[Neal Matheson]

Read either of Chris Duffy's excellent books on The '45 "the '45" and "Fight for a throne", really detailed comprehensive and almost totally blows the angry mob idea out of the water .
Sorry guys Higland forces pulled off complex maneuvers (often under fire) consistently throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Though refreshing in some respects Reid stetches the available evidence to extraordnary degrees in his work. Charges or rather rapid advances to contact were performed by other European armies in the 17th century notable Swedish and English "elite" formations.

[Lin Robinson]

[Lin Robinson]

[Neal Matheson]

This is off the top of my head.
Memoirs of Ewan Cameron has at least two examples of complex maeuvering, Battle of Glen Fruin features a feigned retreat and ambush, march to Inverlochy.Clifton show military competence. Any amount of maneuver in the 45 preston Pans was a comples advance to contact. The left flank (MacRaes) at sherrifmuir. If Reid is to be believed (I don't agree with this interpretation) numerous feints before the British lineson the left flank at Culloden. Auldearn featured (again according to various reconstructions) being shot onto target, a feigned retreat and a pincer maneuver.

I think we are all in agreement, the sources do allow for a certain amount of leeway but we are all roughly describing the same thing. There was a fantastic analogy drawn about historians. Historians are like artist painting a mountain, they may vary in technique palette and perspective but what they paint can be recognised as the mountain.

That's a fantastic quote from Stevenson, now that's a dense book!

[Stephen Curtin]

Neal. Yes I remember reading a paper before, that theorized that Highlanders may have been influenced by the tactics of Gustavus Adolphus. I must admit I know next to nothing about the Swedish army during the Thirty Years War, but I've read that the musketeer would time a salvo (three lines firing simultaneously) right before the pikemen would rush forward. Also the cavalry would charge, fire pistols just before contact was made, then draw swords for the ensuing melee. Both of these tactics are not that different from a Highland charge.

Yes it seems we are all mostly in agreement with one another. It's just the finer details we're discussing.



Lin. Yes this thread has strayed quite a bit from it's original course.

I wasn't saying that the Highlanders were undisciplined and ignorant of modern warfare, only that they lacked experience and discipline in comparison to MacColla's veterans. Each man having fought for four years in Ulster, and many having fought in the Thirty Years War. In my opinion few regiments in all of Ireland, Scotland, or England could match these men.

It also has to be remembered that both the Highlanders and MacColla's men shared the same martial background. If the Highlanders had stuck around long enough, I'm sure that they could become just as formidable as MacColla's men, so why didn't they?

There are two reasons I can think of that the Highlanders would abandon the royalists cause and head for home.

Firstly. AFAIK, these men were not being paid. They had little insensitive to fight for the royalists cause, except that it gave them a chance at revenge on the Campbells.

Secondly. When Montrose started heading southward, most Highlanders would have feared leaving their homes unprotected from reprisals from the Campbells.

This issue of men going home after a single battle may not have been there before firearms became a mainstay in Gaelic warfare. At least in Ireland, a big insensitive to fight for a Chieftain was payment. As I said the majority of troops were Mercenaries. This insured that men wouldn't just return home are a battle, but would serve as long as they were getting paid. I'm not sure what the situation was in Scotland at the same time though. Did they fight for payment or was it more like feudal obligation?

[Lin Robinson]

[Stephen Curtin]

[Lin Robinson]

[Stephen Curtin]

Before you go Lin here's and interesting quote I just found. On the 5th of June, 1602, Lord Mountjoy wrote to the English privy Council:

"At my first arrival (in Ireland), I found the rebels more in number than at any time they had bin since the conquest, and those so farre from being naked people, as before times, that they were generally better armed then we, knew better the use of their weapons then our men, and even exceeded us in that discipline, which was fittest for the advantage of the naturall strength of the country, for that they being very many, and expert shot, and excelling in footmanship all other nations. In regard whereof I presumed that man's wit could hardly find out any other course to overcome them, but by famine."

[Stephen Curtin]

[Stephen Curtin]

double post.

[Stephen Curtin]

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?

As I said earlier, the majority of Gaels fighting in Ireland were mercenaries. Typically battalions of gallowglass were hired for a period of three months, with each gallowglass receiving three cows as payment. While employed the gallowglass would be housed and fed by the local peasantry. However some groups of gallowglass were granted land by Irish chieftains, in exchange for becoming permanent vassals, rather than mercenaries.

According to the Book of Clan Sweeney, such an agreement was made between the MacSweeneys and the O Donnells of Tír Chonaill. In exchange for land they would provide military service, with two men to be supplied per quarter of land. The book also mentions that should the MacSweeneys be short a man, they were obliged to pay a fine of two cows, one for the missing man, and one for his equipment. Unfortunately It isn't mentioned whether or not the MacSweeneys had to pay rent, as well as provide fighting men. It's likely that they did pay rent though, as usually only the clergy and the learned class were exempt from military service or paying rent.

As the Gaels of Scotland didn't hire mercenaries to fight for them, I imagine that their system was similar to that used by the O Donnells.

[Lin Robinson]

Interesting post Steven...

Here is a brief description of the system of rents in the Highlands of Scotland as it pertained to military service:

' 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.'

There is some similarity to the system used in Ireland to raise the Gallowglass.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Stephen Curtin]

Thanks Lin, this information is very helpful. The quote you provided says that all classes of men, including cotters, could be called on for military service by a Clan chief. While the quote I gave in my last post says that cotters were not permitted to go to war. It could be that cotters were only called on in extreme circumstances, when a "rising out" was deemed necessary.

We know that in the 17th and 18th centuries, tacksmen fought as in the front rank, armed with; muskets, pistols, swords, targes, and dirks, so I think that this is the class that gallowglass (and their equivalents back home in Scotland), were recruited from.

Light infantry were most likely recruited from the tenant class. As these men rented their land from the tacksmen, I think it would make sense if these men also served as the tacksmen's attendants, as was done by gallowglass in Ireland.

I've heard from some, that the rear ranks of Jacobite armies were often made up poor Clansmen, armed with their farm tools. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, then these men would have been cotters.

[Stephen Curtin]

Pedro. Yes Gaelic peoples did not pass on lands and titles from father to eldest son, as was done elsewhere in Europe. Instead, when a king or chieftain died, all of his male blood relatives were eligible to become the new king or chieftain. If you do a Google search for "tanistry", you should find more information, that's what the English called this practice.

[Lin Robinson]

[Stephen Curtin]

Agreed. All men on a chief's lands owed him service in one from or another. I suppose it was up to the chief to decide what that service entailed, whether it be military or labour, or whatever else.

Yes. As I said, I'm only beginning to research the Gaels of Scotland, so I'm looking at things from the frame of reference that I'm more familiar with, that being the Gaels of Ireland.

As you said, these two groups of Gaels had many similarities, but also some differences. For example, both groups had two basic troop types, armoured and unarmoured. The armoured men of Ireland fought mostly from horseback, while those of Scotland fought on foot. Irish unarmoured troops preferred darts, while those of Scotland preferred bows (though both weapons were used by both groups). In the 16th century, Scottish Gaels developed a liking for two handed swords, while in Ireland, gallowglass mostly continued using axes. The use of mercenaries was very prevalent amongst Irish chieftains, but not so much with Scottish clan chiefs. Of course the political situation in both countries was very different.

What I'm wondering is, was there any difference between a battalion of retained gallowglass (such as O Donnell's MacSweeneys), and their equivalents back home in Scotland? Both groups received land in exchange for military service, and both groups seems to have been made up of 1/3 armoured men, and 2/3 unarmoured men.

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? Do you think that they would act as his attendants when on campaign? 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? Were they trained in swordsmanship?

Sorry about all the questions. I still have a lot of research to do on this subject.

[Lin Robinson]

[Stephen Curtin]

Thanks Lin, yes this is helpful. I think that you've misunderstood what I was saying about mercenaries. I was trying to say that the use of mercenaries was one of the differences amongst the two groups of Gaels. They were used in Ireland, but not in Scotland. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

If I remember correctly it was the Earl of Huntly who requested Irish troops from the Earl of Antrim. These were the men that MacColla lead to Scotland. Not that this is particularly important.

As for a minimum of equipment being required of certain classes of Gaelic society. In both Ireland and Scotland, a dirk or scian seems to have been the bare minimum of weapons, commonly used amongst all classes of people. Coming at things from an Irish perspective again. According to the Book of Clan Sweeney, gallowglass were required to be equipped with cotúns, mail shirts, pisanes, helmets, and axes. While they aren't mentioned in the above book, gallowglass' attendants are described, in other sources, as having spears, darts, and bows.

If gallowglass in Ireland were required to have the above items of equipment, and needed attendants to carry it all, I image the same was true of their counterparts in Scotland. Is their any evidence that tacksmen in the 17th and 18th centuries had attendants to carry their equipment and provisions? If so would these attendants be expected to take part in combat?

I'm not expecting you to answer all of these questions Lin, as I said I need to do more research. I'm just thinking out loud.