by Paul Hill
Other Body Armour
If a warrior of this period was to protect his body with something other than mail, what could it possibly be? The evidence we have for non-metal body armour is very slight, but compelling nonetheless. We might recall Harold Godwinson’s spectacularly successful campaigns in Wales in 1063 (pp. 110–14) which are attributed in part to his direct instruction to his men to wear light armament with their chests protected by tough hide in preference to their usual mailcoats. This gave them an equal advantage in the landscape with their elusive enemy and still afforded them some bodily protection. So, if Harold can order such armour to be made, we can assume that it must have been of a type well known to the Anglo-Saxons. There is, however, very little evidence for it. Only from later Medieval sources do we know of leather armour that was hardened by being boiled in wax or oil, a technique known as ‘cuir bouilli’.
We have already observed the difficulties of wearing a mail byrnie without sufficient padded protection beneath it. The high likelihood of such padded armour existing in Anglo-Saxon times may be supported by the unusual quilted looking garments worn by some Normans on the Bayeux Tapestry. The three-quarter length quilted garment which covers the body in the same way as a byrnie is worn by Odo of Bayeux. It may be an example of padded armour, but again we are surviving on only scraps of evidence. If such garments did exist, it is not unreasonable to suggest they may have been made in a similar way to the later Medieval gambesons, aketons or arming doublets. The most likely material for such a garment would be coarsely woven linen sheets stuffed with wool and sewn in a quilted pattern.
But there are forms of metal armour known in the period that were neither mail nor true plate armour (which does not appear until the very end of the twelfth century at the earliest). The idea, however, of an Anglo-Saxon warrior in scale armour is not one that has caught on. The evidence for its usage seems to be by inference and is not backed up by archaeology. However, given that the Romans used scale armour in the form of ‘lorica squamata’ and the Franks seem to be clad in it from visual representations such as a mounted warrior in clear scale armour from the Stuttgart Psalter of c. 825, we might permit ourselves to wonder if archaeology will one day bring us the evidence we wish for.
An eighth-century relief sculpture from Repton in Derbyshire is one candidate that may show a mounted rider with an upper body protection seemingly constructed of scales of some sort (Fig. 11, p. 161) It is an enigmatic and interesting depiction. He has the reins in one hand and a small buckler in the other. Across his waist is his seax and below his body armour flows a tunic and his cross-gartered leggings. But the depiction is obscure in the most important parts. The garment seems to be long sleeved and its neck opening (an area where some sort of clue as to its manufacture might be expected) seems to just melt away.
Lamellar armour differs from scale armour in that its small metal plates are laced together in parallel rows as opposed to the overlapping nature of scale armour. Each plate, roughly rectangular in size, is punctured with numerous holes to accommodate the leather thong that tied it to its neighbour. It has an Asian or Byzantine connection with many depictions of Byzantine soldiers wearing it, but is not unknown in Early Medieval Europe. It is even known in Viking contexts such as the one fragment of lamellar scale found at Birka in Sweden, probably dating to the early tenth century. But Birka was of course an important port along a trading route that stretched all the way to the East. We can only wonder if the Anglo-Saxons ever made use of it, but if they did at all, it seems most likely to have been worn by those Anglo-Danes at the very end of the period who may have had some connection with the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Emperor.
Finally, although there is no physical evidence for leg protection other than the mail chausses worn by the Normans on the Bayeux Tapestry, the word ‘banbeorge’ in Old English is taken to mean ‘greave’. The greave has a long heritage and was particularly popular in ancient Greek contexts, being a shaped bronze plate to protect the lower leg, similar perhaps to a modern shin pad. Needless to say, we are still waiting for our first Anglo-Saxon greave to make itself known.
