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: Tue 20 Sep, 2016 7:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen...I understood what you were saying about mercs in Scotland. My comment was for emphasis only.

There was not, to my knowledge, a list of requirements laid down for Highland clansmen to have in the way of weaponry. In the rest of Scotland, in early times, the King called for frequent "wapinschaws" which were musters where the locals brought their compliment of weapons for inspection by the King's local officials. I do not have the requirements readily at hand but I think they were to bring an iron skull cap or other helm, padded jack or maile (too expensive for most), sword or other long knife, spear, and armored gloves. In Bruce's time the amount of arms required varied depending on the supposed wealth of the individual and, of course, the soldier could bring weapons over and above the minimum requirement if he had them. These requirements were only enforced outside the Highlands, at least once the divide between the two regions of the country became greater. I think we can assume that the Highlanders and Islesmen who fought at Bannockburn mostly conformed with Bruce's mandates for weapons, since the Scottish army was trained to fight as moving bodies of spearmen, which required a certain loadout of arms and equipment.

The Highland regiments were considered to be light infantry in spite of the rather hefty compliment of weapons carried by the front rank fighting men. That included the officers. Undoubtedly many of the tacksmen were mounted and that was reported by the people of Edinburgh and elsewhere during "The '45." But, no, I do not think tacksmen had attendants to help them carry their weapons. The short-barreled blunderbuss was apparently popular among clan regiment officers as they are mentioned fairly often in contemporary accounts. Not too much problem carrying one of those.

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 20 Sep, 2016 11:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
Stephen...I understood what you were saying about mercs in Scotland. My comment was for emphasis only.


Ah ok, sorry about that.

Lin Robinson wrote:
There was not, to my knowledge, a list of requirements laid down for Highland clansmen to have in the way of weaponry. In the rest of Scotland, in early times, the King called for frequent "wapinschaws" which were musters where the locals brought their compliment of weapons for inspection by the King's local officials. I do not have the requirements readily at hand but I think they were to bring an iron skull cap or other helm, padded jack or maile (too expensive for most), sword or other long knife, spear, and armored gloves. In Bruce's time the amount of arms required varied depending on the supposed wealth of the individual and, of course, the soldier could bring weapons over and above the minimum requirement if he had them. These requirements were only enforced outside the Highlands, at least once the divide between the two regions of the country became greater. I think we can assume that the Highlanders and Islesmen who fought at Bannockburn mostly conformed with Bruce's mandates for weapons, since the Scottish army was trained to fight as moving bodies of spearmen, which required a certain loadout of arms and equipment.


Here is King Robert the Bruce's legislation concerning arms and armour made in 1318:

"Item, it was ordained and assented that each layman of the kingdom having £10 in goods should have for his body in defence of the kingdom a sufficient haqueton, a basinet, and mailed gloves with a lance and sword. And anyone who shall not have a haqueton and a bacinet should have a good habergeon or a good iron [coat of mail] for his body, a cap of iron and mailed gloves............... Moreover the lord king wishes and commands that anyone having the value of one cow in goods should have a good lance or a good bow with a sheath of arrows, namely twenty-four arrows with the pertinents,"

As you said, it's reasonable enough to assume that the Highlanders and Islesmen followed these requirements as Angus Óg, Lord of the Isles, was a close ally of The Bruce, and he and his men seem to fought in the same manner as the Lowland Scots at Bannockburn.

The next legislation concerning arms and armour doesn't appear until 1430, during the reign of James I. By this time relations between the Lordship of the Isles and the Crown were not so good. Only a few mainland Highland Clans (such as the Campbells) remained in favour with the Stuart Kings of Scotland. This meant that the Kings laws were for the most part ignored by the Highlanders and Islesmen, and so these later minimum legal requirements of arms and armour, do not apply to them. The first and only time that Highlanders were specifically mentioned in these legislations was in 1575.

I don't think any such legal requirements existed amongst the Gaels of Scotland, but did there need to be. We already know that those who could afford it wore a helmet and either a cotún or a mail shirt. If you couldn't afford even a dirk and bow and arrows or a few darts, then you wouldn't be expected to go to war.

