What kind of armour are the warriors of the Bayeux Tapestry really wearing? A closer look at the mysterious broigne challenges long-standing interpretations of medieval armour and offers new clues about how it was made and used.
By Lorris Chevalier
The Bayeux Tapestry, more accurately described as an embroidered narrative textile, is one of the most important visual sources for eleventh century Anglo Norman society. It provides valuable evidence for clothing, weapons and military equipment, making it an important source for understanding warfare during the period. However, the body armour shown on many of its warriors remains difficult to identify. It has traditionally been interpreted either as ‘ring mail’ or as stylised mail hauberks, but neither explanation fully accounts for its distinctive appearance and construction.
In a 2023 study, French researcher Thomas Guérin argues that the armour represented in the tapestry is better understood as the broigne, a distinct form of plated armour. Unlike mail, which consists of interlinked rings, Guérin defines the broigne as a flexible leather or textile foundation reinforced with metal plates, scales or discs. Its construction could vary considerably, allowing different shapes and arrangements of metal elements while retaining the same basic principle. Guérin notes that this type of armour appears to have been particularly associated with military elites, including Norman cavalrymen and Anglo Saxon huscarls.
The technology behind the broigne was much older than the Norman Conquest. Guérin points to similar reinforced garments in ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman military traditions, including the Roman lorica squamata. These examples demonstrate that plated armour and mail were not necessarily stages in a simple technological progression but could coexist for different tactical, social and economic purposes. Reconsidering the *broigne* therefore helps clarify the armour depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry and may also improve the identification of surviving archaeological fragments.
The Broigne in Medieval Europe
Scenes of war from the Stuttgarter Psalter, which was created in the 820s – Württembergische Landesbib Bibl.fol.23 fol.158v
The Carolingian period provides important evidence for the continuation of this tradition. The Stuttgart Psalter, produced around 820 to 830, contains numerous representations of warriors wearing scale covered garments. These vary in length and construction: some cover the thighs and reach towards the knees, while others are shorter. Some figures also appear to wear scale covered sleeves, chausses or other protective elements.
The imagery demonstrates both the established nature of the technology and its flexibility. It also suggests that substantial body armour was not necessarily standard equipment for every warrior and may have carried a more specialised or elite significance.
By the eleventh century, this pattern appears to have continued. The Old English Hexateuch provides an especially useful comparison. One warrior wears a long plated garment extending towards the knees and split at the front. Guérin compares this with aspects of the armour represented in the Bayeux Tapestry and suggests that it may have been suited to mounted combat.
“Pedestrian” on Charlemagne’s chessboard – National Library of France, Department of Coins, Medals and Antiquities, inv. 55.323
Other eleventh and early twelfth century sources show plated armour in western Europe, including the objects commonly known as the ‘Chessmen of Charlemagne’, aristocratic seals and sculptures from Limoges and Angoulême. The evidence suggests that the broigne remained a recognisable form of elite armour within western European military culture.
Why Has the Broigne Been Misidentified?
Philip II Augustus at the Battle of Bouvines, wearing a broigne over his mail hauberk. From the Grandes Chroniques de France, c. 1330, Bibliothèque municipale de Castres, MS 0003, fol. 282v.
Guérin identifies three principal problems that have complicated the interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry: terminology, nineteenth century scholarship and the ambiguity of medieval literary sources.
The linguistic problem
Several continental European languages retain terms corresponding to broigne: French broigne, German Brünne and Scandinavian brynje. Medieval and modern English, however, lacks an equally precise equivalent. Terms such as ‘mail’, ‘coat of mail’ and ‘chain mail’ have consequently been applied to a wider range of protective garments than their technical meanings suggest.
Guérin points to English translations of biblical texts as an example. The Hebrew shiryōn, for example, has been rendered variously as ‘habergeon’, ‘coat’, ‘harness’, ‘coat of mail’ and ‘breastplate’. Such terminological instability inevitably affects modern interpretations.
The nineteenth century ‘ring mail’
The second problem originated with antiquarian scholarship. Samuel Rush Meyrick, writing in the early nineteenth century, introduced the concept of ‘ring mail’ or ‘ring armour’ to explain the circular motifs visible on the armour in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The proposed construction consisted of large rings sewn onto a leather or textile foundation. Guérin argues that reconstructions based on this idea, however, raise substantial functional difficulties. Large rings sewn side by side would leave considerable gaps and provide questionable protection against arrows, spear thrusts and sword blows.
