Slitherine

Trying to see how they can justify this list. Things wrong with it.....

Scots Foot with pikes and muskets - Montrose didn't have many of these at all, at inverlochy he had none...the strathbogie regiment is one of the few units I can think of that was around, But most everybody else was highlanders and infantry. I'm just wondering why they require you have at least two battlegroups for them....how am I supposed to build an inverlochy type force from the list??? Are they saying that a unit such as "Inchbrackies" was so armed....ok, fair enough, but the only battle in which two of these units were present (I'm looking at my Osprey campaign book on Auldern and my Stuart Reid books) would be Tippermuir. Confused to say the least

Irish foot only average - ok, this is at least debatable, but aaaaaargh

If you are doing a historical refight just forget the list and go with the order of battle you have at hand. Lists are for tournaments and friendly points games, doesn't say in the rules you have to use them or the whole book bursts into flames and disintegrates since you did not use other published sanctioned materials. Other people have questioned the Irish and it was stated that their legendary performance was just that.... legend and this is to bring them in closer to reality. If it really bothers you just do up your own list for a friendly game, tournaments will require you use the printed list.
One of these days I will get around to starting my own highlanders and try the Scots out myself. i will just end up using the list as it is much easier on my ancient noggin

deadtorius wrote:If you are doing a historical refight just forget the list and go with the order of battle you have at hand. Lists are for tournaments and friendly points games, doesn't say in the rules you have to use them or the whole book bursts into flames and disintegrates since you did not use other published sanctioned materials. Other people have questioned the Irish and it was stated that their legendary performance was just that.... legend and this is to bring them in closer to reality. If it really bothers you just do up your own list for a friendly game, tournaments will require you use the printed list.
One of these days I will get around to starting my own highlanders and try the Scots out myself. i will just end up using the list as it is much easier on my ancient noggin

Of course, but why even make the list innacurate?

CutEmUp wrote:

deadtorius wrote:If you are doing a historical refight just forget the list and go with the order of battle you have at hand. Lists are for tournaments and friendly points games, doesn't say in the rules you have to use them or the whole book bursts into flames and disintegrates since you did not use other published sanctioned materials. Other people have questioned the Irish and it was stated that their legendary performance was just that.... legend and this is to bring them in closer to reality. If it really bothers you just do up your own list for a friendly game, tournaments will require you use the printed list.
One of these days I will get around to starting my own highlanders and try the Scots out myself. i will just end up using the list as it is much easier on my ancient noggin

Of course, but why even make the list innacurate?

As deadtorius says there has been some discussion of this and the answer has been given that this is the most reasonable top-down way to represent the army and that some previous accounts (including previous wargames rules and possibly Stuart Reid) have over-romanticised the army which led to too much emphasis on its differences from standard Pike and Shot armies. So the answer is given that this is more accurate! Having said that don't underestimate the effect of giving the Irish musketeers Sword. Used right that can be devastating - and of course it encourages close combat whereas something like making them Superior could encourage going for prolonged firefights ( ... so that fits with one of the stereotypes about the Irish Brigades , that they liked to get stuck in). I think this is one army you have to playtest before coming to conclusions about its accuracy - I must admit I'm tempted by it.