Lin Robinson wrote:
The Highland regiments were considered to be light infantry in spite of the rather hefty compliment of weapons carried by the front rank fighting men. That included the officers. Undoubtedly many of the tacksmen were mounted and that was reported by the people of Edinburgh and elsewhere during "The '45." But, no, I do not think tacksmen had attendants to help them carry their weapons. The short-barreled blunderbuss was apparently popular among clan regiment officers as they are mentioned fairly often in contemporary accounts. Not too much problem carrying one of those.


By the time of the Highland regiments, weren't all infantrymen considered light infantry? Also (and I'm not stating this as fact, just guessing) wouldn't these Highland regiments store there provisions in with the armie's baggage train? The reason a gallowglass required one or two attendants, was to carry his armour, food and drink etc. Medieval Irish armies often didn't use baggage trains, I'm assuming that the same was true in the Highlands and Isles. You mentioned tacksmen during the '45, riding instead of marching. This is also something I'm looking into for earlier periods.

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: Wed 21 Sep, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Heavy versus light infantry….as years passed, there remained a distinction. In earlier times, heavy infantry were just that, heavily armored and heavily armed. As such, their mobility was reduced and they were generally in the center of the line of battle. Over time the distinction became blurred but there was still a difference.
By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, it was difficult to tell them apart, but there are many references to “light infantry” in the 18th century and later. In many of the Highland regiments formed after Culloden, a company would be designated as light infantry. At the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, the 93rd Highlanders’ “light infantry company” was sent to seize and hold a redoubt in front of American lines. They took it, with the rest of the regiment in a supporting role, but were ultimately forced out.
The 71st Fraser Highlanders, formed in Scotland to fight in the American Revolution is an example of a regiment in the British military establishment of the time. Lawrence Babits, writing about the Battle of Cowpens, fought just a few miles from where I sit, has the following to say about the 71st when it was attached to Tarleton’s Legion:
“Each British army regiment had two specialized “flank” companies. One was composed of grenadiers; the other was light infantry – men selected for their agility and endurance. Light companies were usually consolidated into battalions operating in front or on the flanks of a military force.” At Cowpens there were about 160 soldiers in the light battalion – it was a small force in general and was operating in a remote region against an enemy which also had a small force overall. The 71st were considered to be among the best troops in the southern division of the British army. Unfortunately, at Cowpens, Tarleton made several major blunders which led to the defeat of the Legion and the near destruction of the 71st.
There are no discussions that I am aware of regarding the arming and equipping of the light infantry but there are references in the literature on the French and Indian War to certain troops being issued with carbine length, lighter caliber muskets, like the 77th Montgomery Highlanders. There were even a few rifles issued to select troops.
I think if a light infantryman and a heavy infantryman were standing next to each other you might have some difficulty in deciding which was which. It was in their functions and the tactics they used that we can see a difference.

Certainly Highlanders, from earliest times, were more mobile than British army regulars.

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: Wed 21 Sep, 2016 11:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
Heavy versus light infantry….as years passed, there remained a distinction. In earlier times, heavy infantry were just that, heavily armored and heavily armed. As such, their mobility was reduced and they were generally in the center of the line of battle. Over time the distinction became blurred but there was still a difference.


Yes of course you are right. Light and heavy troops were not just defined by the weight their of arms and armour, but also their battlefield role. After armour was abandoned, they were still defined by their battlefield role.

That being said, when I spoke of Gaelic light and heavy infantry, I was referring to the time before they abandoned armour.

Lin Robinson wrote:
Certainly Highlanders, from earliest times, were more mobile than British army regulars.


Agreed. By the standards of other nations, Gaelic armoured infantry might be considered medium, or even light troops. However their role on the battlefield would place them in the heavy category, IMO.

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: Sun 25 Sep, 2016 5:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

According to a document called "The History of the MacDonalds" (written some time after 1628), 10,000 Islesmen were mustered before the Battle of Harlaw in 1411. However, of these 10,000 men, 6,600 were selected and the rest were sent home. I imagine this was because 3,400 men turned up with insufficient arms and armour, and were probably fined.

