Gaming and Ireland

[Fisherking]

When gaming the Irish the time plays a large part but we have too many wrong impressions of how it was when.

The first major mistake is making too much of the seats of various kings, particularly Tara. These were ceremonial sites and winter camps not settlements as we think of them today. Most of the buildings were temporary quarters and store houses and were not military headquarters. There were many trading post type settlements which went back to pre-roman times but what we would think of as towns and settlements began to some extent with monasticism in Ireland and were seats of culture and high learning which attracted nobles and scholars from most of Europe until the arrival of the Vikings. With the Vikings came the first Cities and permanent bases of power in the way we would think of it today.

We tend to think of the island as one great bog, which it was not! There is more peat bog today than there was in the middle ages. This is because of deforestation. In fact most of Ireland's peat bogs are a product of deforestation going all the way back to the Stone Age. But the largest part came past 1603. England had a deliberate policy of deforestation from about that time on. It provided fewer hiding places for rebels. Until then Ireland had vast tracts of woodlands.

Horses and Hounds were important exports from Ireland going back to Roman time and trade extended at least as far as Spain and perhaps as far as Africa. There were numerous trading ports in the west as well as the east coast which were for the most part later occupied by Danish and Norwegian Vikings.

Militarily we have only a sketchy picture left by the legends of Cuchullain and Fionn mac Cumhaill of a warrior society where each boy, in order to become a man trekked off to Connaught to kill a man. While endemic warfare was a way of life we know little of how pitched battles were actually conducted. What we do know however, is Fionn did not have the only Fianna in Ireland. The church tried and failed to suppress this aspect of Irish life for centuries. Since land was to a large extent a clan holding young noble bloods not in line to inherit joined these groups in search of plunder and fame. They must have numbered in the high 100s at any one time, given that there were some 100 to 200 factions vying for power as late as the 11th century.

The arrival of the Viking brought new tactics and weapons and more factions to fight with. The Irish seemed to take to the Axe quite readily even to the extent that it was seriously discussed as to whether it was a Viking weapon or one of Irish invention. By the time of the battle of Clontarf in 1014 it is likely that it would be hard to tell Irish and Norse combatants apart so far as fighting style and equipment go. Kerns would be the exception to this. For what ever reason Irish nobility thought that the use of the bow on men was less than honourable. This doesn't mean that it was not used however; it just means that the minor nobility, those below sword rank, were employed as kerns (lightly armoured skirmishers using javelins and short swords) but still wore the yellow tunics of the nobility. Bows were typically a weapon associated with those of base birth. We know that cavalry was used and of a high quality often remarked upon. They are often cited as carrying spears overhand and additionally often equipped with javelins. It is only a presumption that they were used as hit and run type units but that does seem reasonable.

That, what we think of as most Irish of military fighters, the Gallowglass arrived in the mid 12th century as the bodyguard of a Scots Princess and lingered about until the 16th century when they were replaced by musket and pike. The name roughly means young foreigners. These were heavily armed and somewhat armoured noble mercenaries. They were usually recruited from the outer Scottish Isles and were of Norse/Gaelic stock. Several clans later had holdings in Ireland, but they were usually hired for a summer term of service. A formalised unit of Gallowglass consisted of 80 fighters of that name and three retainers each making for a grand total of 320 men plus horses. Two of the three retainers were chiefly concerned with the horses. These men did however, fight, sometimes in relays spelling their man, sometimes most together and occasionally as a mounted auxiliary. These troops we extremely unlikely to route preferring instead to fight to the death rather then submit to capture and humiliation.

Humiliation was inevitable with capture, as formal surrenders were taken with a sword or spear point thrust into the mouth.

I don't know if this has shed much light on such a complex subject but I do hope in the future to see an Ireland with four or more provinces and not have Tara featured as anything more than a ceremonial location.

The Irish were never exactly nationalistic and surly anything but united other than for a brief time in the early 11th century but it was also largely unconquered until the flight of the Earls in the 1600s and still fractured to this day.

Drogheda was a port settlement when the Romans went to trade. Donegal Town was a major export centre as well as Sligo and others. Cork was almost always the most important port. Dublin was symbolic capital of foreign occupation. Let's have a little more verity and imagination when we look out to that island to the west.

