Slitherine

Hi

In spite of the army list i am going to have my montrose irish all
shot except for one unit which will have 2 bases of short pike
I know it is awkward but i cant see the irish as standard pike and shot
regardless of what stuart reid may surmise
In that case - should i treat the short pike as a spear ?
Seems logical but what do you guys think

Steve

Steve

Why can't you see the Irish as standard Pike and Shot? I don't know of a single modern historian who has come up with a more viable suggestion than Reid.

switze01 wrote:Hi

In spite of the army list i am going to have my montrose irish all
shot except for one unit which will have 2 bases of short pike
I know it is awkward but i cant see the irish as standard pike and shot
regardless of what stuart reid may surmise
In that case - should i treat the short pike as a spear ?
Seems logical but what do you guys think

Steve

Rules not to hand, but does it make any difference?

im with this guy
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=149863

from what I recall spears or pikes are the same. Perhaps treating the Irish half pikes as MF instead of HF, will make it easier for them to move about in terrain.

Except if they were spears I don't think the shot would count as protected which is one major disadvantage against mounted etc. If the spear were also medium foot then they would be at a further disadvantage against heavy foot.
To me the pissed off redshanks does not hold much water particularly as in the Irish list they can only be bowmen.
I still feel many of Montrose's units including the Irish and many units traditionally considered as highland armed were pike and shot. Ignoring the reference to pikes in the Aberdeen incident Montrose also ordered theIrish to set aside their pikes during a later battle. Alford I think but don't quote me until I check.
John

Remember that the Irish had been fighting for a long time, and had in some cases (well the leaders anyway) been exposed to the most modern European tactics, as had many of the Government forces. The trigger for the ECW was the control of the army raised to fight the Irish and this needed to be equiped in the modern style. I can't see eny evidence that the Irish were seriously backward in their tactical appreciation from their performance in Scotland, indeed the evidence is that the knew how to fight and in a determined and sustained way.

This is speculation but we have to allow for the secondary sources presenting them as wild uncivilsed men exactly like the Highlanders were, as (the majority were) Catholics, and on the losing side by the time the Whig histories were being written.

Not sure the Irish had more exposure to European warfare than the Scots themselves who if anything were one of the most dominant mercenary forces from even before the thirty years war.
There is a great letter from the Kng of Norway as I recall to James complaining that more Scots mercenaries were being hired to Sweden than to Norway. A strange arms race.
If the Irish brigade were so advanced in tactics then why is this not also reflected in the Confederate Army list?
I agree some highlanders fought in traditional style but history has tended to jump to the conclusion that any unit labelled highland levy fought with highland weapons when in practice units such as the Strathbogies were pike and shot as were many other Gordon units and others of their ilk.
John

I think reid as a dour lowland scot has a serious problem with the erse or highlander irish catholics
in general .
I am going to do the pikes in case i want to take part in comps but i dont agree with them

Here is another opinion off the web -

The Irish WERE NOT ARMED WITH PIKES. No source whatsoever says they were and some sources SPECIFICALLY say they were NOT despite what some 20th Century authors have written. In Baroque they are all musketeers BUT move and fight as highlanders as well. The P&M units represent the lowland/Gordon foot regiments and the Royalist horse were almost all still using their pistols like RE-CP except for Lord Gordon's horse who are specifically identified as introducing TR-CP tactics which Baroque represents as having point blank pistols on charging.
Alas, the book was written by Stuart Reid.

Throughout his literary career he has described highlanders generally as arrant scum and useless in publication after publication and attributed Montrose's success mainly to his Gordon Cavalry. Unable to discount the evident importance of the Irish units he has sought to differentiate them from highlanders by distorting the historical references. Thus in order for them NOT to be like highlanders he has sought to portray them as conventionally armed pike and musket units despite there being no evidence whatsoever in the contemporary sources such as Spalding, Patrick Gordon, Napier etc. There was an exchange on this in a couple of issues some years back of English Civil War Notes and Queries. When buying his books on the wars in Scotland its very much Caveat Emptor.

Steve

Whoever designed the impetus lists obviously agrees with me on the irish !!!!


MONTROSE'S ROYALIST ARMY (VDT=18/9) Nr Type M VBU I VD Notes
2 RE-CP(*) 8 4 2 3 Pistol (various)
2 P&M-FP 5 5 1 2 Pikes - Muskets - MM=-2
2 FP 8 5 4 2 Irish - Muskets - Impetuous
2 FP 8 4 4 2 Highlanders - Impetuous

Steve, happy to have your strong views which are certainly a view. Frankly you do not provide a lot of evidence other than that which has pretty much been subsequently discredited in modern history.
I love the bit about the Gordon horse introducing charging tactics. They were a turncoat covenanter unit of variable quality who were used to pistol firing tactics but suddenly on becoming deserters not only become better morale but suddenly introduce revolutionary tactics which as a matter of fact were already in common use in Europe but not favoured in Scotland.
Smells too much of the similar myth of the Irish who were probablt trained as pike and shot in Ireland but suddenly arrive in Scotland and not only become onlynmusket armed but according to myth also invented the highland charge
I know you are not going to change your mind and I respect that but don't attempt to state your views as fact particularly when so much myth surrounds the whole army. At the end of the day the army was never thevsame from day to day with units coming and going at a great rate.
As for the Italian writer of the list for the other rules he is also entitled to his views but again I do not see any supporting evidence.
By the way I am not an acolyte of Stuart Reid as I believe he can go badly wrong particularly in his rating of Medieval highlanders that led Phil Barker into a total hash in his dbm and dbmm lists. Re Montrose highlanders I think Reid draws a distinction between well armed highland levy units (pike and shot) and those not trained and using traditional tactics. The latter are described in chronicles of the time as poorly armed which indicates how contemporaries viewed their relative worth.
John

By the way why do people supporting the Irish as being wonderful want to make them less effective unde the rules than they are at present. An all shot unit or one with spears rather than pikes is hardly a winning combination while pike and shot with sword can be good particularly against mounted.
Just a though.
John

well my reply would be - what evidence have we that they were a pike/shot unit ?
So if in comps i will use the lists - thanks for ur opinions chaps

Steve

Contemporary accounts of the Irish don't mention them being any different to any of the other infantry - so the balance of evidence is surely that they were Pike & Shot like most other infantry.