This suggests that you were right Lin. The number of 10,000 Islesmen ar Harlaw is probably an overestimate. I think it's possible that the numbers might have been misunderstood, rather exaggerated. After all, 10,000 men were raised, but not all of these men actually fought in the battle.

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: Sun 25 Sep, 2016 6:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This may be grasping at straws, but as of so far, I've been unable to find any laws concerning the minimum arms and armour required of Highlanders and Islesmen, I've started looking back to the origins of the Gall-Gaels. Up until 1263, the Norwegian Kings were, at least nominally, overlords of the Kings of the Isles. In 11th and 12th century Norway every freeman was required to own at least a spear, a shield, and either an axe or a sword, with a bow and 24 arrows at every rowing bench. About a decade after the Norwegians signed over to Scottish their claim to the isles, King Magnus VI of Norway expanded the law to require helmets, and mail shirts or gambesons of wealthier freemen.

I'm not sure if these Norwegian laws were ever enforced in the Hebrides, but many Clan Chiefs supported Magnus' father in his campaign against the King of Scotland in the 1260s. Of of these Chiefs, Dougall MacRory, is actually the same man who sent the first gallowglass to Ireland as a dowry for his daughter.

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: Sun 25 Sep, 2016 7:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Aside from the obvious similarities between Scandinavian and Gaelic military equipment, such as their ships, mail armour, helmets, bows, axes, swords with lobed pommels etc. Here are two more possible pieces of evidence for Norwegian influence to Gaelic arms and armour.

Firstly, "The King's Mirror" written in about 1250, before the Norwegians signed over the Hebrides, mentions gambesons made from "thoroughly blackened linen", this sounds a lot like the "linen garments, manifoldly sewed, and daubed with pitch" which John Major tells us were used in the Highlands.

Secondly, Norwegian bucklers bare a strong resemblance to those used in Ireland and the West Highlands.



 Attachment: 20.34 KB
FB_IMG_1472818068339.jpg
Reproduction of a 13th century Norwegian buckler

 Attachment: 40.35 KB
604135_880580165325739_8542494144762413400_n.jpg
Surviving piece of a buckler from the National Museum of Ireland

 Attachment: 98.94 KB
SC00958658.jpg
Buckler on a West Highland grave slab

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 28 Feb, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
A battalion of gallowglass was typically made up of 60 - 80 spars, and each spar consisted of a gallowglass and his two attendants. Many of these attendants were armed with spears, darts, or bows. So in effect a battalion of gallowglass could potentially be made up of between 180 - 240 fighting men, 1/3 of which were armoured, and 2/3 unarmed. This is exactly how armies in the Highlands and Isles were composed according to Crawford. Is this a coincidence, or does it indicate that the light infantry of the Highlands and Isles were part of a three man unit or spar, as was the case in Ireland?


I'll answer my own question by saying, yes this is probably just coincidence. The source which speaks of spars being made up of a gallowglass and two attendants was written in about 1600 by John Dymmock. Dymmock states that each gallowglass had a man to bear his harness, and a boy to carry his provisions, and these 3 made a spar. I've since learned of other sources which state that a spar was made up of a gallowglass and his harness bearer. As these other sources leave out the boy who was to carry provisions, I think it likely that this boy was too young to participate in combat, and so wasn't considered part of the spar by some writers.

So if a spar only consisted of 2 fighting men, one armoured and one unarmoured, then it doesn't match the 2:1 ratio from Ross Crawford's PHD thesis.

I now think that a gallowglass' or tackman's attendants may have been younger male relatives, rather than tenants on his lands that owed him service. There are a couple of sources which hint that being a gallowglass may have been a hereditary profession. I can imagine the son of a gallowglass starting his career as a provisions boy, eventually become a harness bearer, and finally a gallowglass himself. This of course is reminiscent of how a page became a squire and then a knight.

