Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Highland Clans and Gaelic Culture Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next 
Author Message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Sat 27 Aug, 2016 12:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Gabriele. In the late 15th century, members of Clan Keith and Clan Gunn arranged to settle a dispute by way of trial by battle. 12 horsemen from each Clan were meant to meet near a chaple in Caithness and fight it out. Apparently the Keiths cheated seating two men on each horse so that they outnumbered the Gunns 2:1. Caithness is in the north east of Scotland, where the ground is seemingly more suited to cavalry. I'm starting to think that the use of cavalry amongst the Highland Clans was mostly done by those who lived in the east and north east Highlands.


While this story is a tradition within my Clan and the Clan Keith, there is not much strong evidence for the battle actually occurring, at least as it has been described, and there are some inconsistencies in the description. The story also owes a lot to the Norse tradition. The Orkneying Saga has a similar tale of Norse versus Scots and there is another which substitutes ships for horses. So, it could be true and it could be legend.

At any rate, your thrust has been the use of cavalry in the Highlands of Scotland. There is very little in contemporary literature which offers a hint that cavalry was used to any extent by any of the true Highland clans. Horses were used for transport but fighting from horseback was apparently not common or it would have been mentioned more frequently.

Don't know if you have actually been to Caithness and Sutherland, but I have. The ground, at least when you leave the coastal areas, is not as suitable for warfare on horseback as you might think. The ground in many places is quite soft and spongy due to the large amount of peat under the surface. Being from Ireland you know about peat. Jumping up and down on such ground can produce a sensation of jumping on a jello mould! There are Highlands in the two counties as well, even though the ground is not so uneven and the peaks not so high or extreme as they are in the west Highlands. The traditional stories of Clan Gunn's many, many battles fought in the era from the mid-15th to the late 16th centuries all feature infantry. Cavalry is not mentioned at all. This has to mean something, at least to the small Clan that the Gunns were, but cavalry does not come up for the MacKays, Sinclairs, Sutherlands or Assynt Macleods either. This is by no means indicative of what went on over the entire country but you mentioned the Gunns and the Keiths so I thought I would respond.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug, 2016 9:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gabriele Becattini wrote:
ring armour is absolutely fanciful, the main types of armour used in galic warfare were mail and aketon, it is well attested in description and tombstones, the two handed claymore were not in use before the beginning of the XVIth century, but there were distinctively forms of scottish one handed and halflang swords.


In that case, from where did they get footmen armor like represented in these illustrations:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b3/1b/24/b31b24ea0568a730987ecab095189edd.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/02/ce/49/02ce49bda9eef08007ad720049fc7697.jpg

There wasn't any form of "studded armor" among the Scots, either lowlander or highlander?



--------------

Jason O C wrote:
The Gordon men in 1552 were to be equipped with jack of plates, helmet, sword, buckler, new hoes and new doublet of at least canvas, sleeves of plate or splints, and a long spear.

The 1574 act of parliament lists Lowland arms as, brigandines, jacks, helmets, sleeves of plate or mail, swords, pikes, long spears, arquebuses, halberds, or two handed swords. Highland arms are listed as, mail shirts, helmets, aketons, swords, bows and quivers or arquebuses.

Jason


The Gordons were a clan located in the highlands or the lowlands? Because the equipment of their men seem very little different from an equivalent in the lowlands.

Was there any difference between a pike and a "long spear"? With "splints", the lists refers limbs armor like this below?
http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/13/14/02/10/armour10.jpg
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug, 2016 12:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the info Lin. I thought the story of sounded a bit more legendary than historical. Tails of the Battle of the North Inch also seem a bit legendary, though I think the battle did actually happen.

This 1578 reference from John Lesley, Bishop of Ross is what got me thinking about Highlanders using cavalry.

"In battle and hostile encounter their missile weapons were a lance or arrows. They used also a two-edged sword, which with the foot soldiers was pretty long, and short for the horse; both had it broad, and with an edge so exceeding sharp that at one blow it would easily cut a man in two."

Also strange that horsemen would use shorter swords than foot soldiers.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro. There was no ring armour or studded armour in Scotland. Those moddern illustrations are not a great place to get information about historical armour.

The Gordons are considered a Highland Clan as far as I know, and yes the arms listed seem more like those used in the Lowlands than in the Highlands.

I would think that a long spear and a pike are essentially the same weapon.

The kind of splinted armour you linked to, is not what was meant by splints in the 16th century. Splints were a cheap form of plate armour for the arms. Below is an image of a pair of splints.

