Quote:I would imagine they would be armed like a typical Celtic warrior of the period but christianized of course.

Quote:Can anyone direct me to some easy to find images/reconstructions etc????

Quote:Thanks Wolfgang

Quote:Another myth is very, very often repeated, that the Irish 'never campaigned'. That's just flatly, quite frankly, bullshit. From the earliest written accounts of Irish warfare (by the Romans, refering to larger 'Scotti' raids), it is apparent they campaigned. Niall's invasion of Britain was quite an impressive campaign, that saw him capturing cities and forts and defeating numerous armies before his return to Ireland. Given how quickly he did it all, and how much he did, quite to the contrary of 'never campaigning', it was obvious he was an experienced campaign-leader. During the invasions (both Norse and Norman), counter-campaigns were extremely common in the early phases. For example, after the Normans captured Casiel, the king of Munster began a campaign of his own, starting with the recapture of Casiel, and then Cork, ultimately driving the Normans back out of his kingdom after a series of skirmishes, large battles, and sieges (complex sieges, no less, complete with sapping and complex siege equipment). He defeated Strongbow in multiple engagements, and annihilated large numbers of Cambro-Norman knights. They continued campaigning, even, in the dead of winter, due to excellent skill with logistics AND organization (the Irish actually maintained standing armies, for Christ's sake! Not just levies + knights and men-at-arms, but elaborate hierarchies of specialized, organized soldiers, semi-standard pay, etc.), which also accounted in large part for their ability to move quicker than their enemies.

I think a large part of the issue is also, people often view the Irish in a post-1450s light usually, as if that was what they were always like. In the late 1400s, Irish soldiery experienced its sharpest decline, with the old, more complex armies, replaced with mercenary bands (mercenary Ceitherne and Galloglaich; while neither were new, their use completely overwhelmed the old system), with the local nobles fighting as cavalry, and only small contributions of local soldiers. The complexity and organization declined sharply. Gallowglass went from supplementary heavy infantry trained to fight in wall-breaches and line-breaking manuevers to the mainstay of shock infantry, with their 'kerns' as their support.

This ignores that a large part of feudal militarism (as well as much of 'broad' medieval culture in Europe) was a product of Irish missionaries, specifically those in the court of the Carolignians, who favored them exceedingly and adopted many practices they brought with them, and blended them with their own Romano-Germanic worldview, creating the earliest vestige of a medieval feudal society. The Irish contribution to the development of the western world is ever understated, and the Irish get passed off as an uninfluential people, which is plainly ignorant of how much pull they had in the world during their golden age.

Quote:That, and a disturbing number qoute Giraldus and his 'attention to detail', who, serious scholars of the Irish, have pointed out is a terrible source. His so-called 'attention to detail' said the Irish regularly hewed eachother with axes out of boredom. He only drew nobles, but he always drew them in tights like a poor class man (to the Irish) to try and depict them as more similar to the English, not because nobles wore them. We know from first hand descriptions, by the Irish themselves, what was considered appropriate for an Irishman of any rank to wear. Also, somebody there said horsemen wore leg coverings or trews, and they didn't. At least, not unless they were a horse-boy (youths on a pony who skirmished), or in English service (as all Irish who fought for the English wore tights, except for mercenaries from Gaelic controlled regions).

Quote:The first; well, not really any one thing. Most of our knowledge comes from various annals and chronicles, which mention off-hand various things, but never in a concise format. There's no 'manual' of organization known, but it is clear Ireland wasn't disorganized militarily. We know of a system of troop levying (the 'Thirty-Hundreds' system; a regional territory from which 3000 men could be raised), the use of a shieldwall (despite the common idea the Norse introduced it to Ireland, the same tactic is mentioned prior to the invasion as being used by most of the soldiers of Ireland when resisting a charge), the way cavalry was used (always situated on the left flank, with skirmishers on the extreme left, and cavalry intended to charge to their right; both used flanking manuevers), and how they campaigned (again, campaigns are mentioned earlier than most realize; Niall campaigned several times in Ireland and Britain, and other kings fought strings of battles, sieges, and so on, that could be reasoned as campaigning, and there are references to supply lines used in such campaigns). We know the equipment used because of the descriptions of what a soldier was supposed to have (such as a professional needing to own a spear, shield, and javelins, and would be given a padded coat by his employer, and sometimes a helmet).

Small engagements (clan wars, raids, etc.) we know the most about because they happened most common. Such engagements could range in size from only a dozen or two dozen soldiers on each side, to a couple hundred on both sides. These were pretty ritualistic fights, and some people erroneously assume they were all the Irish did when fighting. These fights were very different. Little was used in the way of out-right tactics, some only lasted as long as a single, sometimes non-lethal, duel between two champions. Longer fights proceeded by several champions fighting as the opposing sides approached eachother slowly, threw their javelins, then engaged in a melee. Such fights usually lacked either cavalry or missile support, though raids would often have cavalry for capturing cattle while the fight was going on.

Some one does need to write a book that compiles the bits and bobs about warfare specifically from the period. Any books that do mention the complexities of fighting are all recent books, and none of them do so at length, relegating much of it to a brief off-hand note.