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 28 Feb, 2017 1:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
' The agricultural system under the clan chief prior to 1746 was based on parcels of land leased by the chief to his “tacksmen.” Tacksmen were middlemen, often close relatives, who were obligated to provide military service to the chief. In return they received, at nominal cost, long-term leases on large tracts. They did not usually tend this land themselves, renting it out instead to those under them, their “tenants.” The tenants rented the lands from the tacksmen in small groups, tending subdivided plots. Under the tenants were the “cotters” who were simple laborers. In time of conflict, all these persons were required to provide military service to the chief. This was as much a military organization as it was a co-op.'


If we compare the above social structure to the legal requirements below.

Quote:
Here is King Robert the Bruce's legislation concerning arms and armour made in 1318:

"Item, it was ordained and assented that each layman of the kingdom having £10 in goods should have for his body in defence of the kingdom a sufficient haqueton, a basinet, and mailed gloves with a lance and sword. And anyone who shall not have a haqueton and a bacinet should have a good habergeon or a good iron [coat of mail] for his body, a cap of iron and mailed gloves............... Moreover the lord king wishes and commands that anyone having the value of one cow in goods should have a good lance or a good bow with a sheath of arrows, namely twenty-four arrows with the pertinents,"


Obviously the 14th century tacksmen could afford the equipment required of a man with £10 in goods, and surely most tenants had the value of a cow in goods, and so would have been able to afford a bow and arrows or a spear. I'm not sure how much a cotter would have in goods, I'm guessing not very much, perhaps not even a cow, and so too poor to be expected to be armed.

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: Wed 01 Mar, 2017 5:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nevertheless, the cotters could be called out for military service if the situation demanded it. There were a lot more tenants and cotters than there were tacksmen and the fairly impressive numbers of fighting men attributed to the clans, especially in 1745 - 46, has to include some of the cotter class. Armament is, of course, the big question. Accounts of the clans in battle indicate that farm implements were brought into play at times. Of course a lot of 18th century accounts have been filtered through the writings of Georgian and Victorian Highlander "wannabees" which can certainly have an effect on veracity but, overall I think we must include the cotters in the counts, if only in extreme cases where every man is needed.

I have uncovered something interesting involving tenants and, by extension, cotters, in researching a small book on Highland migration to North Carolina. This appears to have been the situation after 1746 but, if it was not a new practice then it affects something I said in another post. There was a comment regarding what was required of tenants other than rent. To that I replied nothing. Apparently, post-Culloden, this was not true, at least in the relationship between the tenant and the tacksman. Apparently, in the land leases, the tacksman received the right to call on the tenants for up to six weeks a year of service off the farm, and it appears they used that right regularly. That included things like building roads and structures, making kelp for fertilizer, cutting peats, transporting goods and weaving. There was no pay for this and the indication is that it only benefited the tacksman, not the chief. Just thought that was interesting.

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: Wed 01 Mar, 2017 4:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey Lin thanks for the reply.

Lin Robinson wrote:
Nevertheless, the cotters could be called out for military service if the situation demanded it. There were a lot more tenants and cotters than there were tacksmen and the fairly impressive numbers of fighting men attributed to the clans, especially in 1745 - 46, has to include some of the cotter class. Armament is, of course, the big question. Accounts of the clans in battle indicate that farm implements were brought into play at times. Of course a lot of 18th century accounts have been filtered through the writings of Georgian and Victorian Highlander "wannabees" which can certainly have an effect on veracity but, overall I think we must include the cotters in the counts, if only in extreme cases where every man is needed.


Yes I agree. Cotters could and most likely were sometimes called upon for military service. I still think that this was probably fairly rare, at least before the Jacobite period anyway.

When you say fairly impressive numbers of men during the '45, roughly how many are we talking. Ross Crawford's PHD thesis shows us that in around 1600AD the Hebrides alone could raise 6 - 7,000 fighting men, one third of which were armoured tacksmen, and two thirds of which were armed with missile weapons. I wonder if clansmen armed with agricultural tools had more to do with being disarmed multiple times by the government, and less to do with not being able to afford a decent weapon.

