Wednesday, 29 February 2012
it is from this book
MacDonald, C. Moidart Among the Clanranalds. 1997 Birlinn
16 of the 80 are described as wanting weapons
15 of the 80 have a sword only
15 of the 80 have a gun only
26 of the 80 have sword AND gun
7 of the 80 have gun sword and targe
1 of the 80 has gun and pistol
The muster (especially when compared with the athol muster) again demonstrates that the top tier of society were armed with what I call the holy trinity of dirk, sword and target. These were also armed with guns and were probably the clan gentry. Most men were armed in some fashion and most men were armed with swords though 31 men weren;t.
This was the state of the forces after heavy arms embargos and disarmings and before the re-arming later in the campaign.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Here is my amazon review of the book "Highland Martial Culture". The author Chris Thompson, replied to my review then retracted or deleted his reply after I wrote a rebuttal. I included much of what he had written in my reply but it came out a bit funny due to Amazon's formatting.
I include it here in a better and more spell checked format. I have to admit that I was being restrained when I wrote the review and response.
With this book he is setting the Highland system of martial arts training in a cultural context. He argues well that establishing an ethical and philosophical context for the historical pursuit of these arts will help in the modern interpretation of them. He further argues that without study of the history of the cultures studied the students will fill the gaps in the knowledge from less than ideal sources e.g. Hollywood and fiction. He goes on to say, that the rational, sceptical paradigm of modern westerners was not shared by historical fight masters who lived with a very different world view.
He then covers his back writing that speculation is inevitable given the sources and the subject matter, and that he has included sources for us to conduct our own research. The sources include a the usual Dewar Mss, Reid, Prebble fencing manuals, Gaelic story collections a few websites and ,surprisingly, references to internet forums. There are no historical primary sources listed save the fencing manuals.
The first Chapter of the book is about the martial training of the Highland Swordsman. This is probably the strongest section of the book. Mr Thompson explains that the Clans were organised in to a martial elite who did most of the fighting and who later in their history were joined by a mostly poorly armed peasantry. He describes the importance of the bard and then describes how duels were conducted in Gaelic society. After a section on prize fighting he ends with a short section on the historical importance and definition of honour.
I'd have quite liked more sources in the first section; there are a number of primary sources describing the entirety of the Highland male populace being armed which would not agree with the view taken by Mr Thompson. He makes a number of small mistakes which may seem insignificant he talks about "English redcoats" and highlanders armed with "rifles" in the Jacobite uprisings. It may seem pedantic these are rather rudimentary errors which the author should not be making. He uses a quote to describe the highland warrior which was actually a quote by Dymock about the galloglaich in Ireland.
He gives a neat description of the Duel in mainland Europe and the purpose of it. He makes quite big error here however in not truly understanding the rise of European duelling. He maintains duelling occurred to protect a man's reputation in a strong interdependent community. He then makes the valid assertion that the Clan society was even more strongly linked and community based. However the rise of the European duel (of honour not judicial) occurs from the renaissance when men had to protect their reputation BECAUSE the society was being coming less community based.
Mr Thompson states that the highland duel was a test of skill as it was in Feudal Japan (I'd have loved a source here). He then gives examples from folklore he also gives some historical anecdotes as illustration. The problem is he has got the anecdotes quite wrong. Cameron of lochiel bit an English officer's throat out in a skirmish not in a duel and the outnumbered fighter challenging single combat for the right to leave was an Englishman at the battle of Worcester not a Gael asking for ancient privilege.
The sections on prize fighting and honour continue on in a similar vein. The section is riddled with unsourced definite statements about the society, errors abound and sources when given are erroneous or misunderstood. There is no discussion on conduct between warriors and between the warrior and society the social position of the swordsman, his duties and obligations.
The second section is about esoteric skills and the martial arts. Mr Thompson begins by giving us his mystic interpretation on some Gaelic folktales he lists the feats of swordsmanship from the Ulster cycle and then how to recreate them in the salle (training hall). He gives some Gaelic spells of protection a discussion on berserkers before a quick section on occult pacts.
Highlanders were certainly a superstitious lot and believed in all sorts of magic charms and mythical beasts. However the main thing missing from this long section is the fact that they were Christians. No mention is made of Christianity though druidism is mentioned several times. This whole section reads not as a discussion of the philosophy and spiritual beliefs of the Highland clans but as a how to for building up mystical powers. He draws very strongly on the old Irish myths (which were popular in the highlands) but deals not at all with the second sight or charm stones etc .From the first chapter we read that Mr Thompson is dealing mostly with the Highland elite and upper echelons (being the martial artists) yet there is no mention of the philosophies prevalent in Europe at the time despite their European educations.
