Prestonpans 1745

[pierre the shy]

Thanks for your reply D Guy....of course I meant Tippermuir not Aberdeen 

I defer to your knowledge on 1644/45 as beyond the Reid books that I have (and some I'm trying to get back from long lost freind of mine  ) I don't have any detailed sources on this period.

Your blog has a lot of really useful information on it - cheers for that.

[d_Guy]

Thanks for the comment about the blog (although a total work in progress as I learn - mess up - and get corrected - a lot  )
Obviously envy what you, Paul and your group does - if it weren't for the odd eight or nine thousand miles I'd make application to join!
Good gaming!

[Hwiccee]

Hi all,


An interesting conversation but I am afraid I once again have missed a lot and also I am no expert on the Highlanders/Jacobites, I mostly look at standard European warfare of the period, so I can't help that much and most of the rest of this is 'best guess' based on bits I have read.

On the weaponry of the ECW era generally I think that the leaders, and presumably the rank and file also, wanted everyone to be armed with M&P and fight in the 'modern' way - i.e. using similar tactics to those used at the time in the rest of Britain and Europe. So I would expect there to be a big effort to equip even units like the highland fencibles with modern weapons which were generally cheap and readily available, especially to a fairly efficient state organisation. I don't imagine everyone would necessarily have such weapons but I would guess that the unit as a whole would act like a standard unit. Those people armed with 'old fashioned' weapons would join the muskets/pikes and fight like them. So from a gaming point of view I am not sure such a unit would fight as anything different than a standard ECW type unit.

On Kilpont's archers the same seems to have been true but with a twist. I read somewhere that these did have a larger than normal number of bows but the unit actually fought as a standard highland unit - i.e. lots of sword action and very little actual use of the bow. So again from a gaming point of view I am not sure that I would rate them as any different from a standard highland unit.

In the later Jacobite rebellions it was still common for the leaders to want the units to fight as standard units of the time but they often had to rely on 'traditional' tactics. In these campaigns the highlanders often had plenty of 'modern' weapons but still fought with 'traditional' tactics. But this does beg the question 'what were the traditional tactics and where did they come from?' Duffy, Singleton (I think d-Guy you have his booklet) and possibly others think that the origin of what was considered 'traditional' highland tactics in the rebellions was at core actually aggressive Swedish tactics from the later TYW. The idea seems to be that these were introduced by Montrose's Irish troops and then over time became standard 'traditional' highland tactics. They are basically a close range salvo followed by a very aggressive charge. Over the rebellions it was seemingly not that important what you 'fired' in the salvo or how heavy the fire was and similarly it didn't seem to make much difference what you were armed with as you charged in. The key was the tactic and aggressiveness/determination or whatever you want to call it.

Finally on the subject of 'what we know' I thought I would mention a book I like - http://www.amazon.com/Decisive-Battles-English-Civil-War/dp/1783469757 but also available elsewhere.   This is a book looking critically at what we actually know about 7 'famous' ECW battles. It is a real eye opener on how much of the 'history' we think we have is open to question, etc. Unfortunately it doesn't cover the actual 'Celtic' battles but it does do Marston Moor and Preston so the Scots feature a little. But what it does do is show how little we actually know about the 'famous' and fairly well documented battles of the ECW. So with relatively minor and poorly documented highland battles you are going to really struggle to get 'the truth'.

I hope this is some help.

[d_Guy]

Hwiccee,
Enjoyed reading your comments and insights.

I think you are very correct that the leaders (in particular ) wanted every unit armed as M&P.
Certainly Scotland had a substantial officer corps trained in the Swedish TYW armies. The government of Scotland, thanks to the Bishops Wars, was also arguably the best prepared for the wars to come. It seems, but I don't know, that the shire fencibles were the source for much of the initial manpower for the Scottish field armies in England and Ulster. How this effected the remaining fencibles I am not sure, certainly it effected their performance if not how they were armed (and an abundance of amateur field officers didn't help). Still, not convinced that the more rural and highland shires managed to arm all their fencibles as M&P particular with some of the resources being drawn off to support various personal retinues. From a wargaming stand point every unit (short of highland warbands) can be M&P and still provide great games.
Certainly that is the prevailing opinion. I'm trying some different ideas. Also porting everything over to Impetus:Baroque so who knows what's going to come out on the other side 

When I wargamed Tippermuir I had the archers broken out as a small group of MacDonald of Keppoch (Stuart Reid's opinion) supporting the Perthshire fencibles (M&P) both under Kilpont - true the archers didn't do much but they looked good 

We could spend hours on the "traditional" tactics of highlanders - certainly the more aggressive Swedish tactics could supply a plausible origin - they certainly had an effect on Prince Rupert! Much is made of MacColla "inventing" the so-called Highland charge at the Battle of Laney (1642) and then bringing it with the Irish Brigade to Scotland. There are, of course, many other origins offered including the tactics of shield and buckler men (Stevenson).

As you probably know, there is an unresolved discussion about how Montrose's Irish Brigade was armed. As you say, aggression/elan is probably the ultimate determiner for the success of the "traditional" tactic.

I do have Wanklyn's book on decisive battles and will need to revisit it. Incidentally have started reading Duffy and find his style quite precise and enjoyable to read. If you have not looked at  Edwards  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dealing-Death-Trade-British-Civil/dp/0750914963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460394082&sr=8-1&keywords=Dealing+in+death+Edwards a very interesting read and resource - although either shop around for a fourth hand copy or get it from a library! 

Happily in wargaming, at least, fantasy can often masquerade as "truth" with no harm done - more power to it I say