Prestonpans 1745

[Westmarcher]

Why did they throw their targes away? Did they have more muskets than popular myth / history would lead us to believe?

I cannot remember the source - it may even have been me who quoted it in another thread (from The Last Highlander - about Lord Lovat?) - but I'm sure there was something somewhere about so many thousand muskets (more than the whole Jacobite Army) being found by Govt. troops immediately after and in the subsequent months after Culloden.   

[Hwiccee]

The targes were heavy so they were usually left on carts until just before the battle and then taken up. But at Culloden they did a night march and left the baggage behind. So 2 sources mention that most had been ditched by the time of the battle.

Duffy says muskets were short at first and on the march into England. But by the time they got back to Scotland most/all would have them.

[d_Guy]

Have you seen the old 1960s BBC production of Culloden? It was done as if a TV crew and reporters were at the scene. I always remember the reporter saying, "This is grapeshot; and this is what it does." It also showed the British infantry protecting the man on the right.

Yes! And remember it vividly - need to see if I can find on YouTube. The change in bayonet thrust was described in detail so that is my impression I'm sure. I believe that BBC production was based on Prebble's book of the same name but in a quick review did not find it specifically addressed (although the discription of Barrell's foot have every bayonet bloody and bent)

An inventory of weapons captured (not clear that all were from the field) - E. Andrew Mobrays edited and annotated edition of Lord Archibald Cabell's Scottish Swords...at Culloden - has 2320 muskets and 190 broadswords (for which Cumberland had offered a one shilling bounty)
Puzzling numbers.

Blackmore's Destructive and Formidable does offer not only the firing pattern used but specific use of the bayonet ordered by Cumberland which involved changing from a right facing trust to a left facing thrust (to the front however) to take the unprotected side of the opponent.
Cumberland heavily drilled his men and is no doubt responsible for instilling the neccessary discipline against a highland charge.

Personally I would have (as a song about Prestonpans relates) filled my breeks and run all the way to Aberdeen!

[d_Guy]

Incidently I have not spread Duffy's book - sounds like it is recommended?
Should I live long enough I may get to the '45 for wargaming - but after FPW - which I just started!

[Hwiccee]

d_Guy,


This is the Duffy book - http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Throne-Jacobite-45-Reconsidered/dp/1910777056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459607765&sr=1-1&keywords=fight+for+the+throne

I am sure others will also sell it. I am also sure many, including myself, would agree with FierceKitty that pretty much everything by Duffy is good. Some of it now is getting a little dated but the above book is a few months old.

I am afraid I am not a fan of Blackmore's Destructive and Formidable and I would be wary of relying on it. Duffy says the Government troops abandoned platoon firing at Falkirk and switched to rank firing or volleys. I don't know about this against the highlanders but that makes sense based on similar examples. As you say Cumberland drilled his men hard and this did the trick.

[d_Guy]

Thanks Hwiccee!
I live pretty much in a wargaming vacuum and miss out on regular play and detailed discussions with other gamers. You may know I am primarily interested in pre-1700 (1590-1695) warfare on the Celtic Fringe - difficult to figure out precisely how, in many cases,  the fighting was conducted and the specific weaponry - long on myth and legend - short on hard data - and many passionate opinions. For me at least it is a lot of guess work!

Would enjoy sitting down and discussing Blackmore over a beer or three! He did give the firing pattern at Culloden as by rank with kneeling front rank (and flank companies) reserving fire until point blank.

Have just order Duffy.

[pierre the shy]

Well we got to play the game twice last night.....the second result was better than the first for the Jacobite cause 

The first game was over pretty fast - the stationary fire of the better government infantry and (purhaps) the impetuousness of one of the Jacobite commanders  meant the first game was over pretty quickly since Lord George Murray's command was shattered early one (guess I shouldn't have gone into that ravine after all  ).

The second game was quite different - we kept the same sides but this time the Jacobites decided to manuvere their units more before charging on the right flank, though the Government troops on the left flank got reasonably aggressive and roughed up the Gordon brigade badly, collapsing it. In the middle and one the right things went well for the Jacobites, the Jacobite cavalry managed a couple of breakthroughs against disordered Government infantry after they had been pushed back by Paul's (Lord Perth's command) Highlanders.

That was enough to give the Jacobites enough of an advantage to claim the victory in the end.

So am I going commit to doing this in 10mm metal?- not entirely sure...watch this space as I have other projects going too and only so much of a budget. 

     

[Leman]

Watched Culloden on You Tube yesterday, and it is still pretty impressive, and in some respects better than some more modern offerings. Charles Stuart came across as not so much Bonnie but rather N**head Prince Charlie. A positive outcome appears to have been the populating of Canada and Australia.

[d_Guy]

Thanks for the battle reports Pierre - one for two - not too horrible.

[FierceKitty]

Earlier Scots thumped the English today, but it needed some lucky dice. If my artillery hadn't knocked out their C-in-C and paralysed their outflanking move, it would had been the last haggis for Leslie.

[Hwiccee]

Thanks Hwiccee!
I live pretty much in a wargaming vacuum and miss out on regular play and detailed discussions with other gamers. You may know I am primarily interested in pre-1700 (1590-1695) warfare on the Celtic Fringe - difficult to figure out precisely how, in many cases,  the fighting was conducted and the specific weaponry - long on myth and legend - short on hard data - and many passionate opinions. For me at least it is a lot of guess work!

Would enjoy sitting down and discussing Blackmore over a beer or three! He did give the firing pattern at Culloden as by rank with kneeling front rank (and flank companies) reserving fire until point blank.

Have just order Duffy.

Sorry for the delay in replying - life got in the way

I had not heard of your interest in the Celtic Fringe but I did track down and bookmark your excellent blog - http://inredcoatragsattired.com/ if like me you didn't know it. My gaming group played a lot of Scottish/Irish ECW battles a while back. One of the group has written a forthcoming (or at least I think they are) 'Celtic Fringe' supplement to a popular ECW set. The rules are terrible but the games were good.

This is a time/area I am also interested in but more secondary for me. Nowadays I am mainly interested in the period 1640 -1770 more generally (i.e. across Europe) & 1680-1720 more specifically. I know what you mean about the difficulty in finding material on the details of combat and I am afraid it doesn't change after 1700 or if you start looking at the wider world. This brings me to Blackmore. I think he has clearly looked at the period English/British drills and regulations. He is very good at detailing them if you don't have time to do so yourself or access to them.  But he relies on less than reliable older secondary sources for much of the rest, including other details on the English/British. So often supporting information on the English/British is weak but when you look at the arguments he makes about effectiveness, etc, then he is extremely weak. Maybe his ideas are right, although I don't think so, but as he uses very few non English sources it is impossible to tell. So while the details of the various drills are good much of the rest is just a re-hash of older very unreliable information.

Duffy - Good, I hope you enjoy the book when it comes.

[KTravlos]

You guys are talking about the Peter Watkin's film. You should also take a look at his La Commune (7 hours). That is one weird but interesting director. He had it on youtube.

[d_Guy]

Hey Hwiccee, thanks for the comments about the blog and sharing the interests of you and your wargaming group!
Your comments on Blackmore's sourcing are useful and give me some much needed correction in understanding his presentation.
I use some primary sourcing but even with remote access to a couple of different university libraries, hard to find specialized material. I rely on Stuart Reid for a  general overview of warfare in Scotland but he may overstate the use of Musket&Pike for forces raised outside of the lowlands.

Ireland is its own kettle of fish. Being a linear thinker I may eventually catch up to your more modern era. 

Likely you already know these but a couple other books I've found useful (1640 - 1650) are
Peter Edwards "The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars" and
David Lawrence "The Military Books and Military Culture in Early Suart England" although it sounds like you have wandered through the primary sources for this already.

[pierre the shy]

I use some primary sourcing but even with remote access to a couple of different university libraries, hard to find specialized material. I rely on Stuart Reid for a  general overview of warfare in Scotland but he may overstate the use of Musket&Pike for forces raised outside of the lowlands.

Hi d Guy

Having thought about my two test games I'm looking at potentially doing Scots ECW 1644/45 using V&B wing scale rather than Jacobites - still get plenty of highlanders and Gordons 

There are quite a few parallels between the events of 1645 and 1745 - e.g. the site of Montrose's victory at Auldearn is only some 10 miles from Colloden.

I have had a long interest in the period (never actually gamed it through) and have several of Reid's books - are you saying that you feel that his assertion that units like the Strahbogie Regt would be organised as a "conventional" pike and muisket unit is incorrect? Should they be treated more as "redshanks" highlanders? 

Earlier in his campaign at Aberdeen Montrose was joined by Lord Kilpont with 500 "bowmen" - do you think that the majority would be armed with bows or are there only some still so armed when the clan mustered? there seems to have been a lack of firearms amongst the highland clans at this time according to some sources so bows, sword and targe and Jedbourgh staves were the main weapons used?       

[d_Guy]

Hi d Guy

Having thought about my two test games I'm looking at potentially doing Scots ECW 1644/45 using V&B wing scale rather than Jacobites - still get plenty of highlanders and Gordons 

There are quite a few parallels between the events of 1645 and 1745 - e.g. the site of Montrose's victory at Auldearn is only some 10 miles from Colloden.

I have had a long interest in the period (never actually gamed it through) and have several of Reid's books - are you saying that you feel that his assertion that units like the Strahbogie Regt would be organised as a "conventional" pike and muisket unit is incorrect? Should they be treated more as "redshanks" highlanders? 

The Gordon (Huntley's) foot (Strathbogie, Strathaven, and Strathdee)  I am - at the moment (Fyvie) - portraying as M&P with no warrior element. Since they were involved in the Bishops Wars and were armed (in part) by the King - this seems justified.

A unit like Inchbrakie (Atholl Highlanders) - at the moment (Fyvie) - are more highland warrior like  but with a musket component. These were the fellows who were throwing rocks at Tippermuir but certainly had the opportunity to aquire muskets from the field.

So far this accords with Reid I think. It is on the Covenanter side that I think there were somewhat fewer M&P
My rule of thumb (and it may prove to be wrong) is that the further from major cities the more poorly armed the unit (which affects the Covenanter side the most).  With both a field army in England and Ulster - the Covenanters were pretty much down to city militias and Fencibles for home defense. The militias are well armed (M&P)  - for example Aberdeen - and the Fencibles variablely so (if they showed up at all) - I have them as mainly M&P but with part of each unit with improvised weapons.

Earlier in his campaign at Aberdeen Montrose was joined by Lord Kilpont with 500 "bowmen" - do you think that the majority would be armed with bows or are there only some still so armed when the clan mustered? there seems to have been a lack of firearms amongst the highland clans at this time according to some sources so bows, sword and targe and Jedbourgh staves were the main weapons used?       

Kilpont was actually at Tippermuir . When I did Tippermuir I had Kilpont as commanding the Perthshire militia (M&P) (which had gone over to Montrose) supported by a contingent of MacDonalds of Keppoch with bows (~100). This is Reid's take (regarding the number of bows).

For troops from the Highlands and Islands I have two unit types that get assembled in different ways - a highland warband - the retinue warriors ("Redshanks") with the entire collection of highland weapons and the clan levy with various polearms and improvised weapons.
The grey area (one of several actually) is precisely how highland Shire Fencibles were armed and organized (Seaforth and Sutherland for example) possibly M&P or a mix with warrior types thrown in (the MacKenzies - at Auldearn I think - had some bows).

Incidentally when I say "for the moment" it means the point were I currently am in working through Montrose's campaign. It is a very slow progression as I learn more (or am forced to make up stuff!  )

I don't know if any of this made sense - I would love to find THE book that explains it all!

BTW do you have an opinion about Martain Hackett's "Raise the Clans"?