Basically this is not a discussion of the influences and context of the Highland martial artist but a spurious list of tricks from an old source which highland swordsman may or may not have trained in. Annoyingly there are actual descriptions of the training of Gaelic warriors which it appears Mr Thompson has not seen.
The chapter on Diet and health in training is taken from the incredibly unreliable memoirs of Donald MacLeod. Much is known about the (surprisingly healthy) diet of the Highland peoples and of their food prejudices (disliking pork for example) nothing is discussed saved MacLeod's memoirs and a section on bathing in cold water and breathing deeply when training. The whole chapter is incredibly poorly researched. The only redeeming quality of this chapter is its brevity.
The concluding Chapter is some examples of Gaelic poetry. Again the chapter is brief (5 pages) given the importance of poetry to the highlanders it might be thought that not enough is made of this incredibly significant aspect of their society.
The appendices form some instructions and codes of conduct and a list of proverbs.
I have tried very hard to be fair to this book. The premise is a fine one though the execution is very poor. Mr Thompson has missed the richness of the society he was trying to portray by concentrating on extrapolating from the Cuchullain, and other Irish cycles. He seems keen to draw parallels between the highland tradition and the Eastern tradition. Wandering swordsmen= Ronin, duels being test of skill, war cries = kiai etc.
Where sources have been used they are frequently misused or incorrect and small but significant errors plague the text. Spurious and uncertain sources are used such as "Olde rabbit" on "Conjourer Conversation Corner" from an internet forum while no historical primary sources appear to have been consulted.
The sections on Beserkers and the occult were extraneous and no mention was made of the reams of modern research that have been done into the psychological states of soldiers. The omissions made throughout the book can only be down (I hope) to a lack of research. In fact in online discussions with Mr Thompson he does come across as quite poorly researched. When confronted with "lack of evidence" he seems to be happy to use his imagination and to make idle speculations on flimsy evidence. "An enemy's sword flashing in the sunlight in an on guard position has been described by some duellists as being virtually hypnotic" this in a section on hypnotising one's opponent in a fight.
The book starts with the idea that by not studying the context of the historical martial arts the student will fill the gaps with ideas from TV or fiction. The Irony of this book is that it appears Mr Thompson has done just that. He has created a quasi Mystical form of swordsmanship expanded from hints from fairy stories and 19th century romantic sources.
If you want to study the cultural context of the martial arts you pursue don't buy this book, I wish I hadn't.
Now my response with Mr Thompson's statements in bold.
Inaccurate and amateurish.
Firstly may I thank Mr Thompson for replying. I have read his reply and have found nothing in it to make me revise my review. However I will concede that the Dewar Mss counts as primary source. I will re-write the below review to say “historical primary courses” Though he has clarified his intent in writing the book. I would still recommend that my original review is read.
I write reviews chiefly to help people make choices when buying books. Frequently when I have been thinking of buying a book I look through the reviews to see how it has been received by others. Reviews are invaluable when using an online service such as amazon. I have thought about what purpose any rebuttal of Mr Thompson’s counter-review would serve. In this case I think it will strengthen the position of my original review. I am also keen to confirm reputation as a reviewer and fencer.
I have no personal axe to grind against Mr Thompson, the article he refers to is an aide memoir for students at the school I fence at. It is not a scholarly article and I make no claims to be a scholar. Why is this relevant to a criticism of my review?
“I don't view Gaelic oral tradition with the kind of contempt” As I have mentioned in my comment I take great exception to this. I have a deep love of Gaelic oral tradition and, if we are discussing the martial culture of the highlanders, it was an intrinsic part of their lives. I do however question the fact that it is not tempered with historical sources. We would not accept a book on the martial culture of medieval knights to be solely (or overly) concerned with medieval romances.
I would like to go through some of the points and deal with them in turn. I will point out that I no longer own this book.
“there are a number of primary sources describing the entirety of the Highland male populace being armed which would not agree with the view taken by Mr Thompson." Be that as it may, the current consensus of both military historians and Gaelic scholars on this question does support the view that the "daoine uaisle" or Highland elite were much more heavily armed than the common clansmen.”
I didn’t argue that the highland elite weren’t more heavily armed. I stated that the there are a number of primary sources that describe the vast majority of the population being armed and openly armed.
The weapons recovered from the Culloden battlefield, for instance, support the view that only 20-25% of a typical clan regiment carried the broadsword.
