 |
 |
|
||
|
|||
Dublin, 1171In 1170 also Richard FitzGilbert, known as Strongbow, arrived and the invasion assumed, with a new leader, a new aspect; its motive was no longer assistance of Dermot, but conquest. Strongbow, together with his supporter Raymond Ie Gros who preceded him, brought 210 knights and over a thousand archers and other footmen. His first action-following the earlier pattern-was the assault and capture of a Norse town, this time Waterford. His second was similar. Leaving a garrison in Water-ford, and depending for the moment on the security of Wexford, he marched at once on Dublin, no doubt using one of the southern river valleys for his approach.It has been pointed out by Orpen, the first of the modern historians of the Norman invasion, that, before this, each of the claimants of the High Kingship had sought, as though his claim required it, the submission of what had for long been the chief town in Ireland. This precedent apart, possession of Dublin was vital for the conquering Normans. It was the chief place of entry from the east to the central plain and indeed, for any power based on England, the gateway to the whole island. As such, possession of it was worth a fight, and Strongbow showed that he was aware of it; besides, unlike the High Kings, to whom towns were prizes to be won but not places to live in, the Normans were willing to possess it. Haskulf, the Norse King of Dublin, was prepared to resist Strongbow, and the High King, Rory O'Connor, brought up his own forces and those of Breifne (or Leitrim-Cavan), Meath and Oriel (or Monaghan-Armagh) to help the Dublinmen. But Strongbow moved swiftly and cleverly. Descending unexpectedly by a mountain track from Glendalough, he arrived in September 1170 under the walls. Protracted negotiations followed but were rudely interrupted by the Normans, who suddenly assaulted the town and seized it. Haskulf and many of the townsmen fled overseas. Rory and the Irish forces withdrew; the Irish annalists indicate that Rory and his allies believed themselves to have been deserted by the Dublin Norsemen. Dermot, improving on his position, raided the territory of his personal enemy O'rourke. However, Dermot's race was run. He by whom, in the language of the annalists, 'a trembling sod was made of all Ireland', died in Ferns in May following; By the autumn the question of the continued possession of Dublin had been decided and the pattern of the future rule of Ireland had been laid down. What was the secret of the success of these Normans in the two years that had elapsed since their first coming and how can their still greater success in the battle of Dublin in 1171 be explained? The victory of the Normans was due to their military ability, and to the fact that they were better equipped than the Irish were; it was also the consequence of the Irish slowness in action and of the Irish political circumstances, which made effective opposition to the intruders almost impossible. But primarily it was a matter of military superiority. The Normans were the descendants of a warlike race that, in the century of transition from Vikings to feudal rulers in northern France and the further century of conquest and struggle in Eng-land and Wales, had grown increasingly formidable. In France they became horsemen. In the eleventh century the age of the cavalry soldier had begun; the Normans entered into the spirit and adopted the practice of the age. When they crossed to Ireland they brought their horses with them, as their ancestors had brought horses across the Channel to fight the battle of Hastings. In battle their best men fought mounted and wore byrnies or hauberks of mail-long skirted coats of iron rings, or of quilted fabric, or leather reinforced with metal studs. They had hoods or coifs of mail, over which they wore conical iron helmets; some wore leggings or chausses of mail. Their shields were kite-shaped, a form adapted for mounted use and giving complete cover to the left side of a rider. Their weapons were a lance, a long, straight-bladed sword, and sometimes a club or mace. Such arms, such armour, the heavy horses which they rode and the skill and daring of the riders gave the Normans great power as shock troops. The Irish had no such warriors as these Norman knights. Like the Spanish horsemen in Mexico, the knights dominated the battle-field. The history of the Battle of Dublin, 1171 continues here Taken from Irish Battles by G.A. Hayes-McCoy, published by Appletree Press. Further reading: A Little History of Ireland by Martin Wallace with illustrations by Ian McCullough. Click here for more information on the book. Battle of Dublin: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | |
[ Back to top ]
All Material © 1999-2009 Irelandseye.com and contributors