Helmets
We are fortunate in having four Anglo-Saxon helmets and one newly discovered cheek piece to help us colour the picture of this type of protection in the era. Unfortunately, all of these pre-date the period upon which this book is based. But they are all very important discoveries that demonstrate the Anglo-Saxon armourer’s remarkable abilities. The helmets from England are the Sutton Hoo Helmet (seventh century), discovered in 1939, the Benty Grange Helmet from Derbyshire (seventh century), discovered in 1848, the Coppergate Helmet from York (late eighth century), discovered in 1982 (Plate 14), and the Pioneer Helmet found in 1997 in a gravel quarry in Wollaston. In addition, a beautifully ornate cheek piece to a helmet was among the many remarkable artefacts in the Staffordshire hoard of material found by a metal detector in a field near Hammerwich in 2009. There are in addition finds that may also be attachments to the crest of a helmet, such as a boar figure from Guilden Morden in Cambridgeshire.
Of these discoveries the Coppergate Helmet is probably the latest in terms of dating evidence. It is dated to the last quarter of the eighth century on stylistic and typological grounds and it was clearly quite old at the time of its deposition in a well in York. It is tempting to think that the dawn of the Viking age had something to do with its deposition sometime in the ninth century, but we can never be certain of this. The helmet comprises a bowl constructed of iron plates (including a brow band, a crest band and a lateral band), hinged iron cheek pieces and a mail curtain for neck protection. A bronze crest runs from front to back placing this helmet type in the ‘crested helm’ tradition as opposed to the ‘spangenhelm’ tradition common on the Continent. In the latter, the type of construction of the cone or bowl is characterised by between four and six iron plates held together by iron or bronze bands riveted to the plates. It gave rise to the instantly recognisable conical nasal helm so common on the Bayeux Tapestry.
There is some evidence to suggest that the crested helmet type continued in use in England into the tenth or early eleventh centuries from depictions on stone sculptures at Chester-le-Street and Sockburn, but it is clear that a new type of helmet, of a more pointed character, becomes popular in the eleventh century. King Æthelred’s demand for new helmets made in 1008 may have been the catalyst for this new type of helmet. Certainly, by the time of King Cnut (1016–36) and King Edward the Confessor (1042–66) images of helmets on coins are all pointed, sometimes with lines indicating a construction in segments, and in the case of Edward’s coins there is often beading around the rim, possibly suggesting rivets. These helmets, so prevalent on the Bayeux Tapestry, seem to be much plainer and less ornate than the old crested helms, with the exception of the nasal piece in some cases. They are often depicted as segmented, usually in quarters and sometimes with each iron plate coloured.
Although there are some impressive surviving Scandinavian helmets, and the relationship between these and the early Anglo-Saxon ones is clear, we do not have evidence in England for anything like the tenth-century be-spectacled Gjermundbu helmet. We are left to assume that the most common helmet type was the conical segmented type which is supported by the pictorial evidence. Other European finds would seem tentatively to support this idea. A tenth-century Polish helmet in the collection of Liverpool Museum shows a four-plated segmented construction and the apparently tenth-century Wenceslas helmet in Prague Cathedral has both a brow band and a nasal guard. The only thing we can say for sure is that the helmet, if the Bayeux Tapestry is anything to go by, was commonplace among English warriors by the eleventh century (Plate 15) , clearly featuring in the heriots of the age.
Shields
I am a loner, wounded by iron,
bitten by a blade, sated with war work,
weary with swords. Often I see battle,
a fierce one fighting, yet I expect no consultation
that from the battle-s
trife help shall come to me
before I am destroyed among the warriors,
but the hammers’ leavings beat against me,
the hard-edged, the blade sharp, the handiwork of smiths
bite in strongholds, I must endure
a more hateful meeting; never a kind of healer
could I find in the folkland
among those who healed wounds with herbs,
rather on me the scars of swords grow greater
day and night with death blows.
Exeter Book, Riddle 5
Although much work has been undertaken on the nature of the construction and morphology of shields from the early Saxon period graves across England, it has not been possible to examine later period shields in anything like the same depth. This is because of the switch from pagan inhumation to Christian burial, which occurred around the middle of the seventh century and has deprived us of the very artefacts we would have needed to make an assessment. It is therefore only possible to comment on what little evidence we have for shields in the later period by studying the pictorial representations and by interpreting the literary evidence. However, it is not an entirely fruitless study.