Lin Robinson wrote:
I have uncovered something interesting involving tenants and, by extension, cotters, in researching a small book on Highland migration to North Carolina. This appears to have been the situation after 1746 but, if it was not a new practice then it affects something I said in another post. There was a comment regarding what was required of tenants other than rent. To that I replied nothing. Apparently, post-Culloden, this was not true, at least in the relationship between the tenant and the tacksman. Apparently, in the land leases, the tacksman received the right to call on the tenants for up to six weeks a year of service off the farm, and it appears they used that right regularly. That included things like building roads and structures, making kelp for fertilizer, cutting peats, transporting goods and weaving. There was no pay for this and the indication is that it only benefited the tacksman, not the chief. Just thought that was interesting.


Very interesting indeed.

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: Thu 02 Mar, 2017 7:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, Stephen, the answer to your question is a bit more complicated than my statement which generated it, but here goes.

Speaking only of the Rebellion of 1745 now, the use of the word “fairly” comes from some records which survived and may be factual:

1. Most of the clans stayed home. Some, such as the MacDonalds of Sleat, and the MacLeods of Skye, supported the government by simply staying out of the fray. Allan MacDonald, future husband of Flora, was an officer in an independent company raised on Skye, although, aside from the Rout of Moy, he did not serve actively. These were clans with manpower who did not provide any for the Jacobites.

2. In the case of the clans which did rise for Charlie, a lot of the members had to be dragged off to the army while they kicked and screamed. Threats to burn their homes and cause bodily harm to them were necessary in many cases; at least those were their statements after the rebellion, when they were required to account to the authorities as to their participation. You also have to wonder what kind of soldiers conscription by force provides.

3. Desertion and straggling, the curse of all armies made up of irregulars, tribesman and militia, was rampant among the Jacobites. When Ogilvy’s Regiment marched south it was 500 strong. According to Christopher Duffy, desertion took a huge toll on the Regiment by the time it got very far. However, the returns at Falkirk show 900 troops. Is this accurate? If it is then it is impressive and in the book Muster Roll of Prince Charles Edward Stuart’s Army 1745-46, Ogilvy’s has what appears to be a substantial accounting, at least at the time it was compiled.

4. Cameron of Lochiel supposedly brought 600 clansmen to Prestonpans. The Atholl Brigade is listed as having 900 at Falkirk as are the Camerons.

5. By the time of Culloden, the Muster Roll lists the army at approximately 5000 in total, with the Atholl Brigade at 500, the Camerons and Frasers at 400 each, and Glengarry at 420. Considering they had gone through a winter of considerable physical hardship and the Prince could neither pay them nor feed them by that time, the presence of that many was impressive for sure.

Larger armies had been raised before 1745. The Jacobite army of 1715 may have had as many as 12,000 members at some point but desertion reduced it substantially before Sheriffmuir, as did the dispatch of 2,000 troops to Preston – where they were surrendered on the same day that Sheriffmuir was fought.

Had all the Highland clans participated in the various rebellions, the outcomes might have been different but that is pure speculation.

Regarding the various disarming acts, they were difficult to enforce in the Highlands. A disarming act was passed after each earlier Jacobite rebellion, with limited effect for various reasons. It was easy to hide your good weapons and turn in broken and rusty swords and guns. Before Culloden, disarming acts had expirations and you simply went out without visible arms during the period it was enforced. Enforcement was uneven as the earlier acts were not universal, i.e. loyal clans were not affected or allowed to ignore them. So, no, I think the problem was lack of resources to buy arms, not the disarming acts, at least before Culloden.

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: Thu 02 Mar, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks again for the thorough reply Lin. You make a good case that poorly armed cotters did make up a significant portion of highland troops during the jacobite period. I don't know enough to argue otherwise so I bow to your superior knowledge sir.

On another note. It turns out that there is evidence to support the idea, that at least some gallowglass did have 2 attendants who fought alongside him. If you look at this image, above the dead piper is an axe wielding gallowglass supported either side by his javelin throwing attendants.

http://www.warfare2.netai.net/Renaissance/Der...ande-9.htm

It's funny I had noticed this detail ages ago but had forgotten all about it until I was reminded by Charles Dooley's post over on the Gallowglass and Axes thread.

So we know that the tacksman was a middleman, in terms of rent, between the clan chief and his tenants. Perhaps this is also true of military service, or perhaps not. Not that this matters hugely.

If we take the 1318 legislation that each man who owned the value of a cow in movable goods, was to own a spear or a bow and arrows. Now I doubt that these laws were ever enforced in the Highlands or Western Isles, but this particular law does show the minimum wealth required of a clansman who was to serve as light infantry in the early 14th century.

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: Sat 04 Mar, 2017 4:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Re-reading the thread, I see that its gone all over the place. So far we've discussed; regional differences between the Highlands and Isles, cavalry use, Alasdair MacColla and the Highland charge, Gabriele's gender Laughing Out Loud , formations and tactics, Jacobites, the Social structure of Highland Clans, and lots more.

I started this thread thinking that perhaps there might have been regional differences among the Highland Clans, especially Clans with Norman roots such as Campbell and Gordon. As far as I've been able to determine, although the Gordons were granted land in the North Eastern Highlands, they didn't seem to adopt the "Gaelic style" of warfare. From the wars of independence to Flodden and Pinkie Cleugh Clan Gordon fought in formations of pikemen, just as was done in the Lowlands. Then in the late 16th they started using large numbers of light cavalry. I'm not sure where this use of light cavalry came from, but it had nothing to do Gaelic warfare as practiced in Scotland. According to one letter dated to 1565 the Campbells had a small number of light cavalry, but I'm not sure what to make of this. One thing which did make the Campbells stand out, was their ability to raise very large numbers of men. Other than this, the Campbells do seem to have intergrated themselves in Gaelic culture.

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: Sun 05 Mar, 2017 1:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ok so here's where I found the reference to the Campbells using small numbers of light cavalry:

http://www.ed.ac.uk/divinity/research/resourc...d-warfare.

I should have looked closer at this website when I first found it, because it has lots more than just this one article, including the letter. Here's a link:

http://www.ed.ac.uk/divinity/research/resourc.../1548-1565

The letter in question is dated 30 Aug 1565. Now the letter make no mention of light cavalry or light horse, it mentions lychtmen, which I assume means light men. There's a note at the bottom of the letter which states that this meant light cavalry, but without more evidence I'm not convinced.

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





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Tue 07 Mar, 2017 11:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've been following this thread with some interest, and thought that I might add my 2 cents on the subject of pre McColla Highland battle tactics. So the idea is, Highland Clan battles would open with an exchange of arrows and darts, followed by a charge. Similar to the later Highland charge, except using bows in place of muskets. Stephen thinks that because we have no contemporary descriptions of battles, we shouldn't assume that the tactics of the 17th and 18th centuries were used in earlier centuries. I agree with Stephen that we shouldn't make any assumptions. However I also agree with Lin, in that the formations and tactics used were probably fairly simple. If we want to try to imagine how late medieval Clan battles were fought then instead of starting with the Jacobite period and working backwards, perhaps we start in the Viking period and work forwards instead, and maybe we'll be able to see a some developments over time.

It's well known that the culture of the Hebrides was heavily influenced by the Norse, and that they adopted Norse arms, armour, and battle tactics. So how did the Norse fight? They fought in a line formation, with the better armed men in the front ranks, and the less well armed men in the rear ranks. Battles opened with missile weapons, after which the line advanced to engage the enemy. There's a lot of similarity between this tactic and the Highlands change. Besides the obvious differences in weaponry, the only major difference is the act of charging. AFAIK Norsemen, fighting in a shieldwall, didn't use charges. So when did the Gaels begin to use the charge, and why?

This is how I imagine things might have went.
1. We start with the adoption of mail, helmets, bows, swords, axes, and shieldwall tactics from the Norse.
2. Gradually the axe replaced the spear and shield, as the primary battlefield weapon.
3. Muskets get introduced and they gradually, over time, replace bows as the most popular missile weapon.
4. Eventually muskets surpass even the two handed swords and Lochaber axe as a primary weapon. Mail, not being effective armour against musket balls, losses popularity.

