[Walter Stockwell]

These look like pictures from John Wallace's Scottish Swords and Dirks. I think someone has a copy for sale in the classifieds section! This is a classic and very valuable reference for Scottish weapons.[/i]

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

The first picture, the gralloch knife, is from Forman's book The Scottish Dirk. And the rest, I think, are from Wallace's book. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I have to disagree a bit with you, Chad! That "whinger" has both a by-knife and a fork to fit in its scabbard, and I'd say that that's more of a gentlemans option.

By the way, it is possible to get Scottish Swords and Dirks from Kent Trotman Ltd.http:// www.kentrotman.com I good copy, though it's softcover and not hardback.

Cheers,
Henrik

[Chad Arnow]

The first is from the Forman book, the rest from the Wallace book. Good eye, Henrik.

I wasn't stating that any where undoubtedly common people's weapons, I was simply trying to post pics of less complex items than the intricately dirks we usually see. The bottom line is that we have little to no research that answers GG Osborne's question. Most publications show the more ornate stuff and most museum seem to display the fancier stuff. The stuff pictured above is more simple or crude than a lot of the rest, though.

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

I think I misunderstood you, Chad. Sorry. Now I see your point.
Speaking of crude dirks, there is a short bladed pewter hilted dirk in Forman's book.

Also, there is a dirk with a carved handle and pewter pommelplate in the Museum of Scotland, which I think looks somewhat plainer and less ornament that the usual display pieces. It's pictured in Wallace's book, Mac's picturetrail and is the same dirk that MRL has based their latest dirk on. It's supposedly from the early 18th century and is made with a broken sword blade. But I think it looks far closer to the middleranker's weapon than the dirks that generally are displayed. Any thoughts about this?

Cheers,
Henrik

[Walter Stockwell]

Perhaps the classic Scottish dirk was always a weapon for the upper class, and there were no "simple" dirks. Stuart Reid has some interesting facts in his book 1745 about Culloden. Reid estimates 1,000 highland casualties (and another 1,000 lowland.) After the battle, the British recovered >2000 muskets, but only 190 "swords and blades." This is from Cumberland's report of the battle.

Reid also mentions annecdotes about units surrendering after the battle. Groups of 70 - 100 men would have muskets for just about everyone, but only 10-20% had swords, and very few had dirks.

Maybe the average person didn't have a dirk, but simply knives more useful for everyday life. As Jim Bowie showed, one can use a butcher knife to fight, but the classic Scottish dirk seems like a poor utility knife. In this case, banning dirks and swords can be seen as an attack on symbols of leadership and authority in Scotland rather than a ban on weapons per se.

[Chris Goerner]

[GG Osborne]

Walter, I think you may be on to something. Could it be the reason why common "everyman's dirks" aren't in evidence is because there weren't any in the first place!? Perhaps dirks (as we know them today) were only upper class ornaments, a semi-utilitarian version of a long, common-place knife used by everyone either as a tool, hunting blade, protection, etc. Perhaps the "Dirk" we know and love is just a rich man's version of the commonplace. In a perverse way it fits with the later evolution of the 19th Century dirk as jewlery and gives some food for thought. Could it be that examples like the one shown by Chris (and thank you very much for that!) is a common man's way of aping his betters rather than the other way around?

As the originator of the thread, I'd like to make a call for comments on Walter's idea and see where it may take us.

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

I think it's a very interesting theory, though I'm not entirely convinced...

Stuart Reid's theories on the numbers of swords are only based off the official Army reports of Jacobite gear/weapons picked up after the battle. And I've been led to believe that soldiers discarded their hangers in preference of Jacobite swords. To strengthen this, I have to add that there were also the "Argyll Militia" or Ballimore's Highlanders, as it's real name was, who were perhaps men who recognised quality and therefor picked up a Scottish basket hilt. After all, they did make a charge into the fleeing Jacobites when the route had begun, and some fierce swordplay began. (Sorry, I just got a little carried away.)
Also perhaps the dirks weren't recorded at all by the official reports? Due to soldiers just keeping what the picked up during or after the battle? For instance this was told in a letter by one of the Officers in Monro's to his brother after the battle: "I must tell you, that in the Midst of the Action the Officer that led the Camerons call'd me to take Quarters; which I refus'd, and bid the Rebel Scoundrel advance, he did, and fir'd at me; but providentially miss'd his mark: I then shot him dead, and took his Pistol and Dirk, which are extremely neat."