Guérin also points to the lack of convincing archaeological evidence for this supposed form of armour. He therefore argues that the ‘ring mail’ hypothesis was a nineteenth century solution to a visual problem rather than a reconstruction grounded in archaeological evidence.
The opposite simplification: identifying everything as mail
A later interpretation, advanced by Michael John Lewis in a 2005 study, has been to interpret the armour simply as mail. Although this avoids the problems of ‘ring mail’, Guérin argues that it fails to account for several specific details represented in the embroidery.
If the Bayeux Tapestry provides valuable information about ships, weapons, architecture, clothing and military practice, there is little reason to assume that its armour was represented without meaningful structural distinctions. The challenge is therefore to determine what physical object best explains the details shown.
Medieval Literary Terminology
Medieval literary sources provide useful evidence, but they must be approached cautiously. The Chanson de Roland, probably composed in the late eleventh century, distinguishes between broignes and osbercs. The former broadly corresponds to the broigne, while the latter refers to the mail hauberk.
For Guérin, this demonstrates that the two categories could coexist within contemporary terminology. However, epic poetry cannot be treated as a technical catalogue of military equipment. The language of chansons de geste is shaped by metre, formulaic expression and rhetorical convention. A broigne may therefore be described using terminology associated with mail.
Chronicles present similar difficulties. Writers such as William of Poitiers frequently use broad terms such as lorica rather than distinguishing construction techniques.
Medieval literary sources are therefore most useful for establishing the coexistence and social context of different forms of armour rather than reconstructing their precise physical construction.
The Bayeux Tapestry: Broigne or Hauberk?
Photo by Sandra Alvarez / Medievalists.net
Guérin argues that several features of the Bayeux Tapestry strongly favour identifying the armour as broigne rather than mail.
The transportation of the armour
During preparations for the Norman invasion, armour is carried by two men using a pole passed through the sleeves of the garments. Guérin argues that this conveys an impression of considerable rigidity and bulk.
Mail behaves differently. Because it consists of interconnected rings, a hauberk is flexible and can be folded or bundled. Guérin therefore considers the method of transport shown in the tapestry more compatible with a relatively rigid plated garment.
Removing armour from the dead
Another revealing scene shows men stripping armour from the bodies of the dead after Hastings. The garments are pulled upwards over the heads of the fallen warriors, apparently with considerable effort. They seem to catch around the neck and resist removal.
Guérin argues that this is difficult to reconcile with mail, which can deform around the body. It is more readily explained by a rigid garment with a relatively narrow neck opening and fixed reinforcing elements.
For Guérin, the scene therefore provides indirect evidence for the armour’s mechanical properties.
The lower body construction
The lower edge of the armour also deserves attention. The garments appear to extend over the thighs, producing a ‘breeches’ or ‘bermuda’ effect. Guérin argues that this probably reflects the way the lower panels were secured around the thighs rather than fully armoured legs.
A rigid garment would otherwise hang vertically and impede movement. Guérin suggests that securing the lower panels around the legs would allow protection to move with the wearer, particularly during mounted combat.
The Distinctive Features of the Norman Broigne
Infantrymen and a mounted warrior wearing broignes tightened at the knees. Detail from Scene 50 of the Bayeux Tapestry
Guérin identifies several details represented in the tapestry that allow a more precise reconstruction.
Overlapping plates
Guérin argues that the most probable construction involves overlapping metal plates attached to a substantial supporting garment. The plates appear in several forms, including circular, rounded and quadrangular elements. Their arrangement resembles other medieval representations of plated armour and is compatible with archaeological discoveries from western Europe.
Central rivets
Several representations appear to show a central rivet on each plate. This is significant because archaeological examples demonstrate that such rivets were used to attach armour plates to their supporting material.
At Andone, Blois, Jaunay Clan and Paladru, excavations have produced plates with central rivets or related fastening systems. Some preserve traces of leather between the metal plate and interior fixing mechanism.
Fastening straps
The embroidery also appears to show straps around the neck and upper back. Guérin suggests that these may have tightened the neckline and secured the hooded portion of the armour. They also help explain the difficulty of removing the armour from the dead: a tightly fastened neckline could cause the garment to catch around the head and neck when pulled upwards.
The breast panel
Perhaps the most distinctive feature is the rectangular panel visible on the upper chest of many warriors. This is not characteristic of conventional mail hauberks. Guérin proposes that the panel served a functional purpose. A rigid garment with an integrated hood would require an opening large enough for the wearer’s head to pass through, creating a vulnerable point.