[Agraes]

I guess this subject deserves a long quote of Ranika. This one is especially about Dark Age Ireland. Far from beeing "barbarian", Ireland was at its golden age, even trading with Byzance and Persia. Irish have let us lot of texts, and a good part of those aren't yet published, nor translated. Until recently, English scholars despised a lot all that touch to Irish civilisation. In my opinion, it's possible that those texts will soon brought a whole new light about Ireland and Dark Ages in general for the public.

Ireland was not a collection of small tribes and kingdoms; this is a misconception when translated into English or other languages. The Irish word for 'kingdom' at the time, was the same as the word for 'tribe' (tuathea'); however, the more accurate word for a 'tribe' was 'drognan' or 'cineil', but it was not used that often in writing (at least, not proper rolls; so they got overlooked), while all answered to a 'tuathea'; a kingdom. There were indeed many families, each with a 'flath' or 'deias' (a 'prince' or 'chieftain', not a king, though foreigners often called them kings due to their livliehood), but all of them were part of 4-5 kingdoms (since the southern portion of Ulaiddu (Ulster) eventually split off and formed into Mide (Meath), and before that there was the temporarily seperate kingdom of Dal Riada, though Dal Riada was pushed out of Ireland after renouncing their position as vassal of the Ui Neill, though, if you count British Dal Riada as an Irish kingdom, since they were still Irish in culture, there were 6 kingdoms; there would later be Tuadmumu as an indepedent kingdom, but that's way out of period). However, the position of a 'high king' (although it wasn't called that; that title is a medieval invention the Ui Neill used to 'prove' they were the proper kings of Ireland) was effectively filled from about 600 - 720 AD; while the sub-kingdoms weren't too happy about it, and Iogh na Daithi mac Roidhe Uo Corra broke Laigin (Leinster) away around 634, most of the island was still under the ostensible hegemony of a single series of kings; it was part of an attempt at reunification (since the island had also been unified in the pre-Christian period, but had collapsed toward the end of it). It was clearly not overly effective, and 'little wars' were allowed during the period, but no major wars occured. The Irish in 500 AD were at a point of re-evaluating their relationships with one another, and were fairly unified through alliances, though sporadic border wars occured between the more recently formed Connacht (it existed before as the name for the region, but few managed to bring the whole region under their control until about 450, ever since the death of Cunnart, hence the name (Connacht is 'Dangerous Men', referencing the prior lawlessness of the area)) and, the older kingdom of Munster.

And the Picts weren't necessarily anymore united than the Irish were. While Caithness ultimately overcame Fibb, they had constant uprisings in the south, largely because they would occassionally have pagan kings, several who were openly hostile to Christians (and Fibb was wholely Christian at the time).

Also, the 'Scots' did not 'invade' in 500 AD; the Irish tribe of Dalriatta, who had once been their own kingdom, had colonies in Argyll from the 300s onward, at the latest; they only mass-migrated because the Ui Neill had demanded vassalage and land from them. At the time, Dal Riada was a vassal of the Ui Neill and had to pay them tribute (and the Ui Neill did occassionally send them soldiers to help them against the Picts from time to time, though some speculate this was more a token gesture to keep their loyalty and not deal with a revolt, more than any interest in keeping the land).

That said; Dyfedd in Wales was settled by men from the kingdom of Mumu/Muma (Munster). They came in, conquered the Britons there, and established a new kingdom. They were also technically a vassal of Munster (which was itself initially a vassal of Ulster/the Ui Neill in this period, since they comprised almost all of the over kings), and an extention of the Irish, but this meant little; the Irish, including Munster, took very little concern over the region. They considered it dim in value, and didn't really much care for Britons (despite some Celtic romanticists wishes, Gaels and Britons weren't that close; culturally/linguistically they were set apart, and both didn't much care for the other in most cases). Enough Gaels settled the region that their army had some Gaelic weaponry and such used in it, but it's really a moot point.

As for Gaels vs. Picts; it is true that Dal Riada was pretty much a non-issue for most of the period. In fact, the Dal Riada didn't gain the upper hand through war, but through inheritance. Gaels did not 'inherit' their titles; they had tanists (an elected successor; often from the current official's family, but not always). So, one could not use prigomeniture (bloodlines) as an excuse to take their land. However, the same was not true of Picts. Picts had matriolinical bloodlines (supposedly because they were given many Irish wives after some malady killed many Pictish women; part of the deal was that bloodlines would be traced through children's mothers, ensuring Gaelic-descended rulers). Dal Riadans (and other Irish, actually, who'd married into Picts; the Ui Neill did this too) used this as a way to stake claims on land. All of it, regardless of what kingdom took it, ended up under the ostensible control of Dal Riada. In this process, they eventually procured portions of Caithness, Domun/Domon (the Hebrides), and all of Fibb, as well as bits and pieces of other parts of Pictland, such as Atholl.