Sorry Cut em Up but Montrose's army was not mainly a charging highland mob other than in the romantic accounts of later writings. The majority of Montrose' s army was pike and shot especially in the second year of his campaigns. Even at Tibbermore his first battle he had Kilponts regiment (not bows I am afraid). inverlochy was a real exception in that it is the one battle where highlanders turned out in force - not due to the love of the king but because it was a chance to stick one on the Campbells in their own backyard. They disappeared just as quickly thereafter. Interestingly it is the only battle where highland tactic troops also turned out for the covenant.
When the Gordons joined in these were a reinforcement of regular pike and shot as well as cavalry. Part of the confusion comes from the term that is often applied of highland levies. This does not however mean they were equipped as highlanders but raised in highland areas in the same way their central Scotland counterparts were called lowland levies I.e. The area where they were levied from. Coming back to the Gordons it is inconceivable that troop who fought for the covenant as pike and shot would havevreverted to highland tactics when troops of this ilk were considered poorly armed in military circles.
Re the rating of the Irish brigade there was a long debate as to rating. At the end of the day the majority went with the view that in comparison with the quality of the opposition the average with swordsmen wad the right rating. In reality when the good covenanting stuff comeback from England the end was nigh for Montrose.
I should say at this point that i wrote the list and believe that if you go back to contemporary records and reports that the depiction is not plain wrong but rather plain right. I must admit being a Scot that I would rather have the highland supermen supported by super Irish but this is the romanticism in me rather than the real.
As a final note the Gordon horse with Montrose have also acquired a legendary status but before joining Montrose they were a back country Covenanting mounted unit. Does the fact they changed sides suddenly make them superior.
I am always open to further information.
John

Forgot to say if you want a real highland army then air until you get the book that covers the 1689 with Black John of Battles (Dundee) leading the way.
John

Sorry again but just picked up on the remarks on Stuart Reid re highlanders. In fact Stuart goes the other way in that he makes it quite clear that in his view highlanders at this time were rabble ( poor at best) and would be avoided by all decent armies including Montrose other than a filler at the back. I don't agree with Stuart on this as I think they were reasonably effective in the right circumstances. I also cannot see why Stewart downplays them here in the civil war but has them charging like demons in his books on Culloden and Killiekrankie. The tactic and the ferocity did not change but rather the weaponry going from bows to firearms.
Should also emphasise I like and respect Stuart having served with him in the sealed knot.
As a final point just be glad that the Montrose army has pike and shot units it would be screwed against any contemporary foe without them. Highlanders and cavalry do not gob well together.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:Sorry again but just picked up on the remarks on Stuart Reid re highlanders. In fact Stuart goes the other way in that he makes it quite clear that in his view highlanders at this time were rabble ( poor at best) and would be avoided by all decent armies including Montrose other than a filler at the back. I don't agree with Stuart on this as I think they were reasonably effective in the right circumstances. I also cannot see why Stewart downplays them here in the civil war but has them charging like demons in his books on Culloden and Killiekrankie. The tactic and the ferocity did not change but rather the weaponry going from bows to firearms.
Should also emphasise I like and respect Stuart having served with him in the sealed knot.
As a final point just be glad that the Montrose army has pike and shot units it would be screwed against any contemporary foe without them. Highlanders and cavalry do not gob well together.
John

You guys are all too smart for your own good.......what makes the inaccurate I'm is the requirement for two such units of pike armed foot, when there was rarely more than one. The orders of battle are clear that the ubiquitous elements of the army were the Irish (no more than 700), the Mc Donnells of Keppoch (around 100) and a small troop of forty horsemen. Even if other regiments, which had traditionally been though to have fought in clan array are accounted for, there were three instances where there was more than on (Tippermuir, Alford & Kilsyth), so my beef is you should at least be able to
take the strathbogies in lieu of one, cut the minimum in half or do away with the requirement completely.

I think you also need to recall the scale of some of thes battles I.e. They are on the small side. So a unit on the tabletop is more than unit in history or a company rather than a regiment. If you fought on the tabletop with the forces you outline then you would have a very small army indeed.
It is clear our research differs with you looking at the mythology of the army. I will look out some further info for you.
I do not see myself as smart butvrather researching beyond what has come to be accepted.
What about the Gordons where do they appear in your armies?
John

marshalney2000 wrote:I think you also need to recall the scale of some of thes battles I.e. They are on the small side. So a unit on the tabletop is more than unit in history or a company rather than a regiment. If you fought on the tabletop with the forces you outline then you would have a very small army indeed.
It is clear our research differs with you looking at the mythology of the army. I will look out some further info for you.
I do not see myself as smart butvrather researching beyond what has come to be accepted.
What about the Gordons where do they appear in your armies?
John

Ok, fair enough, but then we have to group them in a different way

As promised here is some info on the Scots Royalists. Firstly I should emphasise the point that this is a difficult army to do a list for as it changed from battle to battle with a lot of units who came , saw and went away again. I have not had a lot of time but as you I think mentioned Stuart Reid I have gone to his book on the Scots Royalist Army which makes a lot of points which support my view.
As a starter Stuart clearly states that the army of Montrose was not noticeably different from all the other armies of the period. The Irish were obviously pike and shot but in addition Stuart lists by name nine other pike and shot regiments who fought for the Kings cause in Scotland.
In addition to these however are the highlanders who he divides into two classes namely those who fought in regular formations i.e. Pike and shot and those hastily raised chiefly from amongst the western clans. The latter he describes as being of limited military value. Plundering and harrying being the effective limit of their usefulness. Amongst the first class he lists the Athollmen and Gordons who were well equipped and were maintained as standing regiments who proved themselves time and time again to be good soldiers. The highland levies however particularly at Kilsythcharged but were bloodily repulsed by the Covenanters. What I think has given rise to the highland legend is the fact that as soon as troops were shown as highlanders the mind jumped to traditionally armed clansmen when in fact these were in all likelihood armed in the modern fashion. Let us not forget that the Gordons got a lot of arms from Charles in 1639. Many of the highlanders at Inverlochy may have been pike and shot armed. By the way the Strathbogie Regiment was not there as they did not defect until a few months later.
At Auldearn, Reid states that the highland contingent accounted for less than a quarter of the whole and quite possibly "very much less if highlanders with pike and shot are excluded".
At Alford a similar picture is given with half the army being highlanders but this is then qualified by the statement that effectively nearly all of the royalist infantry were regulars rather than the highland swordsmen of popular legend.
At Kilsyth as already mentioned the western highland armed clans suffered badly in their charge and Reid comments that this was not only because they were raw troops but were much more badly equipped than the Gordons and Athollmen who are also described as semi regulars.
Stuart Reids summary is that it is clear that most of the troops in Montrose's army were regular soldiers armed with pike and shot and that some of the highlanders were similarly armed with musket and shot while those that were not were of limited military value.
Hope the above explains some of the rationale behind the list but I am of course still open to debate.
John

All of this is true, but it isn't my beef with list.....I have more of a problem with the minima and proportionalities of different troop types. Oh, and I never said the strathbogies were at inverlochy and yes, the highlanders were often a minuscule contingent
Here are the royalist OOBs as per Osprey

*= possible "Scottish foot"

Tippermuir
Irish - 1500
Inchbrackie's Regiment - 500*
Badenoch Levies - 500*
Perthshire Levies - 500*
MacDonalds - 100
(3)

Aberdeen
Irish - 1500
MacDonalds - 100
Horse - 80
(0)

Fyvie
Irish - 800
Old Strathbogie Regiment - 200*
Inchbrackie's Regiment - 200*
Monaltrie's Regiment - 200*
Strathavan Levie - 100*
(4)

Inverlochy
Irish - 800
Western Clans - 500
Inchbrackie's Regiment - 200*
Horse - 50
(1)

Auldern
Irish - 600
Strathbogie Regiment - 400
Monymore's Regiment - 300*
MacColla's Life Guard - 140
Horse - 600
(1)

Alford
Strathbogie Regiment - 500
Inverey's Regiment - 300*
Monymore's Refiment - 200*
MacDonalds - 200
Irish - 600
Horse - 500
(2)

Kilsyth
Irish - 500
MacColla's Life Guard - 120
Inverey's Regiment - 200*
Monymore's Regiment - 200*
Inchbrackie's Regiment - 200*
Strathbogie Regiment - 400
Clans - 1400
Horse 460

Out of seven battles three would not fit into the list and that's if you take the view that all of these troops were conventionally armed. My point is that the Irish were the core of the army. Scots regiments came and went. I just think the minimum should be higher for the micks and lower for the scots, which would allow every battle to be legal in a tourney lis....just cant figure why they made it that way

Quick question about the Scots highlanders armed as pike and shot, Warlord makes kilted Scots with shot and pike. I thought they were a weird fantasy thing but could some of the Highlanders have worn their traditional kilts instead of jackets and pants?

deadtorius wrote:Quick question about the Scots highlanders armed as pike and shot, Warlord makes kilted Scots with shot and pike. I thought they were a weird fantasy thing but could some of the Highlanders have worn their traditional kilts instead of jackets and pants?

