| |

|
Weaponry: Norman Arms and Armour
British Heritage | The army of William of Normandy that landed at Pevensey on 28th September 1066 was a well-equipped fighting force composed of hardened and well-trained soldiers. But what was it like to be one of those soldiers? How did it feel to fight as the Normans and their allies?
To answer those questions it is necessary to know what weapons the Normans and their allies employed as well as what protective clothing they wore.
Some form of protective clothing was worn by most of the Norman horsemen, but in general the foot soldier was less well armoured and many infantrymen wore no armour at all. The Bayeux Tapestry, which was completed sometime in the 1080s and is by far the best pictorial source of information about the arms and armour of the Normans, contains a total of 201 armed men of whom 79 are wearing some armour. The usual form of body armour used by the Norman horseman was a knee-length mail shirt called a hauberk that had three-quarter-length sleeves and was split from hem to fork to facilitate riding. Although usually constructed of mail the hauberk does occasionally seem to have been made of overlapping scales of some stiff material such as cow horn. But such scale armour never seriously challenged the supremacy of mail formed of interlinked, riveted rings that could be made very strong and, because of its pliability, still gave the soldier complete freedom of movement.
To complement the mail shirt some warriors illustrated on the Tapestry have leg and arm defences also of mail, and such defences seem to have become increasingly popular. In some case the hauberk is shown apparently extending over the head as a hood or coif, although sometimes the coif appears to be separate from the hauberk. It is now impossible to tell whether this mail armour of the Normans had any lining to make it more comfortable to wear, but it was certainly worn over some form of clothing and not next to the skin, as is suggested in one badly restored portion of the Tapestry.
The greatest drawback of mail armour seems to have been its weight. To bear a long mail hauberk hanging as a dead weight from the shoulders for very long would have sapped the strength of even a man trained from childhood to bear armour. It would appear that the Normans were well aware of this and that they wore their armour only when absolutely necessary. The Chanson de Roland (witten at the end of the 11th century by an Anglo-Norman) contains much accurate information about the armour and weapons of the Normans and how they were used. In this work neither armour nor weapons are worn while fighting men are on the march, unless there is some danger of an ambush.
It would appear that the full equipment of war was only put on just before a battle and often when in sight of the enemy. Corroboration of this can be found in the works of Norman historians. For instance the Chronicle of Battel Abbey states that Duke William halted the advance of his army from Hastings at Hechelande, less than three miles from the waiting Saxon forces, so that he might put on his armour, and one can assume that most of his army dressed themselves for battle at the same time. The Abbey Chronicle was not written until nearly 100 years after the battle, so it may not be a true account of events in 1066, but it must accurately have reflected normal 12th century military practice, and neither arms nor armour can have changed much in the intervening years.
That armour was sometimes too debilitating and weighty for the soldiers of the time is shown by an anecdote in the chronicles of William of Poitiers who was writing between 1071 and 1076. He recounts that when William landed at Pevensey on an inhospitable and unfriendly shore he reconnoitered the surrounding country with about 25 soldiers, one of who became so exhausted that, despite the possibility of attack, the Duke carried his mail hauberk for him on their return. Pages: 1 2 3 4Tags: British Heritage, Weaponry
|
SPONSORED SITES
|
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 1,200 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Once A Marine | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2008 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
One Comment to “Weaponry: Norman Arms and Armour”
I am a member of the Adrian Empire which is a group of Mideval period re-inactors. My persona is a late 11th century Norman archer. Your description of Norman armour, arms and archery fits pretty well with other research I have found. What people who like to argue over what is period and what is peculiar to one cultural group or another need to remember about the Normans, is that they were highly adaptable. They did not rigidly stay to one style of clothing or weaponry over time. Rather, they took what they thought were the best ideas of enemies they encountered and incorparated those ideas into their own culture. Thus, to say that Normas only wore nasal guarded spanglehelms or that their shields and swords were all the same design is neither practical nor proven by evidence. Documents I have read suggest that Normans were wearing quite a variety of clothing, armour and using many kinds of weapons by the 10th and 11th centuries.
Also, the arguement over what medieval bows looked like is a bit cloudy. As your article pointed out so well, no bows survive intact from the early periods. They wore out and were broken down to be reused for something else. The illustrations on the tapestries, monuments, early books etc. give us some idea, but are hardly the same as having an authentic 10th or 11th century bow in our hands. Limitations of the ability of the artists to depict the bows and especially to depict the style of their use have to be accounted for too. The article suggests that they fired their arrows from the chest instead of from the ear. I have tried doing that with my bow and found that I was accurate only up to about five feet doing that. When I fire the same bow from the ear, I am accurate up to 50 feet. It seems to me that if you were in short supply of arrows that you would try to make each one count for a hit. I think that the sewers of the tapestry couldn’t figure out how to make it look like the arrows were being fired from the ear. My wife has tried embroidery and it is not as easy as drawing with a pencil. Let’s face it, as lovely as the tapestries are, the images on them are a bit crude and not that realistic.
Otherwise, a very well written article.
Yours in Service,
Jon de Enefelde
By Jon de Enefelde on Sep 28, 2008 at 12:18 pm