
> > to have some plate. I do see your point, but from what I learned of
> the
> > Irish nobility, they liked hit and run tactics which were difficult
> for
> > a heavy cavalryman.
> >
> > It was the major nobility who were most annoying to the English
> crown.
> > They just seemed to be...well...too Irish. I need to do more
> reading on
> > Richard of York, who seems to have gotten on somewhat famously with
> > these people: not an easy task. Am looking forward to Ian
> Mortimer's
> > book on the good Duke.
> >
> > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > > <bbarber@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early fourteenth
> > > century
> > > > is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
> > > > http://images.google.ca/imgres?
> <http://images.google.ca/imgres?> <http://images.google.ca/imgres?
> <http://images.google.ca/imgres?>
> >
> > >
> imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>
>
> > > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>>
> > >
> 23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>
>
> > > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&
> <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>>
> > >
> h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=4
> > > 3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
> > > 26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall
> > > >
> > > > There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in this
> > > brass
> > > > from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not
> worn in
> > > the
> > > > fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to appear.
> Any
> > > sign
> > > > of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is
> > > shorter in
> > > > the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in the
> Irish
> > > > figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish figure
> is
> > > more
> > > > of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it can
> be
> > > also
> > > > be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his armour is
> > > more
> > > > from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the
> > > fourteenth
> > > > century. Note also his tartan.
> > > >
> > > > As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on
> this
> > > forum
> > > > about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'. For
> this
> > > > reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny
> in
> > > 1367.
> > > > Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which forbade
> the
> > > > Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native
> Irish
> > > > nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying English
> law
> > > is
> > > > well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or so
> of
> > > the
> > > > Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth century.
> > > >
> > > > I had been looking for an image that showed what native Irish
> > > nobility
> > > > might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure that
> I
> > > > thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art
> MacMurrough
> > > who
> > > > was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in
> Froissart.
> > > >
> > > > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > > > > <bbarber@ > wrote:
> > > > > >
>
> Osprey Men-at-Arms Series No.191 (Henry VIII's Army) has an
> illustration of an "Irish Auxiliary", wearing a saffron tunic and
> Erse mantle. He would probably be fairly typical of the earlier
> periods. Knights would, by definition, have been more well, I
> suppose, "knightly" in appearance - I am trying to avoid the word
> Anglo-Irish because I think that is a meaningless term which has, in
> later years, been used by so-called "nationalists" almost as a term
> of abuse for Irish Protestants.
>
> In the time of Elizabeth I there are records of Lord Tyrone's men
> being dressed in red coats and morion helmets, "like English
> soldiers", but that is obviously a later period.
>
> There were conventional sieges and battles in Medieval Ireland
> though, as you say, lightly armed bands would also have conducted
> guerrilla warfare, as there were in Scotland. Knights would be not be
> expected to take part in such campaigns because it was considered to
> br unchivalrous - I think that is why William Wallace was punished so
> severely (see Arthur Bryant's comments in The Age of Chivalry).
>
>

Nomenclature can present problems in relation to Ireland because, in
some quarters, it is still an emotive subject. In this context, I
dislike terms such as "the native Irish", which seem to me to be
slightly insulting. Regarding the Irish nobility, it would probably
be correct to say that families such as the FitzGeralds
were "Normans" or "Hiberno Normans", while northern families such as
the MacDonnells of Antrim would obviously have had many Scottish
connections. Whatever their ethnic origins, these individuals lived
in impressive castles, and probably looked and dressed just like
other members of the nobility.





In , Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
wrote:
>
> Understood. I'm using 'Anglo-Irish' in the old sense. English who
went
> over and became acclimatized.
>
> Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > <bbarber@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, what the heck...he has red hair. Can't get much more Irish
> > than
> > > that :-)
> > >
> > > I remember painting 54 mm figures from this period, and they all
> > seemed
> > > to have some plate. I do see your point, but from what I
learned of
> > the
> > > Irish nobility, they liked hit and run tactics which were
difficult
> > for
> > > a heavy cavalryman.
> > >
> > > It was the major nobility who were most annoying to the English
> > crown.
> > > They just seemed to be...well...too Irish. I need to do more
> > reading on
> > > Richard of York, who seems to have gotten on somewhat famously
with
> > > these people: not an easy task. Am looking forward to Ian
> > Mortimer's
> > > book on the good Duke.
> > >
> > > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > > > <bbarber@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The type of armour I am used to seeing in the early
fourteenth
> > > > century
> > > > > is the type shown on this link from circa 1320.
> > > > > http://images.google.ca/imgres?
> > <http://images.google.ca/imgres?>
<http://images.google.ca/imgres?
> > <http://images.google.ca/imgres?>
> > >
> > > >
> >
imgurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13

> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>
> >
> > > >
<http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13
> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/images/sir_william_fitzralph_13>>
> > > >
> >
23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&

> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>
> >
> > > > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&
> > <http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/armour_mid_1320s.htm&>>
> > > >
> >
h=450&w=151&sz=17&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=_trzjQUGk66Y3M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=4
> > > > 3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmour%2B1320%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%
26lr%3D%
> > > > 26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall
> > > > >
> > > > > There are plates at the shoulder, elbows, legs and feet in
this
> > > > brass
> > > > > from ca. 1320. Although full suits of plate armour were not
> > worn in
> > > > the
> > > > > fourteenth century, elements of plate were beginning to
appear.
> > Any
> > > > sign
> > > > > of plate is missing in the Irish figure. Also the hauberk is
> > > > shorter in
> > > > > the armour worn by the figure in this brass than it is in
the
> > Irish
> > > > > figure. I would concede that the great helm of the Irish
figure
> > is
> > > > more
> > > > > of the type worn throughout the fourteenth century, but it
can
> > be
> > > > also
> > > > > be seen in late twelfth century figures. All told, his
armour is
> > > > more
> > > > > from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries than it is from the
> > > > fourteenth
> > > > > century. Note also his tartan.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to my point: several weeks back there was a discussion on
> > this
> > > > forum
> > > > > about the problems of Anglo-Irish nobility 'going native'.
For
> > this
> > > > > reason, the English parliament passed the Statutes of
Kilkenny
> > in
> > > > 1367.
> > > > > Included within the statutes was a sumptuary law which
forbade
> > the
> > > > > Anglo-Irish nobility from affecting the dress of the native
> > Irish
> > > > > nobility. The problem of Anglo-Irish nobility defying
English
> > law
> > > > is
> > > > > well-documented. It was a problem within two generations or
so
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the late twelfth
century.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had been looking for an image that showed what native
Irish
> > > > nobility
> > > > > might have looked like, and came across this Pegaso figure
that
> > I
> > > > > thought would serve. It is very like the figure of Art
> > MacMurrough
> > > > who
> > > > > was such a problem to Richard II, and who is depicted in
> > Froissart.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill
Barber
> > > > > > <bbarber@ > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >
> > Osprey Men-at-Arms Series No.191 (Henry VIII's Army) has an
> > illustration of an "Irish Auxiliary", wearing a saffron tunic and
> > Erse mantle. He would probably be fairly typical of the earlier
> > periods. Knights would, by definition, have been more well, I
> > suppose, "knightly" in appearance - I am trying to avoid the word
> > Anglo-Irish because I think that is a meaningless term which has,
in
> > later years, been used by so-called "nationalists" almost as a
term
> > of abuse for Irish Protestants.
> >
> > In the time of Elizabeth I there are records of Lord Tyrone's men
> > being dressed in red coats and morion helmets, "like English
> > soldiers", but that is obviously a later period.
> >
> > There were conventional sieges and battles in Medieval Ireland
> > though, as you say, lightly armed bands would also have conducted
> > guerrilla warfare, as there were in Scotland. Knights would be
not be
> > expected to take part in such campaigns because it was considered
to
> > br unchivalrous - I think that is why William Wallace was
punished so
> > severely (see Arthur Bryant's comments in The Age of Chivalry).
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>