Also, the Irish didn't call themselves Gaels, the name of the (often fractured, but from time-to-time existent) kingdom of Ireland was 'na hÉireannaigh'; literally 'The Irishmen', or simply Éireann, 'Ireland'. Gael is a later version of 'Goidil' or 'Goedel', which was a name for their race.

A fun bit of knowledge is that Ireland, in the earliest part of the middle ages, was not a disunited region as is often supposed; most of the island fell under the rule of a single Irish 'emperor' (his title was 'Scotum Imperator'; Emperor of the Irish, but the Irish casually called the position 'Ardruire'; 'high king'). It wasn't until the lesser king of Leinster determined he'd make a better high king did the island collapse; it had been effectively a single kingdom since Brian Boru (some people think the island just collapsed after his death, which is entirely false; his successor, Mael Sechnaill, was called 'The Great' for a reason; he was an excellent king who controlled the whole island). Sub-kings still existed in this, but they weren't that different from 'dukes' in feudal kingdoms (Gaelic law wasn't very feudal, it was more like a republic, with mounting tiers of elected officials and 'senates' where laws would be discussed, volunteer armies, and the like).

Onto something hopefully less boring;

What Irish wear in combat. There are three tiers of Irish clothing in combat.

Levies; Militias, archers, non-Gaels forced into service {such as they did with Picts}; they wore a calf-length shirt, no cloak (or a cloak with one color and a fringe), and ankle-length, skin-tight pants called trews, with a pair of boots that came up over the ankle. Archers are in this group because Gaels never had professional archers until the 1020s (Mael Sechnaill's 'Saeghnanei' reform, when he introduced a few regiments of dedicated archers to his regional army in Ulster). However, archers always wore a cloak, with a hood up. Their trews could also be pulled above the knee, and tied there, to be worn as breezier shorts. The most advanced levies (generally light spearmen) would sometimes also wear a padded coat.

Dedicated Soldiers; Any soldier who had no other occupation, so was a year-round soldier. A volunteer soldier. He dressed in a knee-length shirt (usually off-white or saffron in color), belt, no trousers, a cloak (a short cloak that went down only to the top of his shoulder blades, though some higher rank soldiers, usually swordsmen, had theirs slightly longer), fur-lined boots that came over the ankle, and usually a padded coat called an acton, or cuton, worn over this; some wealthier soldiers might have overlapping iron scale armor, or chain. Horsemen would not be considered wealthier soldiers; horses were doled out to those who proved proficiency in cavalry training, not whoever had a horse (though militia light cavalry weren't unheard of, composed, usually, of wealthier farmers who owned their own horses). Most also wore a leather cap, but higher class soldiers sometimes had metal helmets. Plaid or checkered designs would be embroidered on their cloaks (kilts didn't exist, but they did use similar decoration on cloaks).

Aristocracy; The wealthiest soldiers, elected officials, kings, and their retainers ('knights', called Milidha {champions} or Ridire {a Saxon loan word}, that fought either on horseback or on foot); This whole lot dressed the same way. The Arras ('nobles'; any person elected to an office) usually formed the personal guard of kings, and often fought on foot. They all tended to wear robes (of varying lengths; the highest class wore ankle-length robes, slightly lower class wore mid-calf-length robes), with armor over it, such as mail or scale. They almost universally wore helmets (often with fancy inlay, gem studs, or delicate metalworking), and all wore long cloaks (not full-length though; those were for formal functions, and they would hold them up in combat, but they did wear a cloak that went at least past the small of their back). They would often wear fancier shoes, or even greaves with iron plates riveted over them; essentially plated metal boots. Almost everything they carried would have decoration (sword scabbards, their shields, helmets, etc.). Again, plaid designs appear on their cloaks. Their robes would often feature fine embroidery along the edges, and kings sometimes might have robes that depicted elaborate scenes or patterns.


And onto weapons;

The main weapons of Gaels were axes, and spears. The Gaelic axe is a hand axe or modified hatchet, with a spike on the back of it. It's a cheap piece of equipment, and most Gaelic infantry carried one. Spears had flared blades that could be used to slash and thrust with, and sometimes the Gaels employed long wood pikes to bring down horses. ALL Gaelic spearmen, except for pikemen, would fight with their spears overhand (Irish authors from the dark ages and middle ages are very clear about this, when they compare Gaelic war to foreigners). It's a byproduct of fighting mainly infantry wars where cavalry is little of a factor. The same spears could also be thrown; almost every actual Gaelic soldier carried one or two spears to throw before charging the enemy, including their spearmen.

