Author |
Message |
Richard Worthington
![](images/avatars/34126535595d27e003cfa.jpg)
|
Posted: Sat 26 Aug, 2017 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought I had read Wishart, but on checking, I see I have not (yet!).
So, few pikes. Dearth of ammunition seems to have been a common state with Highlanders. Add to that a mixed bag of firearms and general lack of artillery. These seemed to be factors that necessitated the Highland charge. The Highland charge was used at the end of the pike and shot era up until the offset bayonet era. I'm not sure how that factors in.
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Sat 26 Aug, 2017 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Richard Worthington wrote: | I think we tend to overthink the highland charge |
Your probably right here. Still I think that giving MacColla all of the credit for "inventing" the Highland charge is an idea that's worth challenging.
Richard Worthington wrote: | Perhaps Auldern was the first Highland charge? I'm not sure how to classify Inverlochy. |
Looking at both sources I mentioned earlier Inverlochy seems to be the first use of what I would consider a true Highland charge (though if Wishart is to believed Montrose planned to use one at Tippermuir).
Patrick Gordon has this to say about the battle of Inverlochy: "It fell O Cahan, with the left wing, to charge Argyll's right wing; he commanded by the major not to give fire till he gave it in there breasts, and this course in the right wing he rightly observes also; and thus patiently receaveing there shot, without giving fire, till they fired there beardes, both wings make a cruel havock of the enemies; leapeing in amongst them with their swords and targets, they quickly put them to disorder, and disperses them over all the fields. There van, by this, perceaving themselves naked, and there wings broken and dispersed that should flanked them, did hardly withstand the shock of Montrose van, who charged them, and followed their charge in a close body, with such strength and fury as they were forced to give back upon their rear; who, instead of opening their ranks to receive them, and give the enemies a new charge, they queit there standing, brakes their order, and flees confusedly towardes the castle"
Now if the first usage of the Highland charge was at Inverlochy then this raises the possibility that Montrose in fact introduced the Highland charge to the Highlanders.
I say introduced rather than invented because I don't think that Montrose invented it. An almost identical tactic was employed by Scottish soldiers fighting for Gustavus Adolphus in the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631. Here is a quote from a Lieutenant Colonel Muschamp of Lumsdell's Regiment: "I suffered not my musketeers to give their volleys, till I came within pistol-shot of the enemy: at which time I gave order to the three first ranks to discharge at once; and after them the other three: which done, we fell pell mell into their ranks, knocking them down with the stock of the Musket, and our swords."
This sounds almost exactly like a "Highland" charge to me. Now Gustavus Adolphus' tactics were something most well learned military commander of this time would study, and so between MacColla and Montrose I think Montrose is the more likely candidate to be the one to have studied the tactics of Gustavus Adolphus and introduced them to the Irish and Highland Scots.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Richard Worthington
![](images/avatars/34126535595d27e003cfa.jpg)
|
Posted: Sat 26 Aug, 2017 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I don't think Montrose invented it. I think it has been invented countless times throughout human history. What makes it Highland is the motley collection of firearms and the dearth of ammunition. One shot, make it count, drop the firearm, draw sword, and charge downhill to close with the enemy as quickly as possible. The reason I hesitated before with Inverlochy is because there were minor skirmishes throughout the night before, but a shot now and then doesn't mean Montrose's men had gobs of ammunition. So in retrospect, my definition will work for Inverlochy.
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Richard Worthington wrote: | No, I don't think Montrose invented it. I think it has been invented countless times throughout human history. |
Good point. So at most you could say Montrose might have re-invented it, but as I said before, I think it's possible, maybe even likely, that Montrose got inspiration from accounts of Gustavus Adolphus' tactics. If this is the case then you could say that Gustavus re-invented it and Montrose introduced it into Scotland.
I do wonder though. As people like Gustavus Adolphus, and Maurice of Nassau before him, looked to the ancient world for inspiration on military tactics, is it possible that this particular tactic was inspired by the way the Romans would advance into close range with the enemy, throw their javelins, draw swords and charge, before the enemy had a chance to recover from the volley. This is probably something thats impossible to proove, but the thought of it makes me laugh a little to myself, as some people see the Highland charge as some kind of traditional form of combat that links the 18th century Highlanders all the way back to the ancient Celts, so I think it would be funny if it actually linked them back the Romans an enemy of the Celts.
Anyway that's enough of a tangent for now. Thanks for sharing your opinions Richard, as you said I'm probably over-thinking things just a little bit
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Lin Robinson
|
Posted: Sun 27 Aug, 2017 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is Stevenson's opinion that McColla (not Montrose) introduced firearms to the Highland Charge. That is debatable, of course. I do think that the Highland Charge is a natural extension of other tactics, possibly dating all the way back to the Celts and Romans. Certainly, as Richard says, people have thought of it and modified it throughout history. After all, it is not too hard to come up with the idea of launching what missiles you have at your enemy then rushing in for hand-to-hand combat.
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
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Richard Worthington
![](images/avatars/34126535595d27e003cfa.jpg)
|
Posted: Sun 27 Aug, 2017 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
The "why" of history can be difficult, but the "when" is easier. Your quotes are brilliant, Steven.
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Richard Worthington
![](images/avatars/34126535595d27e003cfa.jpg)
|
Posted: Sun 27 Aug, 2017 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Erm, make that Stephen.
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Sun 27 Aug, 2017 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course the consistent lack in numbers of cavalry and pikes, and more importantly the low supplies shot and powder meant that the Royalists only hope of winning a field battle was the Highland charge. So whether Montrose was inspired by the tactics of Gustavus Adolphus, or he devised the Highland charge himself because it was the logical move to make in his position, or something else, we'll propably never know, but the account from Lieutenant Colonel Muschamp is so similar to Montrose's plan for Tippermuir that I had to share it.