The highlands had been garrisoned for some time by 1746 and subject to numerous disarming acts. The Penicuick sketches show two thirds of the highlanders armed with swords (where armed). Earlier military census show that swords were quite common. Only one knife was retrieved from the battle field are we to draw from this that only one knife was carried in the army and that the highlands were bereft of knives? The numbers of arms (of all types) recovered from the battle field is fascinatingly low but even though I’d like to expand on this but there isn’t the space.
By the mid eighteenth century the clan system was in terminal decline and under incredible pressure I would contend that the Culloden campaign is not reflective of the highland martial culture of the previous century (centuries)
the Highland Regiments in the French and Indian Wars," makes the point that the average recruit to a Highland regiment in the 1760s did not come from a warrior tradition as this tradition was specific to the Highland elite.
I would be surprised if any military aspect of the clan system would have survived the British Government’s cultural dismantling after 1746. I don’t think that there is any evidence that the highland gentlemen’s training survived either. Ordinary highlanders didn’t much wear the great or little kilt after the proscription, does this mean they weren’t worn before?
Indeed, and is it not the case that the far majority of the galloglaich were either Highlanders or of Highland descent
The quote comes from the late 16th century, highland descent? Yes but that still means the quote is incorrect. In addition the quote gives quite a different image to the historical image of highlanders being relatively quite short and sinewy.
despite the fact that the charms I included in the book are explicitly Christian,
This isn’t good enough, as Christianity was the dominant moral and cultural force in Europe and will have provide a significant portion of the culture that these men grew up in. Christianity deserved a far more thorough study than was given.
If he has access to interesting new information on the training of Gaelic warriors, perhaps Mr Matheson should write something useful to share this information with the WMA community.
In due time…….
He also complains that I do not reference the second sight, although I cannot think of what relevance this is supposed to have for a book on martial practices.
Isn’t this a book about the culture of the highland warriors? Second sight and visions before battle were not unusual at all. “Why has my captain a stream of blood?” asked a Campbell before the battle of Culloden. His Captain (long exposed to the rational, military mind of the south) laughed it off but was naturally killed in the battle. There a description of this event in one of the books listed in the reference section. I would say that such premonitions were hugely significant to a warrior culture.
This chapter was initially much longer, but when I discovered a record from Chelsea Hospital bringing MacLeod's story into question, I cut it down to its current size in order to retain only the information I thought was most reliable.
The chapter (if memory serves) was very short. If more sources had been referred to it may have been longer. Was there a deadline that had to be met which meant that there was no time for further research? The McCulloch book on the French Indian war contained information on recruit heights in the 1760s and the dietary peculiarities of the highlanders. The subject is vast and merited a lot more work.
I don't recall ever having a discussion with Mr Matheson, although I'm sure I did at some point. His personal opinion that I am "poorly researched" based on an email conversation seems a little sweeping if not malicious
Utterly without malice. In email conversations with you and ones that I have read you have come across as poorly researched. I stand by that statement and I believe the book and your response validate it.
I would encourage anyone to check out the Cateran Society's 100+ videos of broadsword training on Youtube
As would I they are well worth watching for those interested in historical swordsmanship.
I would contend that that does not make it a book about Highland Martial culture but rather a book about an element of highland culture.
I stand by my original review, I bear Mr. Thompson no ill will but this book is not in my opinion worth buying for the majority of martial artists.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
There is at present a bit of a trend among writers of highland history to reform the old sword and targe armed highlander, as with most revision it seems to be based more on a desire to denounce past interpretations (in the old academic tradition) and paints an equally skewed picture. Mostly this is in response to ‘shortbread tin’ Jacobitism and deals with the chaotic events of the 18th century. Of course I am dealing with an earlier period but I think it might be worth going forward in time a bit to see if the “unarmed” peasantry argument stands up to scrutiny.
The argument is mostly based on revising the old 19th century image of tartan clad paladins leaping from the heather, sword in hand in a desperate bid to put their bonnie lad on the throne, or indeed modern neo-barbarians who view the Highlands as a kind of aboriginal backwater with Highlanders clinging to their “medieval” fighting styles. The revision states that instead of using backsword and targe, highlanders were mostly unarmed save a small military elite and, given the poverty of the area in the 18th century, ordinary highlanders were pressed into service and were armed with agricultural implements before being equipped with muskets and drilled to fight in an almost conventional fashion.
Certainly the hostile witnesses of Edinburgh give much ammunition to this interpretation as does the famous weapon count from the field of Culloden in which 2320 muskets were found to 190 broadswords (with 1000-1500 casualties). The perceived lack of melee weapons in the ’45 highlanders is then cast back into the past to reflect the situation among all highlanders in history.
With “Tuchman’s law” fully in our minds let’s look at the evidence for a poorly armed ’45 rebellion; certainly the Jacobite army that captured Edinburgh and trounced Cope’s army were a poorly armed bunch which, frankly, we should expect. The Highlands had been cracked by Wade’s roads and had been garrisoned for more than a generation. The Royal navy patrolled the waters and numerous disarmings had taken place with varying degrees of success. I cannot and would not argue that the army that assembled in Glenfinnan in 1745 wasn’t a shadow of previous Highland armies. I would however argue that swords were probably present in some number and across all classes of society. This indeed is my main point; it is the argument that it was the highland elite that alone were armed that I think is not supported by the evidence.
Woodhouselee’s scathing description of highlanders in Edinburgh is often cited as evidence for the poverty of the highlanders arms leaving aside his obvious Lowland bias it is clear that many highlanders were of indifferent quality but even among the reluctant and uninterested there were swords “ a boy stood with a rusty drawen sword”. A “volunteer” for the Jacobite army was released when it became clear he was too infirm however his sword was taken from him, a 14 year old sword armed boy was presented to Prince Charles after the battle of Prestonpans, having killed 14 with a sword. Having roundly defeated the Government forces the Jacobites could have availed themselves of their muskets, bayonets and swords. Swords were indeed worn by all soldiers in the early 18th century and it is likely that the French supply drops also included swords.
After Prestonpans it would appear that most highlanders could have been armed with swords (and muskets) if they so desired ordinary highlanders are often described as being armed with swords and their lack is not mentioned after this point. However the Jacobites certainly did have an absence of targes. Targes were discarded on the infamous night march which suggests that this archaic weapon was in short supply or unwanted by the highlanders in 1745. In the words of the 18th century fencing master “I reckon a Man that does not understand a Target, better to want it, than to have it” Targes were hastily ordered from craftsmen in both 1745 and 1746
1745 Nov. 15. To Wmn. Lindsay, wright, for six score targets , £30.14.6
1746 Jan. 16. To Win. Lindsay for 242 targets-
To 24 Hyds leather from the tannage, £16.16.0
To Goat skins, wood, nails, &c,, , £15.10.0
To two Officers targets pr. order, ... £1
Feb. 3. To Wm. Lindsay for paying leather of 200 targes, £16.16.0
Colonel Olgivy ordered his officers to supply themselves with targes. It would appear that even the upper ranks of the clan system were poorly equipped with targes though presumably well furnished with swords.
So we have some accounts that describe the highlanders being poorly armed but even the lower ranks having some melee weapons before having the pickings of the battle field. Accounts of the composition of the Jacobite army and some of the grotesque ways in which it was formed also place swords in the hands of ordinary folk. The famous sketches from Penicuick are also available to give us an idea of the composition of the highland army. Of 32 highlanders clearly depicted at least 24 (75%) are armed with swords. This includes Highlanders from the top of clan society to bundles of rags with rotting, ripped scabbards. Targes appear in fewer cases (13 or 40%) and often where the subject is clearly a person of some standing (I.e. named) or wealthy.
Earlier in the 18th century the road building Edmund Burt says that drovers (clearly not gentlemen) were given permission to carry arms and did so, dirks were rather disingenuously not considered to be arms.
Hopefully I have managed to start to persuade you that the modern idea of a gentry armed in the full highland fashion leading a mob wielding sticks and stones is not what is presented in the contemporary sources, nor is an army entirely comprised of bearded, sword and shield wielding berserkers. Indeed while the rich would obviously have been armed in a better fashion it would seem that those lower in the clan system could be armed at least as well.
I cannot account for the 190 broadswords recovered from Culloden field. Overall the number of arms gathered appears to be in low with 2300 odd muskets being shared among 7000 (33 %). Contemporary accounts of the battle tell of muskets being discarded still charged, swords being gathered off the field and buried and what are we to make of the one knife listed among the arms? Given that archaeology has revealed that mortars were present on the field (unlisted among the Government army inventory) maybe we should be aware that people were not perhaps as concerned with the details in the 18th century. Some finds from the field show weapons being damaged by the massive volume of fire directed at the highlanders it may be that only saleable items were counted I honestly don’t know. The figures throw up an interesting question in light of the other sources but are not (as is so often done) the basis for determining the composition of the army, and certainly can’t be used to arm Highland forces retrospectively.
I will look at earlier forces in my next post……
I will back this up with sources if asked, please do not use my photos without permission. I won't use the commonly seen penicuick sketches as they are quite poor copies buy the book by Iain Gordon Brown and Hugh Cheape