The breast panel may therefore have acted as a reinforced flap covering this opening. Its repeated appearance suggests that it formed an integral part of the armour.
Armour and Accessories
The Bayeux Tapestry also depicts supplementary protective elements. Armoured chausses appear in several scenes, particularly among mounted warriors and prominent figures. Guérin interprets these as employing the same plated technology as the main body armour. Some warriors also possess reinforced arm guards or sleeves.
Their distribution is significant. Such accessories appear particularly frequently among elite cavalrymen and prominent commanders, suggesting that armour could be adapted according to tactical requirements and social status.
For Guérin, this supports the broader conclusion that the *broigne* was not a standardised object but a technological system capable of producing different configurations.
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological record provides important support for Guérin’s interpretation. Fragments of plated armour are relatively uncommon, but several western European sites have produced examples consistent with the proposed construction.
At the castrum of Andone, excavations recovered quadrangular or trapezoidal plates with rounded corners and central rivets. In some cases, traces of leather survived beneath the rivets. Comparable material has been recovered from Blois, Jaunay Clan and the fortified settlement of Faye.
The underwater excavations at Lake Paladru are particularly significant. Several iron plates interpreted as elements of plated armour were found in an aristocratic and military context dating around the turn of the first millennium. Their construction provides evidence for central rivets and internal counterplates.
In Normandy, a plated element discovered at Château Ganne provides an important local parallel. Together, these discoveries provide evidence that plated armour was present in western European military contexts from the tenth to twelfth centuries.
Equally significant for Guérin is what the archaeological record does not contain: convincing examples of the large sewn rings proposed by the nineteenth century theory of ‘ring mail’. He argues that the absence of such evidence, combined with positive evidence for riveted plates, weakens the traditional ring mail interpretation.
Reconstructing the Norman Broigne
Dismounted Norman soldier wearing his broigne with central rivets.
Drawing on this evidence, Guérin proposes a tentative reconstruction of the armour represented in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The Norman broigne appears to have consisted of a substantial leather or textile foundation incorporating an integrated hood and short sleeves. Its surface was reinforced with overlapping metal plates, probably attached by rivets.
The lower panels extended over the thighs and were probably secured around the legs to prevent excessive movement. The neckline appears to have been reinforced and fastened with straps, while a rectangular breast panel probably covered the principal opening through which the garment was donned. The hood provided additional protection around the head and neck and could, in certain circumstances, be worn without a separate helmet.
Guérin’s reconstruction suggests that the resulting garment would have been relatively heavy and rigid but mechanically robust. Its manufacture required metalworking, leatherworking and textile skills, although probably not the highly specialised production system associated with large quantities of high quality mail.
This combination of accessibility and effectiveness may help explain the technology’s longevity.
The Social Meaning of the Broigne
Guérin argues that the broigne occupied an ambiguous position within medieval military culture. It was a practical form of protection that could be produced using relatively accessible materials and techniques, but it also became associated with military elites.
The Bayeux Tapestry appears to show it particularly frequently among Norman cavalrymen and Anglo Saxon huscarls. Later medieval representations similarly associate plated armour with high status warriors and rulers. This association may partly reflect the survival of an older technology as a marker of prestige.
As mail became increasingly widespread during the twelfth century, the broigne did not immediately disappear. It remained visible in particular contexts and may sometimes have been worn over mail as an additional protective layer.
The technology could therefore possess two identities: an accessible form of armour and an elite symbol.
From Broigne to Mail
Guérin links the growing dominance of the mail hauberk in western Europe during the twelfth century with wider economic and technological developments.
Large scale mail production required considerable quantities of iron and specialised manufacturing. Its increasing availability may therefore reflect changes in metallurgical production, craft specialisation and economic organisation.
Guérin argues that the expansion of Norman political power following the conquest of England and, later, the formation of the Angevin Empire created an increasingly sophisticated administrative and economic environment. Within this context, more complex forms of armour became increasingly accessible to the military elite.
The transition from broigne to mail should consequently not be understood simply as the replacement of an inferior technology by a superior one. Guérin suggests that it may instead reflect broader transformations in the economic capacity of medieval states and aristocratic societies to produce, acquire and maintain specialised military equipment.
Implications for the Interpretation of Hastings
Death of Harold Godwinson in the Battle of Hastings
Guérin also considers whether the physical characteristics of the broigne may have influenced warfare.
