"Heraldry in the 12th Century?" Topic

Can anyone advise on the use of Heraldry in the first half of the 12th Century?

Thanks in advance.

I've mostly come across the use of what I'd call a family livery as opposed to individual heraldry, such as the chevrons of de Clare and Geoffrey de Mandeville's quarterly gules and or, which I believe would be replicated by his men given that sources speak of robe giving by lords.

Thanks for that it helps.

I'm not sure that being 'at' or 'in' the robes of so-and-so would replace heraldry assuming that the recipient was entitled to his own device – which mostly they would be. I've only come across robe-giving in a civil context denoting a political alignment, but I'de be interested to read more about it in a military setting if you have any suggestions.

Early 12th century was too early for "heraldry". Even early 13th century was too early for "heraldry". But family devices were already being used in the 11th century and probably much earlier than that. Nothing was set down, there was no "college of heraldry" until the 14th century at the earliest, because there is no evidence of registered arms before then. I'm allowing for an earlier form of said-colleges than the 15th century, but as far as I have read nothing precedes that with evidence. Devices were of course claimed by individuals at a much earlier date, and were all simple ones for a long, long time. The first combined devices would have been when two noble houses joined and their devices were either combined, or halved. Later joined houses would result in quartering, etc. None of that was done in the 12th century….

Sure UFB, I recall an example in William Marshall. I'll dig it out.

Janner is right. The mist likely story in the early 12th cent. is tgat the lord has a device and that his tenants use similar colours and designs in bars and bends . So the cited example of Mandeville is surrounded by chaps in similar colours.

The tomb of Geoffrey of Anjou shows a heraldic style device. There is doubt whether he actually carried this device himself but it does show that such a design was reasonable for the end of the period you've asked about.

Any suggestions for the King of Scots?

Here is the Marshal piece,

William's chaplain, Philip, advises him to sell the robes he kept for his retainers and give the proceeds to charity. He replies (trans),

You have not the heart of a gentleman, and I have had too much of your advice. Pentecost is at hand, and my knights ought to have their new robes. This will be the last time that I will supply them, yet you seek to prevent me from doing it.

Marshal then ordered that more robes be purchased in London so that none of his men would go without.

Now, of course, this can also be interpreted as civic gift giving, but as these knights are in William's service, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the robes enjoyed a uniformity of design. However, as you will appreciate, it's not clear either way.

Reasonable to assume Kings of Scotland (or Kings of Scots – the terms are used interchangeably same as France or England)used the Lion Rampant from pretty early on.I seem to recall – though I can't exactly place it right now – a reference connecting it to Alexander I.
Cheers for that Janner; that was my instinct and I think the Marshal piece points in that direction.
I have long thought that the same sort of thing would apply to the robes gifted to household knights for David II's coronation and that the fact that the expenditure is not remarked upon as innovative or even unusual I think suggests that this was a normal practice; I would expect that the same had been observed for the household knights of his predecessors.
One has to be very careful about taking English examples as indicators of Scottish practice as one would with French/English practices – perhaps even more so – but in the absence (as far as I know) of evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonably safe to do so in this instance.

UFG Do you think I could use the Lion Rampant for David at the battle of the Standard then? And presumably red on yellow would be right?

On the giving of clothes it seems to have a long history and is always linked to status. In Marwnad Cunnedda the Bard outlines his entitlement to new appropriate clothes once the succession is achieved and relationships confirmed.

Absolutely. Scottish materiel for the battle of the Standard is – to put it mildly – of questionable value. The stuff about unarmoured Highland/Galwegian warriors probably (almost certainly in fact) has a lot more to do with contemporary English and Scottish romance and prejudice both then and now. A good general guide to the difference between English and Scottish armies throughout the medieval period is to think in terms of different proportions of the same troop-types….spearmen, archers and men-at-arms. The proportions of each, however, varied a great deal for large armies. Small forces (the mainstay of warfare apart from sieges) almost invariably – and I can't think of a single exception offhand – consisted entirely of mounted men-at-arms on both sides.