How much the Highland charge owes to pre 1640s Gaelic warfare is still up for debate IMO.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Mon 28 Aug, 2017 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
So after more research I've come across a couple of contemporary references for the Battle of Laney. Unfortunately most of these references only give us details like the date and location of the battle, and the names and numbers of those involved.
Here is one of the more detailed accounts of the Battle of Laney, from an officer of Sir John Clotworthy's Regiment: "The next meeting of the British and Irish was at Bunderaga near the Crosses in the Route. The British of Coleraine marched out under the Command of Archibold Stewart of Ballintoy, and other Officers, to the number of 600 Men and a Troop of Horse to get a prey. On which the Alarm was up, and the Irish under the Command of Alexander MacColla MacDonald, to the number of six or seven hundred Men, charged them in Boggie Ground and beat their Horse in amongst their Foot, and followed close in their Rear, and without any great Opposition took the Route, which was the ruin of most of them, leaving their Colours with the Enemy."
So this account tells us that the encounter took place on boggy ground. However it doesn't tell us if the two sides deployed their forces and fought a field battle, or if MacColla attacked Stewart while he was on the march. I tend to think it was the latter as this is how the Irish typically chose to fight the English.
There are many examples (Glenmalure, Clontibret, Yellow Ford, Moyry Pass, Curlew Pass etc.) of the Gaelic Irish harrassing the English as they marched through forests or mountain passes, using both national and man-made obstacles to slow them down while they shot them to pieces from cover behind trees or higher ground, and then when the English were on the verge of breaking the Irish would charge in and finish the fight with their swords and scians. This is what I think probably happened at Laney in 1642.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Fri 15 Sep, 2017 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So lately I've been reading up on the Battle of Benburb, and while there are plenty of details about the events leading up to the battle and the skirmishes which preceded it, there are not many details about the main engagement itself. According to at least one source, when O Neill advanced on Monro's position, the Irish held their fire until they were within a pikes-length of their opponents. The sources don't say much else about the firing of muskets, instead they focus on the role of the Irish pikes and swords in winning the battle.
Given how close the two lines were before the Irish opened fire, I can't imagine that many shots were exchanged before they closed in with pikes, swords, and musket butts. In fact I think that it's likely that the Irish only fired a salvo or two and then charged. O Neill had served for over thirty years in the Spanish army in the Netherlands and was aware of the tactical developments of Gustavus Adolphus, he was also in command of MacColla and his men for the two years before they shipped off for Scotland, so it entirely possible that Owen Roe O Neill introduced the idea of the Highland charge to MacColla.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Jason O C
|
Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2017 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems I missed quite a bit since I last saw this thread. I might have more to say when I've read through it all more carefully but for now I have one more thing to say about the Highland charge, and that is, that I've thought of another reason why I think that the Highland charge probably wasn't used before the 17th century.
As had been stated 2/3 of a clans fighting men were light infantry, primarily armed with bows. The other 1/3 were heavy infantry armed with; helmets, mail, swords, and two-handed axes. Well there is some evidence (see Crawford's thesis) that these heavy infantrymen might also have been using bows, as well as their swords and axes. So this means that potentially every Clansman was armed with a bow.
IF the Highland charge was the preferred tactic in use before the widespread adoption of firearms then I don't think bows would have been the missile weapon of choice. Think about it, why would you spend years training to use a bow; only to run up close to the enemy, loose one shot, drop your bow, and then charge in with swords and axes? Surely javelins would have been a better choice of missile weapon in this scenario. Javelins don't require years of training to become proficient with. Also they are by their nature disposable, you don't need to worry about looking around for your bow after a battle.
Anyway just a quick idea that I thought I'd put forth for discussion.
Jason
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2017 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi again Jason. I agree that earlier Highlanders probably didn't use there bows in exactly the same manner as muskets were later used. Instead of running up close a loosing a single shot, they would probably hold back until they had spent their arrows, of which each man probably carried one or two dozen. Otherwise like you said, what's the point in using a bow at all. If your only going to loose a single shot, then a javelin could do the same task as good as, if not better. That said I don't agree with your point about dropping bows being a problem. Later Highlanders had no problem in dropping their muskets. What else could they do with their missile weapons when they had to engage in close combat?
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2017 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do we know for sure that Highland bowmen spent years refining their skills in the use of the bow to a high pitch? If not -- and if they were just average or mediocre archers -- it might actually have been a good idea to use proto-Highland charge tactics by getting close to loose only one or two relatively accurate short-range shots before charging in with hand-to-hand weapons.
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Jason O C
|
Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2017 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Truth be told Lafayette I have no idea how much archery training your typical Highlander had. As I said it was just a quick thought that I felt like sharing. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, but basically I think that if you were to try to execute a Highland charge, without the use of firearms, then javelins would probably fit the tactic better than bows.
Jason
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Stephen Curtin
|
Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2017 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette. From what I can tell from the few references we have to Highland Scots archers is that they were said to have excellent aim but that didn't use bows of as high a poundage as the English were using. How much training the typical Highlander had probably varied hugely from depending on the wishes of individual Clan Chiefs.
Jason. I agree that javelins would be a better choice of missile weapon if you knew for definite that you were going to execute a Highland charge. However bows were probably more tactically flexible, being able to be used in convensional battles, in skirmishes, or in the Highland charge.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
Jason O C
|
Posted: Sun 19 Nov, 2017 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point Stephen. Yes of course bows could be more effectively employed, in a wider variety of situations, than javelins. However this tactical flexibility implies that Highlanders weren't the one-trick-ponies that some people think they were.
Jason
|
|
|
![](templates/myArmoury/images/spacer.gif) |
|
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
|