It would appear that the shield diameters during the early Anglo-Saxon period were smaller than that of the later period. The centrally placed feature on the shield was the boss. In the early period as in the later period, this was made of iron. However, the bosses of the early period shields invariably have an aggressive shape to them. They are ‘wasted’ conical forms with a central protruding spike terminating in a flat button. Behind them is a hollow cavity –a hole in the centre of the shield board across which an iron or wooden grip stretched. It meant that the holder could wield these flat-boarded round shields and thrust them into the face of his opponent, using them almost as a buckler. The Franks Casket shows small round shields being used in exactly this way.
At the end of the period of pagan inhumations a change occurs in the morphology of the shield boss with the arrival into the record of a sugar-loaf-shaped boss, more pronounced and conical than its predecessors. It is likely that the sugar-loaf boss and accompanying larger shield boards, with which they are thought to be associated, reflect a switch to the tactical defensive in the Anglo-Saxon warrior, the need no longer being the hack and slash of the marauding war-band, but the solid shield wall of the defensive army.
The evidence from the earlier period suggests that the shield boards were made of planks laid together side by side. Although the literary references from the later period often describe the shield being made of linden wood (lime), the archaeological evidence for the earlier shields suggests a variety of woods were used, including alder, poplar and willow. It is also suggested that the boards were covered by leather, which was kept to the board by iron studs. As for the rim, little is known of this except to say that later manuscript depictions sometimes show a distinctive edge to the shield with what appear to be rivets holding it in place. It is most likely these edges were hide or leather of some sort as opposed to metal, although this is pure conjecture.
One shield of particular note is that from Sutton Hoo. It is round and has an estimated diameter of over 91cm and has been reconstructed faithfully with oak-bark tanned cowhide over lime boards to indicate a slightly curved back edge and includes a thin metal rim. As such, it is all the evidence we have to span the gap between the earlier and later periods, but it was clearly such a sumptuously decorated and embossed shield that it may be misleading to draw too many conclusions about it when considering the shields of the armies of later Anglo-Saxon England. After all, this was a shield made by an armourer probably by royal appointment to the East Anglian king. It may never even have been used.
The historical and pictorial evidence for shields in the later Anglo-Saxon period shows two distinctive developmental traits. The round shields are often depicted as convex in shape and from about the late tenth century there appears the famous kite-shaped shield, which features on the Bayeux Tapestry in so many numbers. This latter type is thought to have been developed specifically for mounted warriors providing them with additional protection. Quite how convex boards are made is a mystery. They appear in many manuscripts, but not at all in the archaeological record, although some of the longer extended grips from the early period which seem to be curved back at their extremities may indicate they were attached to a convex shield. It is suggested that the wood may have been steamed or bent around a basic mould, but until there is something more tangible to study, we may never know. It is also possible that the reference in The Battle of Maldon to a ‘cellod bord’ may be implying a convex or hollow shield. Terms used to describe shields are also of interest. The will of Athelstan (d. 1014), son of Æthelred II, describes what is thought to be a small shield (a ‘targe’) and a convex or shoulder shield (a ‘bohscyld’).
The ways in which shields were decorated was probably of significance, even in this period before the arrival of true heraldry. For example, on several occasions in The Battle of Maldon, a warrior raises his shield before giving a key speech to his comrades. This may indicate that his shield decoration was instantly recognisable to his followers. The decorations from illustrations often show lines radiating out from the central boss accompanied by what seem to be stitch marks or studs of some sort. It may even be that these lines are curved metal strengtheners creating the effect of a spiral design. Other common designs on the round convex shields of the period include simple crosses and quarters of different colours. Colours are, of course, a problem for this period. We know that the Viking Gokstad ship shields were painted either black or yellow and that other Danish remains of shields show traces of red. In the poem Beowulf shields are described as either ‘bright’ or ‘yellow’. So, there is a world of colourful possibilities for shields, especially if we accept that many of them will have been covered in leather, perhaps already pre-dyed.
