How effective was the "highland charge"?

[pierre the shy]

Came across in my travels today.....SandRhoman History is not an youtuber that I am familiar with until seeing this latest offering:

The Redshanks (Highlanders) were VERY effective in our recent refight of the Battle of Knocknannus 

From the multitudinous comments already posted looks like there is a fair bit of contention about the makers conclusions.   
 

[steve_holmes_11]

Charges are often extremely effective.
The caveat is that if you only have a charge, your enemy may quickly develop counter tactics.

For examples consider.
 * Scythed Chariots.
 * Elephants.
 * Mounted "knights".
 * Swiss Pikes (who themselves put a stop to the mounted "knight").
 * The Highland charge.
 * Various African / Polynesian and other warrior societies.
 * The Banzai charge.


The defenders adapt and change: Usually improving defensive cohesion, fire discipline and confidence.
After this the opening charge fails.

The chargers may then adapt through moves like greater adoption of firepower, combined arms, or operating as smaller shock units.

[d_Guy]

Add in the Swedish Ga-Pa as well.

[steve_holmes_11]

Add in the Swedish Ga-Pa as well.

Yes, how could I forget.

Also the "French column attack" after everybody had agreed to be jolly nice chaps and stand in lines to shoot.

It is interesting that some of the chargers above likely had it as their default tactic passed down through generations.
Others developed it in order to break the mould of fairly passive "stand and shoot" tactics.

There are probably many uncredited examples where the shooters always  won.

[Last Hussar]

One of the things that came up when I was a Dark Age reenactment was the effect of the Wedge. The thinking was that if a shield wall could stand, then the wedge would pancake against the wall.

We know the musket armed line was better, because the charge died out.

[John Cook]

If you can, get hold of a copy of 'The Myth of the Jacobite Clans - The Jacobite Army in 1745' by Murray Pittock.  It is an interesting read in the context of the Jacobite Army generally and the so-called Highland charge in particular.  Not every highlander had a sword by any means and after Culloden 2320 muskets were recovered from the slain as opposed to a mere 190 swords.  A good companion to this book is 'Destructive and Formidable - British Infantry Firepower 1642-1765.

[flamingpig0]

If you can, get hold of a copy of 'The Myth of the Jacobite Clans - The Jacobite Army in 1745' by Murray Pittock.  It is an interesting read in the context of the Jacobite Army generally and the so-called Highland charge in particular.  Not every highlander had a sword by any means and after Culloden 2320 muskets were recovered from the slain as opposed to a mere 190 swords.  A good companion to this book is 'Destructive and Formidable - British Infantry Firepower 1642-1765.

IIRC Stuart Reid did some debunking as well

[John Cook]

IIRC Stuart Reid did some debunking as well

'Like Hungry Wolves'.  Another good read.

[Big Insect]

Yes, how could I forget.

Also the "French column attack" after everybody had agreed to be jolly nice chaps and stand in lines to shoot.

It is interesting that some of the chargers above likely had it as their default tactic passed down through generations.
Others developed it in order to break the mould of fairly passive "stand and shoot" tactics.

There are probably many uncredited examples where the shooters always  won.

I am not convinced about your French 'Attack Column' Steve ....

Doesn't it really depend upon the quality of the troops making up the Column(s) and also whether they can create a localized superiority in numbers and if their target enemy are of pretty poor quality?

We see British Line Infantry in the Peninsular and later at Waterloo or in the Crimea, breaking up enemy attack columns with (relative) ease - by adopting the tactic of advancing to close range, delivering a concentrated volley, shouting a hearty (& aggressive) "Huzzah!" and charging home with the bayonet. Even if the Attack Column(s) were not halted or shaken by the volley they seem to have come off far worse in the resulting bayonet melee.

The issue with the Highland Charge seems (to me anyway) to be one of 'myth and optimism' over reality.
Where a highland charge was not executed at too long a range, and not against a well drilled, well led and well motivated & prepared opponent, it seems to have been 50/50 as to whether it was going to succeed or not.
The other challenge appears to have been the relative numbers of highlanders involved, which was small. These were not in the numbers we'd associate with Ancient Gauls or Germans or Zulu warriors or even Swiss keils (which I think is stretching things as the swiss were using 16-18 foot pikes in close order). And even in ECW battles, where the numbers on both sides were relatively low, highlanders still only made up a small percentage of each or one army. In the '45 where we see a larger % of the Highland army as Highlanders they still don't do that well - at Culloden for example we see c.6,000+ Highlanders defeated by c.7,000 pretty poor quality British regulars. Even Highland 'wins' as at Falkirk and Prestonpans/Gladsmuir don't reflect brilliantly on the Highlanders charge, as both appear to owe as much to poor leadership and circumstance as the fighting ability of either side.

I suspect that in a wargame, if the Highlanders make it into hand-to-hand combat with a formed Drilled enemy, with even halfway decent moral, they will do some damage but would be unlikely to break them. However, if they catch an unformed enemy with poor moral unexpectedly then you'd see the potential for that unit to rout. But again I come back to the idea that there is a lot of romanticism associated with Highlanders and if you look at all the various battles objectively they'd come out as pretty poor quality troops overall.
However, that doesn't make for a good wargame 

Cheers
Mark

[John Cook]

I am not convinced about your French 'Attack Column' Steve ....

Neither am I.  In the Napoleonic period the column was intended as a means of movement and manoevre, not of combat.  The so called French 'attack column' was formed in divisions which were disposed in such a way as to enable quick deployment into line for musketry.  When they didn't do this, for any reason, or were too late in deploying, they were invariably stopped in their tracks.
 

[pierre the shy]

Like a lot of other things opinions about the origins and effectiveness of the highland charge tend to vary, depending on who you talk to, what sources they use and what period the are referring to.

My main interest these days is in the "other '45". Rather than the Jacobites of 1745 I am of course referring to Montrose, MacColla and the events of 1644 - 1645 during the War of the Three Kingdoms in Scotland (its much more than just the "English Civil War" after all  ). The highlanders played a fairly central role in overall events in Scotland during that period, and they were rightly somewhat feared by their opponents. Many of Montrose's string of victories against the Covenanters would not have been possible without the highland contingents, which sometimes used the highland charge to win those victories.   

Montrose was a complex man, motivated by high ideals, but let down somewhat by everyday realities that he did not always apparently appreciate. He was, like everyone else, imperfect, but served his ultimate cause with great nobility till his death in 1650.