Jason



 Attachment: 34.07 KB
d92322d0c68f9a67ffff84dbd4355564.JPG

View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro. Jason is correct. There was no studded armour or ring armour in Scotland. Ring armour is just misinterpreted mail, and studded armour is misinterpreted brigandine.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gabriele. I just noticed your "P.S."

I actually thought you were a girl. Sorry about that. I'll edit my previous post.

Jason
View user's profile Send private message
Gabriele Becattini





Joined: 21 Aug 2007

Posts: 720

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

thanks guys, i know that my name sounds like a female name for a english speaking person Big Grin

angus mc bride is one of my favourite illustrators but his work is not always very reliable, lacking evidences we have to assume that ring and studded armour are just modern interpretations,
the only well attested armour in gaelic warfare are mail and aketon, with the occasional use of plate defences

the note about the soft bog terrain unsuitable for cavalry is interesting, but it is also true that during the english conquest of ireland during the XVIth century, the light cavalry was an import part of all the irish armies of the period,

it was also worth to note that some english writers noted that the irish were superior horseman to the english ones (even if this could be controversial as some others english writers were very critical about the effectiveness of the irish cavalry)

so in a way or another the marshy terrain was probably not an indrance to an expert light cavalryman, but i agree that the gaelic warfare was based mainly on infantry
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

No problem Gabriele. I wouldn't like it if everyone kept calling me Stephanie.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 4:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Thanks for the info Lin. I thought the story of sounded a bit more legendary than historical. Tails of the Battle of the North Inch also seem a bit legendary, though I think the battle did actually happen.

This 1578 reference from John Lesley, Bishop of Ross is what got me thinking about Highlanders using cavalry.

"In battle and hostile encounter their missile weapons were a lance or arrows. They used also a two-edged sword, which with the foot soldiers was pretty long, and short for the horse; both had it broad, and with an edge so exceeding sharp that at one blow it would easily cut a man in two."

Also strange that horsemen would use shorter swords than foot soldiers.


I agree about the sword length. If I am not mistaken, Roman cavalry carried longer versions of the gladius to enable them to strike the enemy from horseback. Someone will mention it if I am wrong.

Historians in ancient times were not good researchers and since they relied on occasionally unreliable reports - absent being there themselves - then a lot of accounts are less than accurate, even if they did occur.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You could be right Lin. The mention of Highlanders using cavalry, and that they would use short swords is strange to say the least. If you read the full quote below though, apart from those two things, the rest of the information seems right.

"In battle and hostile encounter their missile weapons were a lance or arrows. They used also a two-edged sword, which with the foot soldiers was pretty long, and short for the horse; both had it broad, and with an edge so exceeding sharp that at one blow it would easily cut a man in two. For defence, they used a coat of mail woven of iron rings, which they wore over a leather jerkin, stout and of handsome appearance, which we call an acton. Their whole armour was light, that they might the more easily slip from their enemies' hands if they chanced to fall into such a strait.

Their clothing was made for use (being chiefly suited to war) and not for ornament. All, both nobles and common people, wore mantles of one sort (except that the nobles preferred those of several colours). These were long and flowing, but capable of being neatly gathered up at pleasure into folds. I am inclined to believe that they were the same as those to which the ancients gave the name of brachae. Wrapped up in these for their only covering, they would sleep comfortably. They had also shaggy rugs, such as the Irish use at the present day, some fitted for a journey, others to he placed on a bed. The rest of their garments consisted of a short woollen jacket, with the sleeves open below for the convenience of throwing their darts, and a covering for the thighs of the simplest kind, more for decency than for show or a defence against cold. They made also of linen very large shirts, with numerous folds and wide sleeves, which flowed abroad loosely to their knees. These, the rich coloured with saffron, and others smeared with some greese to preserve thdm longer clean among the toils and exercises of a camp, which they held it of the highest consequence to practife continually. In the manufacture of these, ornament and a certain attention to taste were not altogether neglected, and they joined the different parts of their shirts very neatly with silk thread, chiefly of a green or red colour.

Their women's attire was very becoming. Over a gown reaching to the andes, and generally embroidered, they wore large mantles of the kind already described, and woven of different colours. Their chief ornaments were the braclets and neck. laces with which they decorated their arms and necks."

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You could be right Lin. The mention of Highlanders using cavalry, and that they would use short swords is strange to say the least. If you read the full quote below though, apart from those two things, the rest of the information seems right.

"In battle and hostile encounter their missile weapons were a lance or arrows. They used also a two-edged sword, which with the foot soldiers was pretty long, and short for the horse; both had it broad, and with an edge so exceeding sharp that at one blow it would easily cut a man in two. For defence, they used a coat of mail woven of iron rings, which they wore over a leather jerkin, stout and of handsome appearance, which we call an acton. Their whole armour was light, that they might the more easily slip from their enemies' hands if they chanced to fall into such a strait.