When two Clans met each other on the battlefield, I doubt that they simply shot a couple of arrow volleys, then charged at each other braveheart style, but this is basically how the battle of the shirts (1544) is described by historians. Why would these Clans charge each other? To me this charging into combat seems like a waste of energy. Why not march towards your enemies in formation?

I think that there are two things that made the charge a viable tactic for McColla.
1. McColla's Irish Brigade often found themselves opposed by new recruits with little to no experience of war. McColla probably knew that, if charged, these men might panic and run.
2. The reload time of a musket meant that his men might have 20 seconds between shot to sprint at the enemy.
As these two conditions didn't exist in earlier centuries, I doubt the charge was a popular tactic in a head on battle. I'm sure charges did happen, but probably more in the context of an ambush or raid. Anyway I've rambled on long enough, what do the rest of you gents think?

Jason
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 09 Mar, 2017 12:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Jason. The line of development you propose does sound plausible, but there is one problem with it.

Jason O C wrote:
This is how I imagine things might have went.
1. We start with the adoption of mail, helmets, bows, swords, axes, and shieldwall tactics from the Norse.
2. Gradually the axe replaced the spear and shield, as the primary battlefield weapon.
3. Muskets get introduced and they gradually, over time, replace bows as the most popular missile weapon.
4. Eventually muskets surpass even the two handed swords and Lochaber axe as a primary weapon. Mail, not being effective armour against musket balls, losses popularity.


In between points 1 and 2 it should be mentioned that, not only did the Gaels adopt the use of Dane axes and bows from the Norse, but they used them in a ratio of 2 archers to 1 axe-man. This is a significant increase in the numbers of archers from what the Norse were using. This means that the tactics used might have had to change.

Let's imagine a force of 300 Islesmen. 100 men armed with helmets, mail, swords and sparth axes, and 200 men armed with bows and dirks. Now these men could have deployed in a line with 3 ranks, axe-men in the front, archers in the rear. If this formation was common then it might indicate the development from viking period, to medieval, to early modern that you propose.

However other possibilities exist, such as the archer might have been deployed on the wings, or they could have been sent ahead of the line to skirmish. Too many unknowns unfortunately.

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 13 Mar, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry for taking so long to get back and respond to the rest of your last post Jason, I was very busy and it slipped my mind.

Jason O C wrote:
When two Clans met each other on the battlefield, I doubt that they simply shot a couple of arrow volleys, then charged at each other braveheart style, but this is basically how the battle of the shirts (1544) is described by historians. Why would these Clans charge each other? To me this charging into combat seems like a waste of energy. Why not march towards your enemies in formation?


Right. In this context the only reason that I can think of to charge instead of march, is if you think the charge itself will scare the enemy into breaking and running away.

Jason O C wrote:
I think that there are two things that made the charge a viable tactic for McColla.
1. McColla's Irish Brigade often found themselves opposed by new recruits with little to no experience of war. McColla probably knew that, if charged, these men might panic and run.
2. The reload time of a musket meant that his men might have 20 seconds between shot to sprint at the enemy.
As these two conditions didn't exist in earlier centuries, I doubt the charge was a popular tactic in a head on battle. I'm sure charges did happen, but probably more in the context of an ambush or raid.


Yes when firearms became the dominant missile weapon on the battlefield, their slower firing rate could make charging an enemy preferable to marching towards them.

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: Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks to the muster rolls recorded in the "Black Book of Taymooth" and "The Chronicles of Atholl and Tullibardine families", I've gained a better idea of the numbers of tacksmen, tenants, and their arms and armour, and so I thought I'd try to answer some of the questions I asked here earlier.

One of the muster rolls from 1638, records the arms of the Earl of Atholl's tacksmen and tenants from 5 parishes. This amounted to 523 men, roughly 10% of which were tacksmen and 90% were tenants. Cotters were not recorded, as I suppose they wouldn't have had much arms worth counting.