If the armour was substantially heavier and more rigid than mail, its use would have affected mobility and endurance. The Bayeux Tapestry suggests that warriors did not necessarily wear such armour continuously, but its use appears particularly associated with active combat and mounted operations.
The events of 1066 provide useful context. At Stamford Bridge, the Norwegian army’s vulnerability after discarding its armour illustrates the practical consequences of heavy protective equipment. When Harald Hardrada’s men were surprised by Harold Godwinson, many were initially without their armour, while reinforcements arriving from the ships had to cover considerable distance in full equipment.
At Hastings, meanwhile, the Anglo Saxon army adopted a predominantly defensive position, with heavily equipped huscarls forming a shield wall. William’s forces repeatedly attempted to break this formation through infantry and cavalry attacks.
Guérin suggests that the broigne may therefore have contributed indirectly to the tactical conditions of the battle. Heavy armour favoured protection but imposed costs in mobility and endurance, while cavalry was particularly suited to operating while heavily protected.
Such conclusions remain tentative. The Bayeux Tapestry is a selective narrative source rather than a tactical manual, and the precise weight and construction of individual armours cannot be established with certainty.
Archaeological Identification and Conservation
The identification of broigne remains is not merely an academic problem. Metal plates from medieval sites can be small, heavily corroded and morphologically ambiguous. Detached from their original leather or textile support, they may resemble miscellaneous fragments of sheet iron.
This is particularly problematic because many archaeological examples come from contexts where the armour itself has disappeared and only individual plates survive.
Sites associated with castles, aristocratic residences and military occupations are therefore especially important. Apparently insignificant iron plates within such contexts may deserve closer examination.
Guérin argues that greater attention should be paid to small iron plates displaying features such as:
central rivet holes or surviving rivets
traces of leather or other organic material
regular geometric outlines
rounded or polygonal edges
evidence of overlapping
deformation around fastening points
association with aristocratic or military contexts dating from approximately the tenth to twelfth centuries
Identification should remain cautious, but such objects should not automatically be dismissed as undiagnostic iron fragments. The issue is particularly important because the armour is comparatively rare archaeologically. A poorly preserved plate may represent one of only a small number of surviving examples of a particular regional or chronological tradition.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry offers an exceptionally detailed record of military equipment in the late eleventh century Anglo Norman world. Among its most important, yet least satisfactorily understood, elements is the body armour he identifies as the broigne.
Guérin argues that the historical, iconographic and archaeological evidence suggests that the broigne should be distinguished clearly from the mail hauberk. It was not a primitive form of mail, nor does he find convincing evidence for the nineteenth century concept of ‘ring mail’. Rather, he interprets it as a distinct form of armoured garment in which metal plates or scales were attached to a flexible supporting foundation.
The technology had a long history, with comparable forms of armoured clothing appearing in the ancient Near East, Greek and Roman worlds and Carolingian period before becoming prominent in medieval western Europe.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry provides particularly valuable evidence because it depicts features difficult to reconcile with mail: the apparent rigidity of the armour, its transportation on a pole, the difficulty of removing it from the dead, its short sleeves, lower body construction, fastening straps and distinctive breast panel.
Archaeological discoveries provide further support for his interpretation. Plated elements with central rivets and traces of organic supports have been recovered from several medieval aristocratic and fortified contexts, demonstrating that the technological principles inferred from the embroidery were materially real.
Guérin therefore understands the Norman broigne as a significant component of eleventh century military culture rather than as a poorly represented version of the mail hauberk. Its apparent association with Norman cavalry and Anglo Saxon huscarls suggests that it occupied an important position within elite military equipment at the time of the Conquest.
He likewise argues that its eventual decline should not be interpreted simply as the replacement of an inferior technology by a superior one. The growing prominence of mail may reflect broader developments in metallurgy, craft specialisation, political organisation and economic capacity.
Most importantly, recognising the broigne as a distinct technological category has consequences for archaeology. The survival of isolated iron plates means that this form of armour may be substantially underrepresented in the archaeological record. Objects currently classified as undiagnostic iron fragments may, in some cases, represent surviving components of armoured garments.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry therefore deserves to be treated not merely as a narrative of the Norman Conquest but as a technical document. Its details provide evidence for the construction, use and social meaning of an armour type long obscured by terminological confusion.