Gaelic missiles revolved around 2/3rd scale javelins called 'darts', usually carried by militia (there weren't 'dartmen'; in some regions of Ireland it was actually against the law not to have enough darts for ALL militia to carry at least three). The dart was NOT an ineffective weapon; they weighted the heads specifically so they could punch a hole in armor or shields, generally making a nuisance of themselves. Professional soldiers preferred the sling, usually, and slings were in popular circulation in Gaelic armies until the 1400s (Irish allies from Connacht and Munster were still using slings during Robert the Bruce and William Wallace's war with the English). Of militia themselves, most fought as skirmishers, though cheap line spearmen were sometimes called to duty too; however, the main weapon of most militia was a sciota (a solid cudgel or club).

Gaelic swords were generally not that long, with a leaf-shaped blade, and a wooden grip. Gaelic longswords featured the same style of blade (though stretched out), and sometimes a longer grip (so they could be used in one or two hands). Longswords also often had polished bone grips, or leather wrapped grips, and often had elaborately decorated scabbards (until about 900 AD, the longsword was an expensive weapon in Ireland).

Other Gaelic weapons included ceasor and ordda (maces, usually with a round or egg-shaped head, and hammers). Longer javelins were used as well, as mid-way between the heavy throwing spears, and the cheaper, short range darts (despite what MTW: VI seemed to depict, darts were not for fighting over a long range, they were often thrown within maybe 20 meters of an opponent). Two-handed axes were in use from time to time, but were never really that popular. Two-handed hammers were sometimes in use by captains (this was an old pagan thing that held on for a while) and some soldiers.

Gaelic horses usually were little more than ponies; this was fine though. The terrain of both Ireland and northern Scotland could be unforgiving to larger horses, and in their native terrain, Gaelic ponies had a marked advantage. Horsemen often used the 'Gaelic lance', a long spear, still used overhand, and were more intended to kill infantry than other cavalry. They also carried a bundle of javelins pretty often, and were often used to skirmish before the battle, and chase down routers at the end of it. Heavier cavalrymen usually carried the 'lance' and a sword or axe (either a longsword or axe with elongated handle), and were used as shock cavalry but were fairly rare. Chariots still saw some irregular use; they were on their way out, but chariots remained a part of a Gaelic arras's retinue until the 1000s, at least (and some later kings still owned chariots as a symbol of prestige).

Gaelic shields were usually round 'target/targe' style shields, but cavalrymen and some nobles sometimes used long, oval-shaped shields.


And now, extrapolation on how they fought;

Attacking against a loose formation, Gaels usually would form into a few lines, with a specific job for each one, and 'special' regiments (like men with hammers or other, more irregular weapons) would wait behind. Skirmishers would take the front, pelt the enemy, and cover the advance of the second line; spearmen, who would also throw spears over the skirmishers, as the skirmishers fell back. The spearmen would march in a close formation, and engage the front of the enemy line. At the same time, cavalry of some sort would usually try to encircle or flank the enemy, throw some javelins, and withdraw. When some gaps in the enemy's front line appeared, the spearmen would slowly melt behind the third line, which would be men with axes, swords, or other close melee weapons, who would exploit any gaps and try and wedge the opposition apart. Prior to the movement of the three main lines, any longer range missiles, such as archers or slings, would launch a few volleys. Specialists would be used as discretion dictated.

Defending against was different; skirmishers would throw some darts or javelins to slow the advance, and try to get around the sides to flank or disorient, and the lines would form into a single, long, supported line, which would throw spears when the skirmishers withdrew, and form themselves into a tight, quasi-shieldwall, to absorb the brunt of the enemy charge. If cavalry came up first, levies with wood pikes would be placed before the line, or the line itself would have pikes available to them, to try and stop the cavalry attempt. Flanks would be guarded by cavalry, and the center of the line would be held by the commanding arras and his retainers.

Against a dense formation, the shape of the second two main lines is reversed; axemen (usually) would go in front of spearmen. The skirmishers would hit as usual, withdraw, and the axemen, with their heavy headed weapons, were actually intended to break the shields of the opponents, and withdraw behind the spearmen, allowing them to take advantage of the gaps in the enemy line's defenses, and when they broke some holes in it, the axemen would move back in.