In the sources for Walter Scotts' Rob Roy there is a referrence which claims that the dirk was the most common murder weapon in the Highlands (or entire Scotland perhaps) during the early 1700s. Were the clan-gentry the only ones comitting murder? Probably not!

Perhaps also the word "dirk"/"durk"/"durcke"/"dork" were used to described any dagger at the time? Just a thought.

Chris,
Thanks for sharing that photo. A very interesting dirk! I've not yet seen a dirk with a broadsword blade that has been left sharp at both edges!

Cheers,
Henrik

[Martin Wilkinson]

[GG Osborne]

Good ideas, Henrik. However, what was referred to as a "durk" may (and I repeat may) have been just a common name for a dagger or indeterminant type other than it was ubiquitous, long and may have come in a variety of styles and types. Perhaps what we think of as "dirk" is our modern classification for what we commonly think of[ as a "dirk", i.e. something with a carved grip and a 12-16" single-edged blade has contaiminated our whole thought process about the nature of the weapon. Maybe this is what gives Vince's thoughts their validity in the first place. There was no dirk evolution because there was nothing like what we think of as a "dirk" that was widespread among all the people. Perhaps if you had asked the common guy in the heather for his "durk", he would have shown you a long quillon-less dagger and said "Here it is." Just thinking!!

As for the Cumberland inventory after Culloden (with due respect to Reid, et al), my guess based on other data and commentaries, especially Sheridan and the other Irishmen in the Price's train, was that the Scots at Culloden did exactly what they did at Prestonpans, etc. They threw the musket down after the first or second volley, dropped them where they stood and charged with their ]broadsword and other personal armament. Remember that these muskets were captured Long Land Patterns with a preponderance by Culloden being the .69 1717 or 1728 French muskets that were shipped over and maybe a smattering of .69 Spanish Catalonian-stocked muskets from the 1719 fiasco. In other words, these muskets had no personal, intrinsic value to the Scots as did a heirloom broadsword, dirk, or targe. They had been somewhat trained in using them for the sake of volley-fire but clearly in no battle is it recorded that they charged the British with bayonet. It was the charge with sword and shield that broke the lines at Prestonpans and very nearly did the same to Barrell's Regiment at Culloden. These issued firelocks were dropped and left in situ, then recovered by Cumberland after the battle. In my personal opinion the swords and dirk left the field with their owners whose property they were in the first place ( as opposed to an issue musket.) These edged weapons had a val;ue in the eye of the Scot that clearly the musket did not. The musket was an issued item, munition grade and commonly available after almost any battle. Besides you have to have powder and ball to use a musket and we know that these commodities were always in short supply in the Prince's army, so why carry a cumbersome item that immediately identified you as a belligerent when you had no way to make it work effectively over the long term? You could always find another if you needed one by taking it just the same way you reived cattle.

No, With respect to everyone else that has speculated, I believe the muskets were left behind and the items that really mattered , my own rather expensive sword (which may have been an heirloom) or my dirk/durk (my everyday "utility knife) was taken awa from the battlefield. Only those of the wounded and dead who actually owned one (and no family to take it home?) were left on the field. Perhaps the comments offered by several chronicles that the "solemn oaths" made on pagan iron still gave the weapon an aura of sacredness we don't fully comprehend today.

What do you guys think?[/u]

[Martin Wilkinson]

[GG Osborne]

As well may be, Martin, but Cumberland was pretty specific in his orders against "looting" after the battle. I think it would have been fairly difficult for anyone but officers to have acquired specimens after the fracas was over and there were only about 20 or so officers per regiment to begin with. It's interesting that a goodly number of these blades wound up in the (in)famous fence at Twickenham after the insurrection. I just don't see that enough missing blades were taken as prizes after the action was over to make up for the lack of evidence that they existed in the first instance. Certainly not enough for writers such as Reid to make the assertion that the Scots weren't armedwith blades., which is what he seems toimply. Just opining, you understand.

[Walter Stockwell]

[Walter Stockwell]

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

Very interesting, George and Walter!

Now personally I don't think only the frontrankers and officers were armed with broadswords. I don't believe all of these were top-notch. Many were probably heirlooms whcih might have seen action in previous rebellions, some clanfeuds, and some duels.

Also, I remember Reid stating that the french muskets were all supplied as a "stand of arms", meaning they were supplied with bayonet an epees... But what happened to the epees? Did the jacobites use them? Did untrained jacobites simply ditch them during the campaign because they found them useless and cumbersome? Or were they not included in the Army records because they were seen as a part of the stand of arms? I wish someone could answer these question.

I think dirks of good quality would have been looted. It's possible to hide a dirk either under your coat or in the haversack.

Reid also states that dirks would be easily hidden and might well have survived. I agree with him on this, but he doesn't mention any dirks from the Army records. I think it's a bit suspicious! And gives me more reason to believe that dirks were looted.

Cheers,
Henrik

[Martin Wilkinson]

[GG Osborne]

Henrik, from my understanding, a "stand or arms" is a musket, bayonet, and cartridge box. I have done a good bit of research and I cannot find what type of cartridge box was supplied. I don't believe the epee d'infantry was supplied except, possibly by the composite Scots Regiment who would have carried them as a matter of course.

The two choices for the cartridge box is the "gargosier" or bellybox that was issued to the Companies de la Marine to managed France's overseas interest and may or may not have had the white leather anchor on the front flap Reid illustrates the gargousier in the Osprey "Highland Clansman" book at least giving a nod to his choice here.

The other choice is the older over the shoulder box which he also illustrated in plate F1 P.70 in "Like Hungry Wolves." This box was obsolete by the 1740s and was illustrated by Saint Remy circa 1697. (see Petersons Arms and Armor in Colonial America" page 230. ) This cartridge box has an integral bayonet from attached to a strap just over the box flap which indicates to me that it might have been an addition when the bayonet achieved popularity over the plug bayonet.

The point is probably at least as many cartridge boxes were on hand as muskets. (A sporran is a pretty dangerous place to store cartridges!) My guess is that they just emptied the arsenals like England did after the 1622 masacres in Virginia (bows and arrows, and 1000 Brown Bills, neat!!) and whatever else was gathering dust and shipped them to the Prince.

That leaves us back at the sword question. Archibald Campbell says that the bulk of the captured swords wound up at Twickenham so that means something less than 190 plus two that were marked with the Royal Cipher were in the fence. But that is a triviality.

The question that we will never have a clear answer to is "What happened to the swords?" That is, of course, if there were any swords in the first place. Although romanticised Chevalier Johnstone, one of the Prince's Franco-Irish entourage says: "They charge with rapidity, discharge their pieces, when within musket length of the enemy, and then, throwing them down, draw their swords, and holding a dirk in their left hand with their target they dart with fury on the enemy through the smoke of their fire. When they reach within reach of the enemy's bayonets, bending their left knee, they by their attitude cover their body with their targets which receive the thrust of the bayonets, which they contrive to parry, while at the same time they raise their sword arm and strike their adversary...they bring down two men at a time, one with the dirk and one with their sword." Very romantic, although Johnstone must be given some credit as an eyewitness to these events.

Another source, the Peniculk artist showns this attitude with the target held high covering the face and upper torso and a fair number of swords but mostly with gentry. There are numerous pictures of rear-rankers with just a musket and bayonet, almost always attached to the musket.

There has been a great deal of research done on the composition of the Prince's army. One you eliminate the clan regiment's heavy complement of officer's (double that or more of a British regiment of foot), and the second-rankers, say maybe another 50or so, that leaves a lot of other ranks, the petite farmers and sub-tackholders. Did they guys have the full panoply of arms? Probably not. But there were obviously enough firearms. My conclusion, fewer swords and dirks meant fewer to leave behind.

[Thomas McDonald]

[GG Osborne]

I had been lead to believe, in other correspondance, that the target illustrated as 4:4, page 57 in "Swords and Sorrows" was an example of a contract model made for the Prince's army even though it is dated c. 1700 in that book. I imagine Joe Lindsay "The Targemaker" in Inverness would have an opinion if asked.

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

George,
Might it be because you've read it in a Reid book? I remember Reid dating it to 1745 in Highland Clansman 1689-1745...
Also, the Targemaker, Joe Lindsay, claims decent to the very same targemaker who made the targes for Charlie in Perth!

Cheers,
Henrik