Reconsidering the broigne consequently allows a more precise understanding of both the material culture of warfare in the age of William the Conqueror and the archaeological traces left by the warriors who fought in it.
Dr Lorris Chevalier, who has a Ph.D. in medieval literature, is a historical advisor for movies, including The Last Duel and Napoleon. Click here to view his website.
What kind of armour are the warriors of the Bayeux Tapestry really wearing? A closer look at the mysterious broigne challenges long-standing interpretations of medieval armour and offers new clues about how it was made and used.
By Lorris Chevalier
The Bayeux Tapestry, more accurately described as an embroidered narrative textile, is one of the most important visual sources for eleventh century Anglo Norman society. It provides valuable evidence for clothing, weapons and military equipment, making it an important source for understanding warfare during the period. However, the body armour shown on many of its warriors remains difficult to identify. It has traditionally been interpreted either as ‘ring mail’ or as stylised mail hauberks, but neither explanation fully accounts for its distinctive appearance and construction.
In a 2023 study, French researcher Thomas Guérin argues that the armour represented in the tapestry is better understood as the broigne, a distinct form of plated armour. Unlike mail, which consists of interlinked rings, Guérin defines the broigne as a flexible leather or textile foundation reinforced with metal plates, scales or discs. Its construction could vary considerably, allowing different shapes and arrangements of metal elements while retaining the same basic principle. Guérin notes that this type of armour appears to have been particularly associated with military elites, including Norman cavalrymen and Anglo Saxon huscarls.
The technology behind the broigne was much older than the Norman Conquest. Guérin points to similar reinforced garments in ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman military traditions, including the Roman lorica squamata. These examples demonstrate that plated armour and mail were not necessarily stages in a simple technological progression but could coexist for different tactical, social and economic purposes. Reconsidering the *broigne* therefore helps clarify the armour depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry and may also improve the identification of surviving archaeological fragments.
The Broigne in Medieval Europe
The Carolingian period provides important evidence for the continuation of this tradition. The Stuttgart Psalter, produced around 820 to 830, contains numerous representations of warriors wearing scale covered garments. These vary in length and construction: some cover the thighs and reach towards the knees, while others are shorter. Some figures also appear to wear scale covered sleeves, chausses or other protective elements.
The imagery demonstrates both the established nature of the technology and its flexibility. It also suggests that substantial body armour was not necessarily standard equipment for every warrior and may have carried a more specialised or elite significance.
By the eleventh century, this pattern appears to have continued. The Old English Hexateuch provides an especially useful comparison. One warrior wears a long plated garment extending towards the knees and split at the front. Guérin compares this with aspects of the armour represented in the Bayeux Tapestry and suggests that it may have been suited to mounted combat.
Other eleventh and early twelfth century sources show plated armour in western Europe, including the objects commonly known as the ‘Chessmen of Charlemagne’, aristocratic seals and sculptures from Limoges and Angoulême. The evidence suggests that the broigne remained a recognisable form of elite armour within western European military culture.
Why Has the Broigne Been Misidentified?
Guérin identifies three principal problems that have complicated the interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry: terminology, nineteenth century scholarship and the ambiguity of medieval literary sources.
The linguistic problem
Several continental European languages retain terms corresponding to broigne: French broigne, German Brünne and Scandinavian brynje. Medieval and modern English, however, lacks an equally precise equivalent. Terms such as ‘mail’, ‘coat of mail’ and ‘chain mail’ have consequently been applied to a wider range of protective garments than their technical meanings suggest.
Guérin points to English translations of biblical texts as an example. The Hebrew shiryōn, for example, has been rendered variously as ‘habergeon’, ‘coat’, ‘harness’, ‘coat of mail’ and ‘breastplate’. Such terminological instability inevitably affects modern interpretations.
The nineteenth century ‘ring mail’
The second problem originated with antiquarian scholarship. Samuel Rush Meyrick, writing in the early nineteenth century, introduced the concept of ‘ring mail’ or ‘ring armour’ to explain the circular motifs visible on the armour in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The proposed construction consisted of large rings sewn onto a leather or textile foundation. Guérin argues that reconstructions based on this idea, however, raise substantial functional difficulties. Large rings sewn side by side would leave considerable gaps and provide questionable protection against arrows, spear thrusts and sword blows.
Guérin also points to the lack of convincing archaeological evidence for this supposed form of armour. He therefore argues that the ‘ring mail’ hypothesis was a nineteenth century solution to a visual problem rather than a reconstruction grounded in archaeological evidence.