In all cases, a few things remain the same. The commanding Arras worked out his plan before the battle; he would be fighting in either the line of close melee soldiers, or a reserve line just behind them, and would likely see combat (which is why so many Gaelic kings died in battle). Additional regiments would attempt to encircle the enemy and flank them; ultimately, the goal was to hem the enemy in, and move the main lines' flanks around the enemy, encircling and killing as many as possible.

This is a simplification; doesn't take into account wedge formations and other things they did, but it was the main way they fought (since it was developed largely to fight other Gaels, and Caledonians/Picts, who had invaded off and on, as well as Britons, who invaded fairly regularly before the Roman conquest of Britain). I mention it here to see if you can perhaps tailor their combat to work best in that way, though I know it probably can't be perfectly replicated (I doubt there's a way to simulate breaking shields and such).

The 'Scots' didn't exist at all yet (they wouldn't call themselves Scots until the middle ages; otherwise it was colloquially term for British subjects). However, at the moment in history, the kings of Uladd, Mide, Laigin, Muma, and Connaght were reassessing their position toward one another, and even brought in some arbitraters from the east Roman empire to help them work out a deal. Ultimately, it left them with a few decades long military alliance (though sporadic border wars between Connacht and Munster persisted for much of it, but they were rarely longer than one battle, and even that was usually more of a skirmish between less than 200 men).

During the time, the Gaels also actually did something, and were very important in northwestern Europe as the center of Christian learning, boasting more universities in schools in Ulster and Meath alone than were in Britain altogether (though Britain eventually had more, before the end of the period.

While divided between 5 local kings (Dal Riada was not considered a kingdom yet, and their 'king' was not recognized as a king, but as an unruly chieftain who was technically a vassal of Ulster), they still had, at the time, an 'allied' army. Further, Dyfedd in Wales was technically a vassal of Munster (though it acted pretty freely). The Irish raided British holdings near constantly, setting up forts all along the British coast. This steady wearing down weakened many Romano-British kingdoms, allowing Saxons to overcome them more easily. Further, the Picts were overcome by Gaels, and Gaels at different times had settled in large numbers in places like Cumbria, the isle of Mann, and portions of Wales and Cornwall, often after violent invasions, ending in partitions of land or settlement rights (though settlers had to swear an oath of fealty to the local king in the latter case).

Politically, they were also quite important at the time. Due to their schools and many scribes, Ireland controlled most of the books in western Europe; so many had been burned, that the Irish were among the only ones truly capable of preserving them; their monastaries were safe in Ireland, from attacks by the barbarous folk who tended to burn such things, and the many books inside. Irish kings were treated in numerous courts, and Irish poets and scribes were in high demand, because few other regions produced that many; further, Ireland was often the only place but in Greece itself that retained Greek literature, philosophy, and poetry. This meant Ireland got a great deal of trade, and a huge amount of wealth.

The 'dark ages' is actually, in Ireland, the Irish golden age. To disclude it in the period where it had the most influence is unwise I think. Ireland was not some obscure far-flung place after the introduction of Christianity, and wouldn't be until around 1100 AD when it was essentially closed off from all but its immediate neighbors, and more so around 1250 due to Normans. Surely, most never saw Ireland, or really understood Irish culture, but the Irish themselves traded all over the world, offered mercenaries to nearly everyone, and were an important church center (though cut off from authority in Rome usually, as papal envoys had trouble getting to Ireland due often to weather issues, so Irish bishops just went through British bishops for support).


Also, of the 'Scots'; the Dal Riada, they had 4 main centers. Dun Ranma, Dunnadd, Dun Geail, and Dun Rochid. Ireland itself had numerous main forts, but each of the 5 principalities had a main capitol, which was often itself of quite an amount of importance, such as Tuam or Eahmain Macha.

I will point out that 'every Gaelic tribe' was not indepedent. In the early dark ages, the Irish kingship had just collapsed and most of Ireland was split between four over-kingdoms (the Dalriatta, who became the Albhae, which the Britons and Saxons called Scotti {they didn't call themselves that; it's an offensive term}, were subjects of the Ui Neill in Ulster). The Ui Neill ruled the 'five kingdoms'; Uladd, Oirgallia, Tir Connaill, Brega, and Mide, which largely broke up in wake of a war with the Dalriatta, when they rebelled. In the south was the Eoghanact kingdom (Mumu, modern Munster), which was the most intact after the collapse since their sub-king had no problem securing power. There was also Laigin, modern Leinster, which was also fairly stable, and the kingdom of Connacht, which was in near anarchy until Conn Lambas took control. The line about being divided under 'hundreds of kings' is misleading; technically, every minor dis (chief) up to the highest king is a 'king' to the ancient Gaels, but it doesn't mean they're indepedent by any stretch.

