Slitherine

But back to the original question, who are those pesky Poor pike and shot?

I ask because I will be making the Montrose army as well in 15mm -- it will have many new models as well as conversions of the Irish from my in-progress Confederate Irish line. (The Irish muskets and pikes will get broadswords and a few bonnets mixed in.) I have the better Highlanders with bows already (as "Redshanks") from the Confed Irish line, and have actually had the better Highlanders with muskets made too. They came out quite nicely in their belted plaid (one or two have trousers intead).

Just need to get the highland rabble made, the Gordon horse, and then those mysterious Poor pike and shot units. Can I take it from one of the responses above about them being Gordon troops that they would look like standard Covenanter foot? Or would they resemble something else?

Thanks for any input.

There is nothing mysterious about the pike and shot units as they were raised by the Scots who supported Montrose in the same way as other worthies who supported the Covenant. As you state many units did change sides as the wind changed this way and that. The largest group who came over to Montrose were Huntly's Gordons. Huntly had originally raised the King's flag in Scotland but had surrendered to Montrose. When Montrose later raised the King' s standard the Gordons did not support him as they rather took umbrage at him doing so. After his success in 1644 and 1645 many Gordon units against the wishes of their chief changed sides including the two sons of Huntly himself. This also included the Gordon horse.
As for dress many of the units would not have differed from their foes although as many units were raised in the highlands a little bit of variety with plaids etc would be nice but no belted plaids please!!
I hope this helps but contact me if you want any further info.
As an aside in the next book is the Scottish Flodden period army. No one really makes a good range for this army and it would be really nice if you could fill the gap. I really like your figures and think you could do an excellent job.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:As for dress many of the units would not have differed from their foes although as many units were raised in the highlands a little bit of variety with plaids etc would be nice but no belted plaids please!!

You mean these were pike and shot units of highlanders?

Not sure what you mean by "no belted plaids please!!" -- you mean only for the above pike and shot units ... or for all highlanders? Many of the highlanders I've had made are in fact depicted in belted plaid, as I was advised by numerous sources that this was the predominant dress of the mid 17th C. highlander, and it is fact shown in mid 17th C. illustrations of highlanders.

So I'm left a bit confused by your comments. Can you clarify? Thanks.

The fact that a unit of pike and shot was raised in the highlands does not mean that it would have worn highland dress and in fact I can find no evidence of this happening as Huntly for example would have dressed the units in cloth etc he had obtained. Therefore very like the Covenanters.
My comments on the plaid were confusing so I need to clarify. Highlanders would to a large extent have worn the belted plaid which is basically a long piece of cloth wrapped around the waist like a kilt with the remainder of the cloth brought over the shoulder and pinned in place. Please not that many highlanders threw of the plaid when charging and went in in their shirt alone.
My comment on the plaid for pike and shot units was to suggest that a piece of cloth could be wrapped round the body a bit like a ACW confederate blanket roll and this could be of a woven tartan type cloth. In cold weather it might be unwrapped and wrapped round the body to keep out the cold. Highlanders on cold weather unpinned the top of their belted plaid and wrapped it round like a blanket for the upper body.
In closing I should mention that much of the confusion retie number of highland weapon type units is confused by the term highland levy. Many people jump to the conclusion that this automatically means highland equipped when in fact it merely means raised from highland estates rather than lowland estates. At the end of the day the noble who raised them would attempt to equip them in the most modern fashion I.e. Pike and shot. As Stewart Reid points out traditional highlanders weren't regarded as being particularly well armed.
Hope this helps.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:worn highland dress and in fact I can find no evidence of this happening as Huntly for example would have dressed the units in cloth etc he had obtained. Therefore very like the Covenanters.

Of course you do know the the Gordons were not a highland clan as they came from the North east flat land around Aberdeen and in the surrounding areas.


I would love to see the references for these highland Pike and musket men, as most clan chiefs only called out their men when a raid/battle between differing clans were involved.

As most of the likely places for recruits armed as such were towns which for the most part with the covenent I would be interested in finding references to Pike and Shot regiments raised in the highlands.

I am sorry but cannot agree. Aberdeen is flat area but very much part of the highlands and would be regarded as such by all of lowland Scotland. Huntly and the Gordons were very much a highland clan although Huntly was trying to southern himself. I am not saying that the pike and shot wore highland dress but came from highland areas and were then equipped as pike and shot.
Even at the time of the Jacobite rebellion the Gordons turned out as a highland clan.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:I am sorry but cannot agree. Aberdeen is flat area but very much part of the highlands and would be regarded as such by all of lowland Scotland. Huntly and the Gordons were very much a highland clan although Huntly was trying to southern himself. I am not saying that the pike and shot wore highland dress but came from highland areas and were then equipped as pike and shot.
Even at the time of the Jacobite rebellion the Gordons turned out as a highland clan.
John

I was born in the Scottish lowlands and moved to just outside Aberdeen and lived there for a number of years in Gorden lands.

It was never to my knowledge a clan land being like the lowlands a family area like the lowlands riding with family surnames, true it could call upon certain Clans that owed the Gordens alliegence but that does'nt mean it is a Clan. The Gordens derivived from a Border family that was given land around Aberdeen in the 14th century they were a group using the same surname as a form of kinship .

One of the major differencies between the clan lands and both the lowlands and the North east is Gaelic an example is the word Clan language spoken by the majority in the West coast heartlands of the clans compared to Scots spoken by the North East and the lowlands.

True the Gordens were a large family who in the wars on scotland in the 17th and 18th century had various parts of the family name fighting on differing sides throughout the period.

The use of the word Clan for groups of the same surname outside the Gaelic speaking area is a modern ideal and was not used in the lowlands of scotland with the people I grew up with. I will try and find again an essay online that explains it better than i can and place a line on here.

I think the main point though is that Aberdeen is regarded by Scots as being part of the Highlands or indeed anything North of Perth - the gateway to the Highlands.
John

Forgot to mention that at Flodden, it was another Huntly, duke of Gordon who commanded a wing of highlanders at Flodden (Hume commanded the Borderers who were also part of this wing). This yet indicated that he was regarded as a highland magnate even one hundred and thirty years earlier. Gordons also formed part of the highland wing of the Jacobite army in 1745 when this was split into a highland and a lowland wing.
I agree with you that many of the troops raised round Aberdeen were not clansmen I.e. The Aberdeen City militia and even the Strathbogie regiment were described as being a lowland unit. Huntly however did recruit from the highlanders many who were armed as pike and shot albeit some did form units armed as traditional highlanders. This was most prevalent when supplies of pike and shot ran out.
At the end of the day I don't think we are too far apart it is more a matter of definition. As time progressed many clan chiefs became more southern than the southerners and as a result became more remote from the clansmen who looked up to them. This widening gap made it easier a few hundred years later for the chiefs to evict their kinsmen and replace them with sheep during the clearances.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:I think the main point though is that Aberdeen is regarded by Scots as being part of the Highlands or indeed anything North of Perth - the gateway to the Highlands.
John

Inverness is the gateway to the Highlands.

Sorry to me Aberdeen is'nt the Highlands.

The surrounding area of aberdenshire is flat arable lands at the time the breadbasket of the North East, completely different terrain fron the high mountain valleys on the Western part of Scotland. This allowed the Gorden Lords the ability to raise thousands of horsemen when required.

marshalney2000 wrote:Forgot to mention that at Flodden, it was another Huntly, duke of Gordon who commanded a wing of highlanders at Flodden (Hume commanded the Borderers who were also part of this wing). This yet indicated that he was regarded as a highland magnate even one hundred and thirty years earlier. Gordons also formed part of the highland wing of the Jacobite army in 1745 when this was split into a highland and a lowland wing.
I agree with you that many of the troops raised round Aberdeen were not clansmen I.e. The Aberdeen City militia and even the Strathbogie regiment were described as being a lowland unit. Huntly however did recruit from the highlanders many who were armed as pike and shot albeit some did form units armed as traditional highlanders. This was most prevalent when supplies of pike and shot ran out.
At the end of the day I don't think we are too far apart it is more a matter of definition. As time progressed many clan chiefs became more southern than the southerners and as a result became more remote from the clansmen who looked up to them. This widening gap made it easier a few hundred years later for the chiefs to evict their kinsmen and replace them with sheep during the clearances.
John

We are close so no battle then, the Gordens fought on both sides in the wars of the three kingdoms as well as in the 45 when the Cock of the North as he was called stayed at home.

Happy with an honourable truce on this.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:Happy with an honourable truce on this.
John

10 v 10 sounds good to me