I do wonder if the lion symbol only came into use with King David's grandson, William the Lion though.

There's more on King John's robe giving in Stephen Church's book on John's household knights in the early thirteenth century.

The 'Lion' bit of William the Lion's name was because he was supposed to be a 'Lion for justice'…whatever that may mean! I'm pretty confident it pre-dates William. I'm not altogether sure why, but I think it's adopted by (if not before) Alexander I. I understand that it does appear on the seal of Alexander II if that's helpful.

That's grand I'll reach for my finest brush I'm doing 15mm.

That's brave…on the plus side, the version on Alexander II's seal does n't have the tressure apparently, which has to simplify things a bit.

Thank God.

I'll try something like this minus the trefoils.

I'd say that's just the job really. If only there was a specialist medieval Scotland historian who could say 'I'd say that's just the job really'….
Oh wait a minute……
Of course some material could come to light which would contradict this completely, but I would n't hold my breath.

Mission accomplished! Thanks for the advice.

Seal of Alexander I of Scotland, 12th Century

MIRROR SITE
Seal of Alexander I of Scotland, 12th Century

Druzhina
12th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

@UFB. the comments on the Galwegians may be a topos, but isn't it important in the battle of the Standard that they demand to enter battle firstand are shot up by the English archers because of their nakedness. So, if its a topos it is imported right into the structure of the account. Another such description is a passage in Giraldus Cambrensis ( I know he has a new name now) in which the Welsh are compared, I believe, to the Germans and Kelts of Tacitus and Caesar. Of course that gives us the opportunity to surmise that the ancient account has contaminated the modern description as the mediaeval writer wants to showcase his classical knowledge, but it is just as likely thatthe classical allusion has been chosen because it broadly fitsthe contemporary reality,i.e, that Galwegians are hirsute , unkemt and wild as well as unarmoured, and that the Welsh are most to be feared in the first onset and if you can hold thst you stand a good chance. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts is particularly good on the Romans having in their heads the models of Honers heroes, Ancient Republican heroes and oarticularly of Alexander the Great who may have commanded a whole invasion of persia to emulate Alexander and indeed died vecause he fought in a pointless skirmish in order to match his hero. Its not improbable that nineteenth century British officers thought of the thin red line and the superior defensive abilities of British redcoats just as the French traced their elan back to the Gauls as a natural tactic.
So the Galwegians may indeed be being described in a traditional manner as Gildasian Picts and Scots, but it might very likely be correct!

That's interesting Roy. I'm reminded of PV Walsh's series in Slingshot where he drew on the Scottish medieval epic 'Fergus of Galloway' iirc. That would support your view but also potentialy that of UFB because it was written from and for a 'Frankish' standpoint.

We also have Stephen of Hexam's description of the Galwegians long lances and shaven headed but again naked ie unarmoured.

Then again the very name Galloway indicates a Scandinavian/Celtic polity like the Isles and those lads were quite well armoured.

Duffy in his excellent book Clontarf comments on the repeated Irish victories over the Vikings to the effect we don't know how they did it but its clear they did.

Again we can recall Giraldus on the Irish axe that neither helm or mail was proof against. Though Keatinge writing much later makes the point that the Irish nobility was equipped pretty much as their opponents.

I suspect we may be missing something in the mix.

There 's a well-developed tradition of portraying the enemy as being different – and preferably wild and uncouth to boot. Those much-reproduced marginalia drawings of Scottish and Welsh troops with only one shoe come to mind…..There's been a veritable cottage industry explaining./discussing the value of being unshod or partly-shod which is even repeated in the (truly dreadful) new Bannockburn centre, but really it's just a racist joke – like the depiction of Japanese soldiers in good ole 'Captain Hurricane' ..remember him? And his sidekick Maggot?