Their clothing was made for use (being chiefly suited to war) and not for ornament. All, both nobles and common people, wore mantles of one sort (except that the nobles preferred those of several colours). These were long and flowing, but capable of being neatly gathered up at pleasure into folds. I am inclined to believe that they were the same as those to which the ancients gave the name of brachae. Wrapped up in these for their only covering, they would sleep comfortably. They had also shaggy rugs, such as the Irish use at the present day, some fitted for a journey, others to he placed on a bed. The rest of their garments consisted of a short woollen jacket, with the sleeves open below for the convenience of throwing their darts, and a covering for the thighs of the simplest kind, more for decency than for show or a defence against cold. They made also of linen very large shirts, with numerous folds and wide sleeves, which flowed abroad loosely to their knees. These, the rich coloured with saffron, and others smeared with some greese to preserve thdm longer clean among the toils and exercises of a camp, which they held it of the highest consequence to practife continually. In the manufacture of these, ornament and a certain attention to taste were not altogether neglected, and they joined the different parts of their shirts very neatly with silk thread, chiefly of a green or red colour.

Their women's attire was very becoming. Over a gown reaching to the andes, and generally embroidered, they wore large mantles of the kind already described, and woven of different colours. Their chief ornaments were the braclets and neck. laces with which they decorated their arms and necks."

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maybe infantry used longswords and cavalry singlehanders, that would make sense...
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 2:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Luka. I've read this quote many times and I can't believe that this thought never crossed my mind. Of course, the late 16th century was the heyday of the two handed sword in the Highlands. This would make sense of calling a single handed sword short by comparison.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug, 2016 12:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Many of the Highland grave slabs depict two Angels fastening, or removing, spurs onto the ankles of the dead Chieftain. I've found two stone carvings of armed Highlanders on horseback, one on a grave slab, and the other on a pillar at Iona Abbey. Of course this doesn't mean that these men fought from horseback, but it does indicate that they at least sometimes rode to the battle.

The biggest problem with trying to research how the Gaels of Scotland fought prior to about 1500, is that there doesn't seem to be any first hand accounts. The accounts that we do have all seem to have been written down much later, and unlike Ireland, the English didn't write much about the Gaels of Scotland. I wonder, how accurate are the accounts that we have? Many seem to be part history and part legend. Do we really know all that much about Highland battle tactics, formations etc?

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug, 2016 4:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Many of the Highland grave slabs depict two Angels fastening, or removing, spurs onto the ankles of the dead Chieftain. I've found two stone carvings of armed Highlanders on horseback, one on a grave slab, and the other on a pillar at Iona Abbey. Of course this doesn't mean that these men fought from horseback, but it does indicate that they at least sometimes rode to the battle.

The biggest problem with trying to research how the Gaels of Scotland fought prior to about 1500, is that there doesn't seem to be any first hand accounts. The accounts that we do have all seem to have been written down much later, and unlike Ireland, the English didn't write much about the Gaels of Scotland. I wonder, how accurate are the accounts that we have? Many seem to be part history and part legend. Do we really know all that much about Highland battle tactics, formations etc?


There wasn't much to know about Highland tactics because there weren't many. Formations consisted of everybody who could run toward the enemy and then fight when he got there. This applies to the last 2 - 3 hundred years of Highland warfare but I do not know of anything very different in medieval times (with the possible exception of Bannockburn). Remarkably, the undisciplined, marginally trained Highlanders who went down to defeat at Culloden became some of the best trained, and most disciplined troops when Highland Regiments were formed for the British army. I guess that being tribal does not necessarily mean you cannot be taught how to behave in a conventional army.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug, 2016 7:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
There wasn't much to know about Highland tactics because there weren't many. Formations consisted of everybody who could run toward the enemy and then fight when he got there. This applies to the last 2 - 3 hundred years of Highland warfare but I do not know of anything very different in medieval times (with the possible exception of Bannockburn). Remarkably, the undisciplined, marginally trained Highlanders who went down to defeat at Culloden became some of the best trained, and most disciplined troops when Highland Regiments were formed for the British army. I guess that being tribal does not necessarily mean you cannot be taught how to behave in a conventional army.


This is usually what we're told about Highland warfare, but is that really all there was to it? I have no doubt that undisciplined charges happened at least sometimes in the Highlands, especially in smaller skirmishes involving low numbers of men. That being said, I can't help but think that in larger battles, more sophisticated tactics would have been used. Take the battle of Harlaw for example. 10,000 Highlanders and Islesmen, this is a large army. Commanding this number of men would have required a different approach to taking a couple of dozen men on a cattle raid. Without first hand accounts however, it's hard to say. In Ireland we do have some clues that, when they fought in large battles, they fought in formation and were disciplined. For example, here's a passage from the 14th century Irish text known as The Triumphs of Turlough.


"Then with loud clear voice of command Donough said: ‘let your soldiers give ear! govern your anger; moderate your clamour; instruct your raw lads; exalt your spirits; your standards rear aloft so that under them the colours shall show plain, and of your battles be there three columns made.’ At the chief's behest the movement was executed orderly, and three columns were formed: one was Donall mac Maccon's and Lochlainn Mac Conmara's with their rising out; another, Maccon's and Sheeda's; the third, Donough's own, together with his chieftains, hospitallers and household"

As many Highlanders and Islesmen worked in Ireland as mercenaries. I don't think that it's unreasonable to say that, when employed by an Irish Chieftain, they would be expected to maintain discipline, the same way that Donough is instructing his men.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neal Matheson




Location: sussex UK
Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Tue 30 Aug, 2016 10:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There's not a lot pre 1500 (and not much later) but what there is suggest similar to what came after. Ambushes, feigned retreats and the usual light infantry guerrilla style conflict. Sea battles in the West. Lots of space for conjecture though. Highland arms, (as in the Galloglass) don't really lend themselves to the idea of mobs charging at each other.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 31 Aug, 2016 1:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey Neal. Long time, no see.

Yes I agree. Small scale skirmishes, ambushes etc, were far more common than large pitched battles.

I also agree that if charging head-long at the enemy was the preferred battle tactic, then perhaps an axe mounted on a 6 foot haft isn't the most ideal weapon.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neal Matheson




Location: sussex UK
Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Wed 31 Aug, 2016 8:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am always here.......lurking......watching. Frustratingly we can't really rule out charging in the medieval period but as you say the equipment isn't quite right for it.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Wed 31 Aug, 2016 9:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:

This is usually what we're told about Highland warfare, but is that really all there was to it? I have no doubt that undisciplined charges happened at least sometimes in the Highlands, especially in smaller skirmishes involving low numbers of men. That being said, I can't help but think that in larger battles, more sophisticated tactics would have been used. Take the battle of Harlaw for example. 10,000 Highlanders and Islesmen, this is a large army. Commanding this number of men would have required a different approach to taking a couple of dozen men on a cattle raid. Without first hand accounts however, it's hard to say. In Ireland we do have some clues that, when they fought in large battles, they fought in formation and were disciplined. For example, here's a passage from the 14th century Irish text known as The Triumphs of Turlough.

"Then with loud clear voice of command Donough said: ‘let your soldiers give ear! govern your anger; moderate your clamour; instruct your raw lads; exalt your spirits; your standards rear aloft so that under them the colours shall show plain, and of your battles be there three columns made.’ At the chief's behest the movement was executed orderly, and three columns were formed: one was Donall mac Maccon's and Lochlainn Mac Conmara's with their rising out; another, Maccon's and Sheeda's; the third, Donough's own, together with his chieftains, hospitallers and household"

As many Highlanders and Islesmen worked in Ireland as mercenaries. I don't think that it's unreasonable to say that, when employed by an Irish Chieftain, they would be expected to maintain discipline, the same way that Donough is instructing his men.


While there are examples like you cited which purport to show that the leadership could control the troops, they are not verifiable from dispassionate sources. Yes there were a few large, pitched battles recorded, like "Red Harlaw" but the ancients, going back as far as Xenophon, were always vague with numbers. The 10,000 at Harlaw were probably more like 5,000 or less. The Highlands and Western Isles were and still are much more sparsely populated than the rest of Britain and raising that size army would have been a Herculean task. The largest Jacobite army formed during the period between 1689 and 1745 was the army of the rising of 1715 which purported to be and was confirmed by some participants, at around 9,000 at its peak. It was almost impossible to hold it together and when it began to move south to meet the government troops at Sheriffmuir, desertions were rampant. At that battle, of course, neither commander seemed to be able to control his troops and one wing of the Jacobites pushed the Hanoverians back almost to Stirling, before it became apparent that the other wing had stayed at Sheriffmuir! That is a late example, of course, but it is a good one.

If the Highlanders, given their martial ardor, had been as disciplined as their opponents, I think they would have chalked up more victories than they did. Just my opinion.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Highland Clans and Gaelic Culture
Page 2 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum