Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

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
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Tue 25 Jul, 2017 3:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is a handy resource. Use the search function to locate estates. I always wondered where Stewart of Ardvorlich was from...

http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/search.php

There's also a paper estate map in the Scottish Geographical Magazine, December 1969.
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: Thu 17 Aug, 2017 7:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So I've been thinking more lately about the gallowglass who settled in Ireland, and what their system of raising troops can tell us the system used back in Scotland.

The agreement made in 1358 between Turlough O Donnell, King of Tyrconnell and one-eyed Turlough MacSweeney (recorded in The Book of Clan Sweeney), states that MacSweeney was to supply O Donnell with two gallowglass per quarterland, and for every gallowglass missing MacSweeney he would be fined two cows, one cow for the missing man and another for his armour. This means that it was not only MacSweeney's responsibility to ensure that he had enough gallowglass, but also to ensure that they were appropriately armed.

A close analogue for this situation can be found in the relationship between the Earl of Argyll and the Laird of Glenorchy. Argyll and O Donnell compare fairly well as both commanded armies of about equal size. The same goes for Glenorchy and MacSweeney who also commanded similar numbers of men. Now as far as I know we don't have any written agreement between Argyll and Glenorchy, like we have for O Donnell and MacSweeney. We do know that Glenorchy kept enough weapons at Ballock Castle of equip about 50 men (almost half of his total force). Perhaps these weapons were there to ensure that his men were appropriately armed to avoid fines like those mentioned in The Book of Clan Sweeney.

We also know that Glenorchy rented land to tacksmen like Ronald Campbell (recorded in The Black Book of Taymouth). Ronald was required to, "at his own expense", arm himself and four other men, and be ready serve his Laird in war. The Black Book doesn't say what Ronald was expected to arm his men with, but I would say probably at least a bow or hackbut. So did Ronald arm four men at his own expense, or did he make similar contracts with his own tenants requiring them to provide arms for themselves? I'd say probably a bit of both.

At least one or two Elizabethan writers commented on how gallowglass were "picked men", selected for their size and strength. So perhaps Ronald picked his four of biggest and strongest tenants and armed them.

Here's one of the entries in the 1638 muster rolls: Thomas Butter of Callemulling has; a sword, a pistol, a pollaxe, a bow and arrows, and two hackbuts. He has three men with him, each with only a sword. This is clearly an example where a tacksman provided his men with arms.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A fascinating question, Stephen, and worthy of study.

I'm not sure a direct comparison between Gallowglass and Highland tenants, sub-tenants, etc. is appropriate, the Gallowglass being professional soldiers.

The West Highland warfare thesis doesn't really go into the sourcing of weapons, nor does his secondary source, Gregory, who I have been re-reading. I think wealth and poverty will be major factors in the answer. A sub-sub-tenant's servant in an area of poor soil or climate might be unarmed and on the perennial verge of starvation, while one on high-yield acreage might be provided with weapons in times of need by the sub-tennant.

I recall from Martin Martin's work on St. Kilda that the islanders there were so poor that they only had a single flint striker/fire steel for the entire population.

Arms for professional soldiers were provided by the upper echelon. They were a benefit for the entire group, like arms in general, but one who could afford to maintain soldiers would likely focus resources there first, and worry about cottars last.

Better arms in Scotland came from cities like Glasgow, Sterling, and Perth. They required cash payment, and cash in the Highlands came from their black cattle.

Those are my immediate thoughts.
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: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 6:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard Worthington wrote:
I'm not sure a direct comparison between Gallowglass and Highland tenants, sub-tenants, etc. is appropriate, the Gallowglass being professional soldiers.


Were gallowglass professionals though? My current understanding is that the gallowglass families that settled in Ireland were not very different from their counterparts back in Scotland. Neither one of these groups were usually full time professional soldiers in my opinion. Both groups worked as mercenaries in Ireland. The only difference is that after their contract was finished some would go home to Scotland and the others would stay in Ireland. I'm sure the officers probably saw themselves as pros, just like any other hereditary profession in Gaelic culture, but the rank and file were probably just tenants on these officers lands.

Another interesting tidbit of information in The Book of Clan Sweeney, is that as part of one-eyed Turlough MacSweeney's submission to O Donnell, O Donnell gave MacSweeney 120 axe-men. After this the Book says that MacSweeney had 150 axe-men divided into 3 groups of 50 men each. So it seems that only 30 of these 150 gallowglass were Scots, the other 120 men were Irish. I imagine that these 30 Scots propably formed the officer core of MacSweeney's gallowglass. The 120 Irishmen were propably in the same situation as tenants on the lands of Highland tacksmen, owing their landlords both rent and military service.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, OK, I've added the Book of Clan Sweeney to my "need to read" list. Laughing Out Loud

We are equating Gallowglasses with tacksmen and their families, I assume? In the Highlands, fosterage was common among the tacksmen and for the sons of the clan chiefs. I wonder if some sons were picked for military training, and fostered appropriately, rather than for strengthening social and political ties.

Off on another tangent: the thought occurred to me that the areas where ther was a corn surplus would likely be the same as those areas where wiskey was distilled in later time. Surplus corn and surplus sons would make mercenaries less of a hardship on a clan.

Tangent 2: in addition to muster rolls, there are bonds of manrent, which may give the numbers of men required, and their arms. Worth looking into, anyway.
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: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 7:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My current thinking is that:
-Earls and major clan chiefs equate to Irish kings.
-Lairds and minor chieftains equate to gallowglass constables.
-Tackmen equate to gallowglass officers.
-Tenants equate to regular gallowglass and kern (wealthier tenants being the equivalent of gallowglass and less wealthy tenants the equivalent of kern).
-Sub-tenats / cotters usually didn't participate in warfare, often only having enough for their families to barely scape by, let alone afford weapons. They were sometimes pressed in service by their chief, having only farming tools as weapons.

Of course things weren't always this simply, this is just speaking in general.

As for fosterage, one of the first things that one-eyed Turlough did after he agreed to become O Donnell's vassal was to foster O Donnell's son.

Richard Worthington wrote:
I wonder if some sons were picked for military training, and fostered appropriately, rather than for strengthening social and political ties.


Yes I think so. As I said gallowglass were "picked men". I can easily imagine a tacksman or gallowglass officer fostering one of his tenants sons of he thought the child showed signs that he would grow up to be big and strong.

Éirinn go Brách


Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Sun 20 Aug, 2017 3:46 am; edited 3 times in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 10:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That seems like a good working definition, although I think in Scots usage, tacksman and tenant are synonymous, the tacksman being the tenant of the chief.
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




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

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 8:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard Worthington wrote:
That seems like a good working definition, although I think in Scots usage, tacksman and tenant are synonymous, the tacksman being the tenant of the chief.


Tacksmen and tenants were not synonymous. The tacksman was usually a relative or close associate of the chief, who gave the tacksman long term leases on land, at what might be considered a low price. The tacksman then rented, on a short-term basis usually, that land to his tenants who hired cotters to help make the crop. In a sense tacksmen were tenants of the chief but their status and relationship to the chief was very different from the relationship they had with their tenants. The tacksman was a confidant to the chief and when the clan regiment mustered, he was an officer as opposed to a common soldier. Of course the tacksman, who could afford the array of weapons carried by the front-rank fighting man, was ever in the van and they were also most likely to be killed or wounded in the Highland charge.

In terms of how the land was used by the tacksman versus the tenant, there is not much of a comparison. The tacksman seldom farmed any land he retained for his own use, requiring his tenants to do it for him, taking them away from their own pitiful tracts. This was according to the terms of the lease. The tacksman usually leased the property to his tenants for no more than seven years but frequently leases were from year to year. The tenants participated in their own impoverishment by drawing lots among themselves each year to determine who would tend which tract(s). Not knowing which acreage they would tend from one season to the next removed incentive to improve the property; no need to drain or fertilize the field if someone else would have it next year. You can see the difficulties inherent in the system.

The system did not end immediately after Culloden either. This went on until the late 18th century but by that time the tenants were emigrating and a lot of tacksmen went with them.

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
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 10:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I withdraw my supposition. (LOL!)

Yes, run-rig did not end with Heritable Jurisdictions.
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 12:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't wish to seem pedantic, but numerous authorities equate tacksmen and tenants. Mitchell (1825) says:

Quote:
... the second class of the clan, who are called tenants, tacksmen, or goodmen...
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 12:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Reference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=lqYuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&dq=tacksman&as_brr=3#v=snippet&q=Goodmen&f=false
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




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

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 1:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard Worthington wrote:
I don't wish to seem pedantic, but numerous authorities equate tacksmen and tenants. Mitchell (1825) says:

Quote:
... the second class of the clan, who are called tenants, tacksmen, or goodmen...


Me neither. But what they are called by one person does not make them something they are not, in strict terms. Remember that I said "in a sense tacksmen were tenants," but there is enough difference between them and their tenants to certainly put the tacksman on a higher plane. I also explained what I meant by my first sentence.

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
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 2:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I cited one author, but encountered several early sources which equated tacksmen and tenants. I see, however, in general, the hierarchy, historically, is defined as tacksman, tenant, and subtenant.

That includes an act of 1555, which gives legal precedence to your definition.
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sun 20 Aug, 2017 8:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

From McInerey's The Galloglass of Thomond, 2015:

Quote:
According to Barnaby Rich (d.1617) an English veteran of the Nine Years War, ‘if the father hath been a galloglass, the son will be a galloglass’.25 A similar sentiment was expressed by the writer of a tract titled ‘A description of the Power of Irishmen’ in c.1540, who noted that ‘their sons learn to be men of war from the age of 16 years and be continually practised in toils thereof’.26 Elizabethan solider and publicist, Thomas Gainsford (d.1624), observed that the Gaelic professional classes ‘live in a kindred, the father instructing the son, or brother, and he his cousin or friend’.27 A similar system of instruction must have taken place for members of the established galloglass kindreds, probably undertaken in a close-knit environment with other kin.


http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/hist...homond.pdf
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 20 Aug, 2017 6:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes there is evidence, such as the references you quoted Richard, that being a gallowglass was a hereditary position. We also have evidence that gallowglass were selected for their size and strength. These two statements would seem to contradict one another.

The way I explain this, is that gallowglass officers did indeed train their sons to follow in the family business, but the rank and file gallowglass were selected from their tenants.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Mon 21 Aug, 2017 8:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think it seems reasonable that the English writers would be most familiar with the galloglass officers, and they extrapolated from there. Genetics and upbringing would make it likely that sons of the ordinary galloglass would frequently follow the family business, but not always. So, as an arm-waving generalization, the quotes are correct, but not the whole story. Replacements after heavy losses would have to come from outside of the existing families.
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 21 Aug, 2017 9:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Absolutely, many tenants son's would have followed in their father's footsteps and served as gallowglass. However these men were still, first and foremost, tenant farmers.
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: Thu 24 Aug, 2017 6:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Earlier in this thread we discussed Alasdair MacColla and his involvement in the development of the Highland charge. After a bit more research and thought I have a little more to say on the matter.

It is the opinion of Dr. David Stevenson that MacColla developed Highland charge, first using it at the Battle of Laney in Ireland in 1642. Now I haven't had the chance to read Stevenson's work yet but from what I've been able to find from other sources, is that he bases his opinion on a short description of the battle given by a Rev. Alexander Clogy.

Here is what Rev. Clogy had to say: "In his [MacColla's] first encounter, at the head of a few Irish Highlanders and some of Antrim's Irish Rebells, that were Brethern in Evil, against Eight hundred English and Scotch, having commanded his Murderers to lay down all their Firearms, he fell in among them with swords and durks or scanes, in such a furious manner, that it was reported not a man of them escaped of all the Eight hundred."

So according to this account the Royalists laid down their firearms and attacked the Covenanters with swords, scians, and dirks. I'm not sure that this account is enough evidence to say that the Highland charge was used at Laney. The biggest issue is that it doesn't specifically mention either the firing off a volley or a charge. I can see how Dr. Stevenson could interpret the text the way he does but, in my opinion, without the specific mention of a volley followed by a charge we can't call this a "Highland" charge, it could just as well have been a standard infantry charge.

Rev. Clogy's account doesn't really give us much details about the battle. Perhaps the reason that the Royalists charged is because they were ambushing an unsuspecting enemy. I'm still looking for more sources for this battle battle to see If more details can be found.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Rev. Clogy was probably wrong about MacColla being in command of the Royalist forces at Laney. At this point in time I believe that MacColla was still only a Captain serving under the command of Alexander MacDonnell (younger brother of the Marquis of Antrim). In 1644 MacColla was made a Colonel and put in command of the Irish Brigade sent to Scotland. However the plan was MacDonnell would raise more troops in Ireland and then sail to Scotland and assume command from MacColla. So IF the Highland charge was used at Laney then perhaps the credit should go to Alexander MacDonnell and not Alasdair MacColla. That said I don't think there is enough evidence to say that either of these two gentlemen deserve the credit for the Highland charge.

Éirinn go Brách


Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Sat 26 Aug, 2017 5:50 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Worthington





Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 91

PostPosted: Fri 25 Aug, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm not inclined to believe Stevenson. Happy

But I think we tend to overthink the highland charge anyway.

I think I recall that MacColla's men had a lot of pikes? Which sounds rather more conventional that Highlanders, although he had Highlanders as well. Perhaps Auldern was the first Highland charge? I'm not sure how to classify Inverlochy.
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: Sat 26 Aug, 2017 4:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As far as I know we have two contemporary sources for Montrose's campaign of 1644-45. Patrick Gordon of Ruthven's A Short Abridgement of Britane's Distemper, and Rev. George Wishart's Memoirs of the most renowned James Graham Marquis of Montrose.

According to Wishart (who was Montrose's personal Chaplain), Montrose's initial plan of attack at Tippermuir was as follows: "When Montrose saw the superior number of the Covenanters, and especially their strength in horse, as he himself had none, there being only three in all his army, he was afraid they might surround him, and attack him all at once in the front, flank, and rear; therefore, to prevent this, he extended his front as much as he could, placing his files only three men deep; and, that they might all engage the enemy at the same time, he ordered the men in the first rank to rest upon one knee, those of the second to stoop, leaning over the first, and the last rank, in which he placed the tallest men, to stand erect. He ordered them likewise to be sparing of their powder, of which they were very scarce, and not to fire a single musket till they came up to the face of the enemy, and that having once discharged their pieces, they should immediately fall on boldly sword-in-hand; and if they observed these orders he was confident the enemy would never stand their attack. Montrose himself took the charge of the right wing, which was opposed to Sir James Scot; the left he committed to Lord Kilpont, and placed MacDonald and the Irish in the centre. This was a very prudent disposition of his men, for, had he placed the Irish in the flanks, as they had neither pikes nor swords, they would otherwise have been much exposed to the enemy's horse.

So it looks like, to make the most of his limited powder supplies, Montrose planned to execute the Highland charge. However this isn't what actually happened. Wishart says that the battle opened with the Covenanter's sending forward skirmishers to which Montrose responded by doing the same. The Royalists skirmishers beat back the Covenanter skirmishers who in their confused retreat disordered their own lines. The Royalists were now out of powder so their only hope was to take advantage of this disorder and commit to an all or nothing charge.

Wishart goes on to say: "He, therefore, ordered his whole army to begin the attack, and they immediately rushed forward upon the enemy, setting up a great shout. The enemy first discharged their cannon, which were planted in the front of their army, but being at a distance, they made a greater noise than they did execution; then marching down their army, the horse attacked Montrose; but as his men had already spent their powder, and few of them being armed with pikes, and many wanting even swords, they had recourse to such arms as were readiest, to wit, stones, of which, by chance, there was plenty at hand, and poured such volleys of these upon them, with so much strength and courage, as obliged them to retreat, and give them no more trouble. After this the Royalists crashed into the Covenanter's lines. The Covenanters were routed and perused for six or seven miles.

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


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Highland Clans and Gaelic Culture
Page 7 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