The opposite simplification: identifying everything as mail
A later interpretation, advanced by Michael John Lewis in a 2005 study, has been to interpret the armour simply as mail. Although this avoids the problems of ‘ring mail’, Guérin argues that it fails to account for several specific details represented in the embroidery.
If the Bayeux Tapestry provides valuable information about ships, weapons, architecture, clothing and military practice, there is little reason to assume that its armour was represented without meaningful structural distinctions. The challenge is therefore to determine what physical object best explains the details shown.
Medieval Literary Terminology
Medieval literary sources provide useful evidence, but they must be approached cautiously. The Chanson de Roland, probably composed in the late eleventh century, distinguishes between broignes and osbercs. The former broadly corresponds to the broigne, while the latter refers to the mail hauberk.
For Guérin, this demonstrates that the two categories could coexist within contemporary terminology. However, epic poetry cannot be treated as a technical catalogue of military equipment. The language of chansons de geste is shaped by metre, formulaic expression and rhetorical convention. A broigne may therefore be described using terminology associated with mail.
Chronicles present similar difficulties. Writers such as William of Poitiers frequently use broad terms such as lorica rather than distinguishing construction techniques.
Medieval literary sources are therefore most useful for establishing the coexistence and social context of different forms of armour rather than reconstructing their precise physical construction.
The Bayeux Tapestry: Broigne or Hauberk?
Guérin argues that several features of the Bayeux Tapestry strongly favour identifying the armour as broigne rather than mail.
The transportation of the armour
During preparations for the Norman invasion, armour is carried by two men using a pole passed through the sleeves of the garments. Guérin argues that this conveys an impression of considerable rigidity and bulk.
Mail behaves differently. Because it consists of interconnected rings, a hauberk is flexible and can be folded or bundled. Guérin therefore considers the method of transport shown in the tapestry more compatible with a relatively rigid plated garment.
Removing armour from the dead
Another revealing scene shows men stripping armour from the bodies of the dead after Hastings. The garments are pulled upwards over the heads of the fallen warriors, apparently with considerable effort. They seem to catch around the neck and resist removal.
Guérin argues that this is difficult to reconcile with mail, which can deform around the body. It is more readily explained by a rigid garment with a relatively narrow neck opening and fixed reinforcing elements.
For Guérin, the scene therefore provides indirect evidence for the armour’s mechanical properties.
The lower body construction
The lower edge of the armour also deserves attention. The garments appear to extend over the thighs, producing a ‘breeches’ or ‘bermuda’ effect. Guérin argues that this probably reflects the way the lower panels were secured around the thighs rather than fully armoured legs.
A rigid garment would otherwise hang vertically and impede movement. Guérin suggests that securing the lower panels around the legs would allow protection to move with the wearer, particularly during mounted combat.
The Distinctive Features of the Norman Broigne
Guérin identifies several details represented in the tapestry that allow a more precise reconstruction.
Overlapping plates
Guérin argues that the most probable construction involves overlapping metal plates attached to a substantial supporting garment. The plates appear in several forms, including circular, rounded and quadrangular elements. Their arrangement resembles other medieval representations of plated armour and is compatible with archaeological discoveries from western Europe.
Central rivets
Several representations appear to show a central rivet on each plate. This is significant because archaeological examples demonstrate that such rivets were used to attach armour plates to their supporting material.
At Andone, Blois, Jaunay Clan and Paladru, excavations have produced plates with central rivets or related fastening systems. Some preserve traces of leather between the metal plate and interior fixing mechanism.
Fastening straps
The embroidery also appears to show straps around the neck and upper back. Guérin suggests that these may have tightened the neckline and secured the hooded portion of the armour. They also help explain the difficulty of removing the armour from the dead: a tightly fastened neckline could cause the garment to catch around the head and neck when pulled upwards.
The breast panel
Perhaps the most distinctive feature is the rectangular panel visible on the upper chest of many warriors. This is not characteristic of conventional mail hauberks. Guérin proposes that the panel served a functional purpose. A rigid garment with an integrated hood would require an opening large enough for the wearer’s head to pass through, creating a vulnerable point.
The breast panel may therefore have acted as a reinforced flap covering this opening. Its repeated appearance suggests that it formed an integral part of the armour.
Armour and Accessories
The Bayeux Tapestry also depicts supplementary protective elements. Armoured chausses appear in several scenes, particularly among mounted warriors and prominent figures. Guérin interprets these as employing the same plated technology as the main body armour. Some warriors also possess reinforced arm guards or sleeves.
Their distribution is significant. Such accessories appear particularly frequently among elite cavalrymen and prominent commanders, suggesting that armour could be adapted according to tactical requirements and social status.
For Guérin, this supports the broader conclusion that the *broigne* was not a standardised object but a technological system capable of producing different configurations.
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological record provides important support for Guérin’s interpretation. Fragments of plated armour are relatively uncommon, but several western European sites have produced examples consistent with the proposed construction.
At the castrum of Andone, excavations recovered quadrangular or trapezoidal plates with rounded corners and central rivets. In some cases, traces of leather survived beneath the rivets. Comparable material has been recovered from Blois, Jaunay Clan and the fortified settlement of Faye.
The underwater excavations at Lake Paladru are particularly significant. Several iron plates interpreted as elements of plated armour were found in an aristocratic and military context dating around the turn of the first millennium. Their construction provides evidence for central rivets and internal counterplates.
In Normandy, a plated element discovered at Château Ganne provides an important local parallel. Together, these discoveries provide evidence that plated armour was present in western European military contexts from the tenth to twelfth centuries.
Equally significant for Guérin is what the archaeological record does not contain: convincing examples of the large sewn rings proposed by the nineteenth century theory of ‘ring mail’. He argues that the absence of such evidence, combined with positive evidence for riveted plates, weakens the traditional ring mail interpretation.
Reconstructing the Norman Broigne
Drawing on this evidence, Guérin proposes a tentative reconstruction of the armour represented in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The Norman broigne appears to have consisted of a substantial leather or textile foundation incorporating an integrated hood and short sleeves. Its surface was reinforced with overlapping metal plates, probably attached by rivets.
The lower panels extended over the thighs and were probably secured around the legs to prevent excessive movement. The neckline appears to have been reinforced and fastened with straps, while a rectangular breast panel probably covered the principal opening through which the garment was donned. The hood provided additional protection around the head and neck and could, in certain circumstances, be worn without a separate helmet.
Guérin’s reconstruction suggests that the resulting garment would have been relatively heavy and rigid but mechanically robust. Its manufacture required metalworking, leatherworking and textile skills, although probably not the highly specialised production system associated with large quantities of high quality mail.
This combination of accessibility and effectiveness may help explain the technology’s longevity.
The Social Meaning of the Broigne
Guérin argues that the broigne occupied an ambiguous position within medieval military culture. It was a practical form of protection that could be produced using relatively accessible materials and techniques, but it also became associated with military elites.
The Bayeux Tapestry appears to show it particularly frequently among Norman cavalrymen and Anglo Saxon huscarls. Later medieval representations similarly associate plated armour with high status warriors and rulers. This association may partly reflect the survival of an older technology as a marker of prestige.
As mail became increasingly widespread during the twelfth century, the broigne did not immediately disappear. It remained visible in particular contexts and may sometimes have been worn over mail as an additional protective layer.
The technology could therefore possess two identities: an accessible form of armour and an elite symbol.
From Broigne to Mail
Guérin links the growing dominance of the mail hauberk in western Europe during the twelfth century with wider economic and technological developments.
Large scale mail production required considerable quantities of iron and specialised manufacturing. Its increasing availability may therefore reflect changes in metallurgical production, craft specialisation and economic organisation.
Guérin argues that the expansion of Norman political power following the conquest of England and, later, the formation of the Angevin Empire created an increasingly sophisticated administrative and economic environment. Within this context, more complex forms of armour became increasingly accessible to the military elite.
The transition from broigne to mail should consequently not be understood simply as the replacement of an inferior technology by a superior one. Guérin suggests that it may instead reflect broader transformations in the economic capacity of medieval states and aristocratic societies to produce, acquire and maintain specialised military equipment.
Implications for the Interpretation of Hastings
Guérin also considers whether the physical characteristics of the broigne may have influenced warfare.
If the armour was substantially heavier and more rigid than mail, its use would have affected mobility and endurance. The Bayeux Tapestry suggests that warriors did not necessarily wear such armour continuously, but its use appears particularly associated with active combat and mounted operations.
The events of 1066 provide useful context. At Stamford Bridge, the Norwegian army’s vulnerability after discarding its armour illustrates the practical consequences of heavy protective equipment. When Harald Hardrada’s men were surprised by Harold Godwinson, many were initially without their armour, while reinforcements arriving from the ships had to cover considerable distance in full equipment.