Fig. 18. Convex shields from eleventh-century English manuscripts.
There are not many laws relating to the use or regulation of shields in Anglo-Saxon England, but the one that is often referred to is that of King Athelstan (924–39), which states: ‘that no shieldwright cover a shield with sheepskin; and if he do so, let him pay thirty shillings’. This is a hefty fine indeed. Clearly, the need for strong shields, the construction of which was obvious to all, had by the tenth century attracted the attention of the king himself. Other cultures ruling on the shield also reflect a concern for the strength and performance of the item. The tenth-century Norwegian Frostathing law and Gulathing law required that three iron bands should be laid across a shield and that the grip should be fastened to the inside with nails. Again, emphasis is being placed on the strengthening of the shield.
The one piece of pictorial evidence to which we keep returning of course is the Bayeux Tapestry. Here, there are noticeable differences in shield design between the English and the Norman. For example, many, but by no means all, of the English still have the more traditional style rounded convex shields so common in depictions from manuscripts in the early eleventh century. However, there is an impressive array of interlocked kite-shaped shields in the main English shield wall, each with a variant of spiral designs or simply plain in colour. There is visual evidence here for studs of some sort which seem to hold the rear side strapping into place.
In contrast to the shields of the Anglo-Saxons on the Bayeux Tapestry, the Normans are all exclusively equipped with kite-shaped shields complete with elaborate decoration including mythical beasts, spirals and crosses. In some scenes it is possible to see the strap fittings on the inside of the shield, too.
There is one English foot soldier, a fully mail-clad housecarl or king’s thegn, whose shield is neither kite-shaped or archaically round and convex (Fig. 19). He is being hacked at by a mounted Norman knight, but his shield is best described as rectangular in shape with curved corners. This has led to speculation about it. It has the same sort of spiral decoration on it that many of the other Engl
ish shields have, but its shape has been linked to those shields apparently carried by the Varangian Guardsmen of Byzantium, famous Scandinavian mercenary warriors attached to the Byzantine emperor. If this warrior is or was a Varangian, it may support some of the theories that suggest that there were one or two more Danish speakers on the field at Hastings than previously thought.
Fig. 19. The mysterious rectangular shield on the Bayeux Tapestry.
Accessories
Horns and Battlefield Communications
relief came back
to the sorrow-spirited ones together with early day,
when they Hygelacs horn and trumpet,
and his battle-yell recognised, then the good man came,
with the tribe’s veteran warriors travelling on the path.
The lines from Beowulf (2941–5) above raises a number of questions as to how the Anglo-Saxons used horns. From this mention of a war-band being rescued while under siege in Raven’s Wood we might surmise that the sound of their rescuers’ horn was of a particular note or familiarity to them. We do not know if there were specific tonal differences for different kinds of military instruction, nor do we know anything like the full details as to how they were manufactured. However, it is quite probable that horns were widely employed, and as far as military contexts are concerned they may have been used in conjunction with the movement of the battle standards on the battlefield.
We have little evidence to show exactly how horns were used in battle, but their presence must have been widespread and certainly seems to have a grand heritage during the Anglo-Saxon period. For example, travellers who strayed off the beaten path in Anglo-Saxon England were required to blow their horns as they passed along. This was an indication of their presence on the road. If people travelling off the king’s highway did not do this, then they could be taken for thieves. Clearly, the simple horn was capable of sound rich enough and loud enough to act as a warning or alarm. The actual order itself is contained within the law codes of King Ine of Wessex dating from the late seventh to early eighth centuries. The consequences of not announcing yourself as you passed through a territory were quite profound: ‘If a man from a distance or a foreigner goes through the wood off the track and does not shout nor blow a horn, he is assumed to be a thief, to either be killed or redeemed.’, Laws of Ine, Code 20. One of the Exeter riddles seems to be alluding to the use of a horn and it suggests a military role as well as a social role: