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.

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. 

     

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.

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

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.

Quote from: d_Guy on 02 April 2016, 03:19:26 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: d_Guy on 08 April 2016, 08:38:53 PM
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?       

Quote from: pierre the shy on 09 April 2016, 02:30:19 AM
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.

Quote
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"?

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.

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!

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.

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