In the early Christian period, Ireland was of paramount importance. It was out of the way of barbarian invasion, and also incredibly wealthy (mostly due to tin, silver, and metalwork trade, but also from sale of green marble, which only shows up in Connacht, and nowhere else on Earth), so it could fund the building of numerous churches, monastaries, and reliquaries (a place where Christian relics, such as bodies of saints, could be safely kept). Irish missionaries converted the Picts, and reconverted many Britons, and helped convert the Saxons, and also sent missionaries throughout Europe. They also invaded Britain, conquering Dyfedd (which itself eventually invaded Brittany), and eventually the Picts.

Ireland had numerous main forts, which were developing into a type of defense called a 'cashel'. The Picts were increasingly basing themselves on Irish warfare and defenses, and their own 'brochs' heavily resembled the cashel. A cashel is a hillfort, but instead of an earth, wood, and stone wall, it has a more solidly stone ringwall, packed inside with earth, but on the exterior is all stone; very sturdy and well-defended. The largest cashels would have multiple walls. The center of any Gaelic fortress or citadel is a round tower or 'box castle'; essentially a tower that has been added onto so many times it's like a small version of a castle. These phased out the earlier earth-and-wood palaces like at Emain Macha.

The Gaelic military structure is divided into groups that are multiples of 5; usually 20-50-100-150-200-300. The levies, called the Ceitherne (warbands), are attached to regiments of soldiers called the Gaiscíocha (warriors) and Arras (aristocracy/nobles). The levies dress in tight fitting breeches or shorts, called trews, and a thigh length shirt, and sometimes a leather poncho. The highest levies, such as levied pikemen, also wear a padded coat. The gaiscíoch dress in a knee-length shirt, without trousers, and wear a very very short cloak called a brat, which is decorated with plaid or checkers, and sometimes fringed. The arras wear robes, boots, leather gloves, and longer cloaks, decorated with more colors, and also generally wear helmets. The nobles and warriors have standard bearers to help organize them in battle. Levies, on the other hand, are simply attached to a regiment, and follow it, or marching in front of it (whatever the situation dictates), and act as support units. As such, skirmishers, archers, light spearmen, and slingers are all levies. I have some concept art I had done for Arthurian: Total War, that could perhaps help you out if you need something. It's important to avoid falling into certain stereotypes. The Gaels did not wear kilts, they did not fight shirtless (this was actually illegal under a type of 'savagery law', which disallowed one to fight in such a way, because it looked like a wildman; he would be fined). They did not look like generic Celts (Gaels were barely Celtic, actually).

[Fisherking]

There was a place called Scotland in the dark ages! Only today it is known as Cornwall. Those Irish again, drat them

[Fisherking]

Kingship in native Irish society was not feudal in nature. The title was elected from a limited field into which one must have been born and the successor was usually named at the time the overlord took office.

It was also a complex sort of client system with gifts and obligations due from both parties. True loyalties were seldom very deep and while all might know and regard someone as overlord it was not something that meant very much unless he decided to enforce it militarily.
Terms of military service to a lord were only three fortnights in three years! Clearly this would be something called for at great need and not frittered away for a couple of week in summer.
Lords were also expected to have a retinue of warriors suitable to their station and obligations went with this also. It was a mead hall style warrior society of constant feasting and many jealousies similar to that of the old Anglo-Saxons.

Being elected by ones relatives was also no assurance of support and stability. There is a saying I have heard attributed to the Irish which goes: 'So long as one has relatives you should never want for enemies.' There never seemed to be a shortage of those seeking revenge or power through rebellion or subterfuge. It was also a society where anyone could approach or reproach the lord for almost anything.

All this meant that a Chieftain or King had to remain popular in the eyes of as many of his people and client chiefs as possible while watching his back for possible rivals without ruffling anyone's feathers.

All of these ostentatious displays of graciousness and caring for ones people and clients must have been terribly expensive and in a land which always preferred the cow as a unit of exchange it is not hard to see why it was a land of constant raid and counter raid warfare.