Thats probably the way it was

I agree that in small battles there could be a case for the Irish being a larger proportion of the whole but even they tended to go up and down particularly when McColla chose to go off rampaging on his own. There is little doubt that the Irish declined in numbers in the latter part of Montrose's campaigns and also in 1645 compared to 1644. I presume these units would also have recruited from local populace thereby reducing some of their initial potency. You could therefore use some of the normal pike and shot as pseudo Irish but without the swordsman capability. The swordsmen contingents, bearing the fact that they are not full regiments in any case, would be the veteran cadres.
As I said earlier it is very difficult to produce one list that covers all of Montrose's battles. At Philiphaugh for example the Irish were reduced to a cadre barely worth calling a regiment while the rest of the army were a thousand cavalry of dubious quality. No highlanders or other troops at all.
I think you will find that most army lists in the books will not allow you to reproduce every battle that an army fought particularly where these are small actions. If you are doing a refight of a small action then go with your own research. You should see the fun I had doing army lists for the late 1600's Covenanters.
Re the kilt I also thought that highland pikemen in belted plaid were a myth but Reid makes a comment that the tactics of the troops were regular but their dress unorthodox suggests why not use the warlord figures. I suspect I will do so.
I am enjoying the debate!!
John

Philliphaugh wasn't much of a "battle" anyways which is why I didnt list it.

Aside from that, every order of battle Montrose fought is buildable, if you just knock the minimum for "Scottish foot" down to 6, which is my point.

Sorry you have lost me now. The whole point of my argument was that at nearly every battle the vast majority of troops classed as highlanders/highland levies were pike and shot armed. Even then if we work on the basis that due to the size of the armies each tabletop unit represents only part of a regiment then the minimum for pike and shot is actually low if anything. We should also consider making all highland armed warriors poor as compulsory. I think I have proved that at nearly every battle pike/shot were there in pretty reasonable numbers even one can surmise at Inverlochy where highland levies were at least likely to be pat pike and shot.
As discussed earlier the proportion of Irish might be higher but lists by their very nature have to be an overview of the army and super troops in any army (if the Irish can be considered as such) will be restricted by Richard and Nik to reasonable numbers. Their objective is to ensure that armies are balanced and that competition gamers don't just gravitate towards the army selection within a list which best suits there purpose without necessarily attempting to reflect a particular battle historically in the way that you are. To produce a wider ranging list is to create a behemoth with a separate list and probably a disputed one at that for each individual battle including Philliphaugh and for that matter the situation where Montrose took all the pikemen away from the musketeers.
Coming back to Auldearn my figures from Stuart Reid are different than yours with the Royalist army being around 2000 men of whom 1000 were Gordon foot and 200 Gordon horse. The Irish were 800 of whom 140 were McCollas bodyguard listed separately in the army list. As 400 dragoons are also mentioned one wonders if the Irish were even weaker than that as 300 Gordon foot with pike and shot were shown to be in the village and under McCollas command.

Well, you were too busy worrying about taking shots at some legend i dont believe in anyways and not looking at the actual OOBs then...and my bad, the highlanders should not have a minimum either because they were not always present, no highland armed troops at Alford and Fyvie. So if you took "Scottish foot" down to 6 and set the highlanders down to 0, we'd be set. If the list was as such, you could build a force for every battle.

Oh, and my bad again, no "Scottish foot" at Aberdeen either. So the only minima should be Irish and a unit of horse.