The tacksmen varied greatly in the amount of men and arms they could supply. On the top end of the scale there were some tacksmen who were able to supply as much men and arms as minor Lairds (for example Alexander Robertson of Lude had about 50 armed men), while on the bottom end of the scale there were tacksmen who had no men, and only their own personal weapons.

Tenants also varied a great deal in their equipment. On the top end of the scale there were tenants who had more arms than your average tacksmen, while on the bottom end there were some with no arms at all. These men with no arms were probably only barely a step up from cotters.
There is some evidence to suggest that tenants who had insufficient arms were provided with such by their tacksmen. The Black Book of Taymooth records a 5 year agreement (starting to 1631) between Sir Collin Campbell of Glenorchy and Ronald Campbell, for a tack of 15 merklands. Apart from his annual rent, Ronald was to provide military service to Sir Collin. He was also to supply, at his own expense, four sufficiently armed men. Many tacksmen are recorded as having multiple firearms, and multiple swords etc. so I presume that these extra weapons would have been loaned out to those tenants of theirs who were not sufficiently armed.

I've often read that the front rank of a force of Highlanders was made up of tacksmen, with tenants and cotters making up the rear ranks. The ratio of tacksmen to tenants (about 1:9), as well as the numbers of well equipped tenants, leads me to think this is a much too simplistic view of things. I think a better way to view these tacksmen, as Lin said earlier, is as officers. They of course fought in the front rank, but so did many of their tenants. This also means that equating tacksmen with gallowglass is not really accurate. A better equivalent to tacksmen would be the constables and captains of a battalion of gallowglass.

Éirinn go Brách


Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:52 am; edited 1 time in total
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: Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Now on to some of the questions I asked earlier.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
I'm mostly curious about this tenant class in Scotland. Obviously their loyalty was ultimately to the clan chief, but did they owe any services (other than paying rent) to their tacksman?


Actually this isn't as obvious as I thought. For example when a member of Clan Campbell rented a tack of land from a Member of Clan Donnachaidh. To who was this man more loyal, his landlord or his Clan Chief? Or sometimes it happened that a man might rent two or more different tacks of land, from different landlords. Which landlord was he more loyal to? I suspect this depended a lot on the individuals involved, and the situation.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Do you think that they would act as his attendants when on campaign?


Keep in mind, I asked this question with the idea of comparing a tackman and his tenants, to a gallowglass and his attendants. Well as I said in my last post, it's probably better to think of tacksmen and tenants as officers and privates rather than masters and servants. That being said there are still some similarities in the relationship between tacksmen and their tenants, and gallowglass and their attendants. Both tacksmen and gallowglass sometimes provided weapons for their men, and I imagine those tacksmen who chose to continue to wear helmets and mail into the 17th century probably had one of his men carry and look after this armour while on the march.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Did these men receive military training? As they typically fought with projectile weapons, I image that they honed their skills by hunting. Were they allowed to hunt?


Yes it seems that many tenants would have been involved in hunting. In a hunting roll dating to 1667, the Earl of Atholl commanded all of his vassals to attend a hunt, and for each three merklands, the vassal was to bring one sufficiently armed man. The experience and skills that these tenants would gain from hunting would have been very transferable to a raid or military campaign. Going back to the Example of Ronald Campbell. Ronald was renting fifteen merklands, so besides himself a man with this amount of land would have had to bring four men. Incidentally this is the same number of armed men that he was obliged to provide for military service.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Were they trained in swordsmanship?


Well I haven't found any evidence for tenants training in swordsmanship, but swords are by far the most common weapon. Almost every tenant mustered either had his own or had access to a sword.

Of the 523 men mustered, the lists of weapons of 40 of the men are unfortunately missing, 11 men are said to be too old to bear arms, and 1 man is said to have had weapons, but what weapons are unspecified (though for sake of simplicity I'll count him as having a sword). So subtracting those whose men whose weapons we have no record for, and those men who were considered too old, we are left with 472 men. There were 450 swords, and 3 two handed swords. Compare this with 112 guns and 149 bows and you'll see that the first (and in many cases the only) weapon that most men acquired was a sword. Given their popularity and availability I would assume that many tenants would at least have a basic training in swordsmanship.

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 5 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