At Hastings, meanwhile, the Anglo Saxon army adopted a predominantly defensive position, with heavily equipped huscarls forming a shield wall. William’s forces repeatedly attempted to break this formation through infantry and cavalry attacks.
Guérin suggests that the broigne may therefore have contributed indirectly to the tactical conditions of the battle. Heavy armour favoured protection but imposed costs in mobility and endurance, while cavalry was particularly suited to operating while heavily protected.
Such conclusions remain tentative. The Bayeux Tapestry is a selective narrative source rather than a tactical manual, and the precise weight and construction of individual armours cannot be established with certainty.
Archaeological Identification and Conservation
The identification of broigne remains is not merely an academic problem. Metal plates from medieval sites can be small, heavily corroded and morphologically ambiguous. Detached from their original leather or textile support, they may resemble miscellaneous fragments of sheet iron.
This is particularly problematic because many archaeological examples come from contexts where the armour itself has disappeared and only individual plates survive.
Sites associated with castles, aristocratic residences and military occupations are therefore especially important. Apparently insignificant iron plates within such contexts may deserve closer examination.
Guérin argues that greater attention should be paid to small iron plates displaying features such as:
Identification should remain cautious, but such objects should not automatically be dismissed as undiagnostic iron fragments. The issue is particularly important because the armour is comparatively rare archaeologically. A poorly preserved plate may represent one of only a small number of surviving examples of a particular regional or chronological tradition.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry offers an exceptionally detailed record of military equipment in the late eleventh century Anglo Norman world. Among its most important, yet least satisfactorily understood, elements is the body armour he identifies as the broigne.
Guérin argues that the historical, iconographic and archaeological evidence suggests that the broigne should be distinguished clearly from the mail hauberk. It was not a primitive form of mail, nor does he find convincing evidence for the nineteenth century concept of ‘ring mail’. Rather, he interprets it as a distinct form of armoured garment in which metal plates or scales were attached to a flexible supporting foundation.
The technology had a long history, with comparable forms of armoured clothing appearing in the ancient Near East, Greek and Roman worlds and Carolingian period before becoming prominent in medieval western Europe.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry provides particularly valuable evidence because it depicts features difficult to reconcile with mail: the apparent rigidity of the armour, its transportation on a pole, the difficulty of removing it from the dead, its short sleeves, lower body construction, fastening straps and distinctive breast panel.
Archaeological discoveries provide further support for his interpretation. Plated elements with central rivets and traces of organic supports have been recovered from several medieval aristocratic and fortified contexts, demonstrating that the technological principles inferred from the embroidery were materially real.
Guérin therefore understands the Norman broigne as a significant component of eleventh century military culture rather than as a poorly represented version of the mail hauberk. Its apparent association with Norman cavalry and Anglo Saxon huscarls suggests that it occupied an important position within elite military equipment at the time of the Conquest.
He likewise argues that its eventual decline should not be interpreted simply as the replacement of an inferior technology by a superior one. The growing prominence of mail may reflect broader developments in metallurgy, craft specialisation, political organisation and economic capacity.
Most importantly, recognising the broigne as a distinct technological category has consequences for archaeology. The survival of isolated iron plates means that this form of armour may be substantially underrepresented in the archaeological record. Objects currently classified as undiagnostic iron fragments may, in some cases, represent surviving components of armoured garments.
For Guérin, the Bayeux Tapestry therefore deserves to be treated not merely as a narrative of the Norman Conquest but as a technical document. Its details provide evidence for the construction, use and social meaning of an armour type long obscured by terminological confusion.
Reconsidering the broigne consequently allows a more precise understanding of both the material culture of warfare in the age of William the Conqueror and the archaeological traces left by the warriors who fought in it.
Dr Lorris Chevalier, who has a Ph.D. in medieval literature, is a historical advisor for movies, including The Last Duel and Napoleon. Click here to view his website.
Click here to read more from Lorris Chevalier
Further Readings:
Guérin, Thomas, “La broigne au temps de Guillaume le Conquérant (XIe siècle) : recherches autour d’un vêtement de guerre mal compris“. Actes du deuxième colloque de l’APVSM, « Paléontologie et Archéologie en Normandie », 25-26 septembre 2021. *Bulletin de l’Association paléontologique de Villers-sur-Mer*, 2023, p. 147-170.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts