Thesis: A Comparison of the Training and Application of Techniques

0505325
A Comparison of the Training and Application of Techniques
Between War and the Formal Duel in Scotland from 1690 to 1740
Professor Strickland
Submitted for the award of MLitt
Department of History
University of Glasgow
September 2010
Abstract
In studying history it is common to come across men who distinguished
themselves in their abilities on the battlefield and duelling field. Within the period
from 1690-1740 men from Scotland had ample opportunities to gain distinction both
in battle and duelling and both these activities have been studied in detail, however,
no study has been undertaken to determine the differences that would have met a man
skilled in one while participating in the other. In order to undertake this study I used
the texts of Donald Macleod and Donald McBane from the 18th century as well as the
Penicuick Sketches and surviving weaponry from the period. I also studied textual
evidence from duels and battles within the period to determine perceived differences.
This study has shown that the duel of this period was not strictly to the death but
remained quite different from battlefield combat due to it being undertaken alone
against a single opponent. The largest differences occurred in the weapon designs, the
desired outcome and in the purpose behind undertaking the combat. This work should
allow for others to further study the duel of the period as well as undertake further
study on the characters McBane and Macleod both of whom provide fascinating
insights into their period.
i.
Acknowledgements
I have found throughout my academic career that, try though I might, I can not
complete work without the assistance of others. In the completion of this work I owe a
debt of gratitude to the following individuals:
My parents, for giving me the opportunity and upbringing to be able to undertake my
studies and carry out my research. I may never be able to fully repay you for all you
have done for me but I will always strive to make you proud.
My Grandmother, for taking me in and feeding me while I worked. The work may
have been hard but I will always treasure getting to spend those evenings talking with
you. Your faith in me allowed me to complete this work.
My sister, for reading over my work and catching the final mistakes and of course for
sending me a surprise package to get me through my final push.
Members of the Academy, for allowing me to test my combat theories on you and for
being ever patient about listening to my ideas.
Killian, Cullen, John and Adrians, for making history come alive to me and
encouraging me to see past the books and immerse myself in my field.
Keith, for editing my work and keeping the business running while I completed my
research. I could not have asked for a better business partner or friend.
Elizabeth, for being my initial editor and encouraging me to get the work done even
when it all seemed to be too much. I may have carried you in the army but you have
carried me in my studies and I am ever grateful.
Dr Moffat, for allowing me to take up so much of your time whenever I visit the
GMRC and for always being patient while showing me around Pod 10.
My teachers, instructors, lecturers and professors, for giving me the knowledge and
encouragement to succeed with my education.
Finally I would like to thank the person whose patience and wisdom have helped me
to complete two dissertations and for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect,
Professor Strickland, I know I haven't been the easiest student but I hope you know I
have always been grateful for all your help.
ii
List of Illustrations
Fig. 1.1: Basket-hilted Broadsword, dated 1740, Scottish hilt and German blade.
Kelvingrove Museum: R.L. Scott Bequest 1939.65.la
p.15
Fig. 1.2: Highland Soldiers. 1747. Penicuick Sketch 7 & 8
p.17
Fig. 1.3: Small Sword, dated between 1690-1740, French. Kelvingrove Museum:
1911.29.ck
p.18
Fig. 1.4: Falchion, dated 1640, England. Wallace Collection: A717
p.22
Fig. 1.5: Lochaber Axe, dated 1740, Scottish
p.23
Fig. 1.6: Highlander and Lochaber Axe. Penicuick Sketch 39
p.24
Fig. 1.7: Training with Lochaber Axe. McBane, p64
p.24
Fig. 1.8: Scottish Targe, 1740, Scotland. Kelvingrove Museum: R.L. Scott Bequest
E.1939.65.om
p.25
Fig. 1.9: British Socket Bayonet, 1740, England. CMH pub 30–21: American Military
History: Volume 1; The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917
p.28
Fig. 1.10: British Land Pattern Musket, 1740, England. CMH pub 30–21: American
Military History: Volume 1; The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation,
1775-1917
p.30
Fig. 2.1: Highland Soldiers Training. 1747. Penicuick Sketch 17
p.36
Fig. 2.2: Training Against Highland Broadsword and Targe. McBane, D. Expert
Swordsman's Companion (1728) p48
p.40
Fig. 2.3: The Duel. McBane, D. Expert Swordsman's Companion (1728) p46
p.44
iii
Fig. 3.1: The Battle of Culloden. Of note the musket with severed bayonet in bottom
left corner. Penicuick Sketch 30
p.51
Fig. 3.2: Government Preparation for Culloden. Penicuick Sketch 18
p.55
iii
Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
List of Illustrations
i
ii
iii
I. Introduction
p.1
II. Tools of Combat
p.14
1. Broadsword
p.15
2. Small-sword
p.18
3. Spadroon
p.20
4. Falchion
p.22
5. Lochaber Axe
p.23
6. Targe and Dirk
p.25
7. Bayonet
p.28
8. Firearm
p.30
III. Training
p.34
1. Battlefield
p.35
1. Highland Clans
p.36
2. Government
p.40
2. Duel
IV. Application and Outcome
p.44
p.50
1. Highland Clans
p.51
2. Government
p.55
3. Duel
p.59
V. Conclusions
p.63
VI. Glossary
p.66
VII.
p.67
Bibliography
0505325
Introduction
All too often in the study of war and conflict it is only possible to be aware of
the overall narrative and to forget to listen to the voices of the multitudes that took
part within it. Generals and great men are studied profusely, their words interpreted
and their actions on the battlefield dissected so one can view the brilliant use of tactics
that won the day. Yet, as many military officers know, superior tactics are of little use
if the individuals involved in executing them are not up to the task. In his The Face of
Battle , John Keegan comments on what he terms “the Deficiencies of Military
History” and writes:
“Allowing the combatants to speak for themselves is not merely a permissible
but, when and where possible, an essential ingredient of battle analysis. The
almost universal illiteracy of the common soldier of any century before the
nineteenth, makes it a technique difficult to employ.”1
It is thus fortunate to be able to gain such insights through the 1728 work of Donald
McBane, The Expert Swordsman's Companion, an individual who describes himself
as a soldier, gambler and pimp. This first-hand account allows one to learn about the
life, training and techniques of the individual Scottish soldier in the early eighteenth
1
Keegan, J., The Face of Battle (London, 1976), p31
1
0505325
century. As McBane himself comments:
Thrice Sprightly Reader, it is BANE requires,
That this his Labours lighten your Desires,
To Martial Glory, While he hereby Wills,
And Hopes you'll shun Appearance of Ills,
None better is than this, for Self-Defence,
When taken in a True and Genuine Sense.2
Donald McBane was born in Inverness in 1664 and although initially sent to work as
an apprentice tobacco spinner, he enlisted as a musketeer in the regiment of Captain
McKenzie at the age of 23 due to the lack of food apprentices received. At the age of
29 he took up fencing, and shortly after had his first, and only, loss as a duellist.3 The
section containing the “True art of Self-Defence” ends with the line “To avoid those
desperate combats, my advice is for all Gentlemen to take a hearty cup and to drink
with friends to avoid trouble.” This suggests that in the duel as in the battlefield
McBane was aware of the reality of combat and was a supporter of ending quarrels
peacefully. Indeed, he begins and finishes his work by admonishing the reader against
frivolous combat.
2
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion (Glasgow, 1728) Introductory Verse (not
numbered)
3
This duel occurred because the senior soldier set to mentor him and control his pay refused to pay
him. After the initial loss he trained harder and later beat the soldier and took command of both his
own and the older soldier's pay.
2
0505325
McBane sums up his long military career as follows:
Under the Notion of a Musquetier;
And shortly after to a Pike-man rose,
Plac'd in the Fore-front to offend our Foes.
Soon after for the Space of Twenty Years;
Was I one of the Royal Granadiers:
Inroll'd in Lord George Hamilton's Command,
The Hope and Honour of our Native Land.
In Sixteen Battles Foughten, I have been,
And Fifty-two great Sieges I have seen.
Five-Score and Sixteen Times I did Advance,
In Flanders, Holland, Germany and France.
My Countries Cause, hot Skirmishes I join'd,
And Victory of my Enemies I obtain'd.4
Although he was a talented swordsman and soldier McBane, nevertheless, is perhaps
best remembered for a retreat so hasty and notable that it is commemorated in modern
place name evidence. On the 17th of July, 1689 at the battle of Killiecrankie5, McBane
4
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion Introductory Verse (not numbered)
5
For further details on the Battle of Killiecrankie see: Reid, Stuart, The Battle of Killiecrankie
(Partizan Press, 2009)
3
0505325
found himself in his second battle as a professional soldier. At the outset of the battle
General MacKay's men, of which McBane was one, received the highland charge of
Viscount Claverhouse and his highlanders. The royalist line broke, and many fled,
including McBane, who had witnessed the horrors of what broadsword and dirk could
inflict at close quarters. Fiercely pursued by some highlanders, he reached the river
Garry and made an astonishing eighteen foot leap across the pass. The site of this feat
is still known locally as “The Soldier’s Leap.”6
Here it is necessary to introduce a contemporary of McBane, also from
Inverness, Serjeant Donald Macleod, whose Memoirs of the life and gallant exploits
of the old highlander, 1791, is another key source for examining the life of a soldier in
this period7. Like McBane, Macleod also ran away from his apprenticeship because of
a lack of food, and later, at the age of twelve, enlisted in the Scots Royals
(commanded by the Earl of Orkney) in Perth in 1703. He even fought alongside
McBane at times, although neither makes mention of the other. He was trained in the
highland method and was known within his regiments as being talented with the
broadsword. He served in many theatres of operations, including Europe and the
Americas. His military career spanned from the Battle of Donawert on the 2nd of July
1704 to acting as a drill serjeant under General Henry Clinton, in Charleston, after the
outbreak of the American Rebellion of 1796. His life story spans 103 years and is
recorded in two accounts: the first mentioned above and the second being An CVIII
6
The “Soldier’s Leap” is referenced on OS maps from 1867 onwards (NN 914 626)
7
The publication can be verified as being published in 1791 as it is listed in: Jeffries, F., The
Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle for the year 1791 (1791, London) Vol 61 Pt 1 p.54
This resource also offers another source of verification as to the truth of Macleod's story
4
0505325
years of the life, and a relation of the Old Highlander, Serjeant Donald Macleod: who
returned wounded with the corps of General Wolfe from the battle of Quebec, was
shipwrecked on the coast of Scarborough, and is now a pensioner of Chelsea Hospital
(1797) written by William Thomson and published in London in 1797. The second
account largely matches the first, except for a slight addition at the end, stating
William Thomson's reasons for republishing the biography. In March 1881 an M.A.
Rose writes in the “Celtic Monthly” magazine about Donald Macleod. Although her
account shows no evidence of information beyond what is included in the biography
itself, it does appear that areas of the work have been verified. Although Rose states
that there was no way of knowing what happened to him after the biography was
finished, other than he appears to have returned and spent the rest of his days in
Inverness.8 Parts of Macleod's story were verified by Rev. Dr. Donald MacKinnon and
Alick Morrison in 1968. In their study of Macleod, however, they did state that his
numbers and dates may not have been accurate a lot of the time. This is
understandable considering his 103 years of age when he dictated his life story to his
biographer.9
Both these men entered military life by choice and both excelled in their area.
That both men joined the military by choice, and were contemporaries, allow
important comparisons to be made. Their expertise can be seen in the fact that each
were instructors in their field: McBane in the duelling arts and Macleod as a drill
8
Rose, M.A. “The Adventures of Donald Macleod” in The Celtic Magazine (March, 1881;
Edinburgh) pp418-460
9
MacKinnon, D & Morrison, A., THE MACLEODS--THE GENEALOGY OF A CLAN, Section II,
(Edinburgh, 1968) p.120
5
0505325
serjeant. Although both stories are exciting and enjoyable to read, relatively little has
been written recently about either text, beyond summaries of the information.
McBane is a figure often discussed in the field of the Historical European Martial
Arts; however, most of this discussion centres on his combat guide and very little on
his biography. The majority of this research has been undertaken by Paul MacDonald
and Mark Rector who have included a transcribed version of McBane's biography in
their latest book. Ian Morrison has also researched McBane and written an essay on
him which is included in Simpson's, The Scottish Soldier Abroad. Both of these works
look at McBane's story and attempt to verify various parts within it, although with
McBane not being a commissioned officer, very little of his activities can be
successfully cross-referenced. The battles he describes did happen as he states and the
“soldiers leap” episode can be confirmed by the place name evidence. Ian Morrison
argues that McBane was writing as an entrepreneurial exercise in his old age and that
it is unlikely to be largely exaggerated for the purpose of McBane's reputation as, by
the time it was written, “the old reprobate quite clearly did not give a damn for his
reputation in the eyes of any man who carried a sword.”10
McBane and Macleod both saw a lot of action during their time with the
military; both rose to the rank of serjeant and were present at a series of battles across
Europe. They also both came into contact with, and in the case of Macleod, served
with, highland clansmen. Macleod even learned and trained in broadsword and targe,
the classic armaments of the highlander clansmen, before joining the military. As well
10
Morrison, I.A., “Survival Skills: An Enterprising Highlander in the Low Countries with
Marlborough” in Simpson,G. The Scottish Soldier Abroad 1247-1967, (Edinburgh, 1992) p83
6
0505325
as participating in battles such as Killiecrankie, Flanders, and sieges such as Blenheim
and Malplaquet11, both McBane and Macleod were involved in duels and prizefighting
which allowed them to build up a significant and varied level of experience. Their
experiences and memoires allow the historian a view into military life of this period,
as well as a greater understanding of the training and martial practices experienced by
the early eighteenth century soldier.
My Fourth Course was a Serjeant of Dragoons,
Well known at Preston, and at other Towns.
And Lastly I'm Fort William Connonier,
Thanks be to GOD, my En'mies I don't Fear;
Who was so oft embroil'd in Bloody Wars,
Indent as 'twere and Carv'd with Cuts and Scars;
Which Fortune seem'd to favour and o'er look,
That I might serve you with this Little Book.
Buy it, and try it, then upon my Word,
A good Tongue still will prove a Trusty Sword.
But where ther's no Evading of a Strife,
Here's what will serve you for to save your Life.
So Count it not a Fault in me,
If you'r the Father of a Plea. 12
11
For further details on the battles in this period see: Lynn, J. A. The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714.
(London, 1999), Spencer, C. Blenheim: Battle for Europe. (Phoenix, 2005), Churchill, W.
Marlborough: His Life and Times (New York, 1935 reprinted Chicago, 2002).
12
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion Introductory Verse (not numbered)
7
0505325
Finally at the age of 51, Donald McBane ended his active military career as a
Dragoon Serjeant at Preston then as a Cannonier at Fort William, at which point he
took up prizefighting in Bear Gardens, London. As a prize fighter he successfully
fought and won thirty-seven combats with a variety of sharp weapons, including
back-sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, falchion and quarterstaff.13 14 After
retirement from prize fighting in 1724 he returned to Inverness. However, on the 23rd
of June 1726, McBane came out of retirement to face a young Irish "Gladiator"
named O'Bryan on a stage in the abbey of Holyrood House, Edinburgh. This combat
was performed after O'Bryan had issued a challenge for the greatest combatant in
Scotland to face him and many of the Scottish gentlemen and nobles had called for
the sixty-two year old McBane. McBane defeated O'Bryan, using a falchion to give
him seven wounds and a broken arm.
A year later at the age of sixty-three McBane swore off combat and wrote his
book, The expert sword-man's companion; or the true art of self-defence; with an
account of the author’s life, and his transactions during the wars with France; to
which is annexed, The art of gunnerie, which was published in Glasgow that same
year (1728). It is from a first edition copy of this work, held by the University of
Glasgow library, that this author has had the opportunity to work and study in the
preparation of the following work.
13
Castle, Egerton, Schools and Masters of Fence. (London, 1892) pp.265-269
14
Hutton, Alfred. Old Sword Play. (London, 1892) pp. 286-392
8
0505325
The book itself is small measuring approximately 175x125mm the section
containing the Expert swordsman's companion, which is the section giving combat
instruction, has 21 fold out pages containing detailed plates demonstrating the combat
techniques discussed. There is also a single fold out page containing a portrait of
Donald McBane and his weapons and targe at the beginning. The copy held by the
University of Glasgow Library Special Collections Department (Mu54-h.26) is bound
in its original calf skin. The key question is 'is this work a genuine account?' Or, so
incredible a tale, that is was actually a story by a later author, passing it off as an
eighteenth century piece. The title page claims it was printed by James Duncan and
sold in his shop in the Salt Market of Glasgow, M.DCC.XXVIII. It can be established
that James Duncan was operating as a publisher in Glasgow in the period, in 1729 he
published A Rare Soul Strengthening and Comforting Cordiall for Old and Young
Christians by James Stevenson. Dr Hilliard of the National Library of Scotland also
verified that the two copies held in their collection, which match that at the University
of Glasgow, “have nothing untoward about them, which might seem inconsistent with
the stated publication date of 1728. The paper, typography and graphic style of the
decorations and illustrations all appear to be true to period.”15 Another clue to the
book belonging to the correct time period is that it contains the signature of Laurence
Dinwiddie. Laurence Dinwiddie was the Provost of Glasgow from 5th of October,
1742 until the 4th of October, 1743. He had also been a student in the fifth class at the
University of Glasgow in 1709. It is likely he was the first owner of the text held in
15
Morrison, p82
9
0505325
Glasgow.16 As the signature matches that of the Provost it can be reasonably believed
that the signature is authentic thus helping to date the text.
The second potential problem when studying such a text is determining the
honesty of the author. Many of the stories contained within the book do not paint
McBane in a positive light; there is likely a level of exaggeration with some of the
stories, as McBane is writing to please an audience, not necessarily to provide a
historical account of events. The book also contains little detail from the battles
themselves, however most of what is included can be verified from other
contemporary accounts of the battles. The combat instructions offered can be
interpreted and applied successfully by a student of European Martial Arts although
there does appear to be a degree of European influence in certain techniques (not
unsurprising considering McBane's career). Out with the book itself there is
information on McBane's final prize fight in the Edinburgh Evening Courant the last
mention stating: “Old Donald Bane, alias McBane, from the north of Scotland, quite
defeat the Irishman, and almost cut him to pieces, and shamefully beat him off the
stage, for challenging the whole country.”17 With these details it is possible to view
the McBane book as being original and of Donald McBane himself having existed
and at the very least having won his final fight. The final piece of information to be
noted from the physical aspects of book itself is the title which describes it as the
Expert Swordsman's Companion. This, along with its small size, makes two things
16
For further details on Laurence Dinwiddie see: Cope, G., Genealogy of Dunwoody and Hood
Families (Princeton, 1899) pp.5-9
17
Morrison, 1992. p.95
10
0505325
clear: this book was not for beginners, it was meant to compliment existing skills
especially military skill; it was designed to be carried and consulted with ease.
McBane's work is one of a small collection of works that discuss the highland
methods of combat on an individual level. Other works on this are written by Sir
William Hope and Thomas Page, then later further work is carried out on what is
termed the regimental highland broadsword (post-1745 rebellion broadsword) by
Henry Angelo (1799) and Thomas Mathewson (1801).18 These later works, though,
differ from the earlier sources which leads to Christopher Scott Thompson suggesting
that McBane is actually the transitionary piece that connects traditional highland
broadsword and regimental highland broadsword.19
A source which will be used in this work, which shows traditional highland
broadsword practises, is the Penicuik Sketches.20 This collection of twenty-nine
drawings, contributed by an unknown artist near Penicuik, from the '45 rebellion are
the only known contemporary illustrations taken during the rebellion. They show both
highland and government troops prior to, during and in the aftermath of the battle of
Culloden21. They accurately show the uniforms and weapons carried and appear to
show the stances and positions used by the individual highlanders while fighting in an
18
For further details on the Scottish martial tradition see: Wagner, P. & Rector, M. Highland
Broadsword; Five Manuals of Scottish Regimental Swordsmanship (Highland Village, 2004)
19
Thompson, C., Lannaireachd:Gaelic Swordsmanship (New York, 2002) p13
20
For further details on the Penicuick Sketches as well as a copy of all 29 drawings see: Brown, G. &
Cheape, H., Witness to Rebellion: John Maclean's Journal of the '45 and the Penicuik Drawings.
(East Lothian, 1996)
21
For further details on the Battle of Culloden (1745) see: Pollard, T. (ed.). Culloden: The History and
Archaeology of the last Clan Battle. (Barnesly, 2009)
11
0505325
accurate fashion. This source along with McBane and Macleod's biographies provide
the historian with a selection of contemporary accounts of the period from 1690-1790.
The reason why the primary text was chosen has been put forward, the
contents identified, its legitimacy determined and the purpose of the primary
source/text has been discussed. The second contemporary text which will provide a
degree of cross referencing has also been discussed, so it is now fair to advance from
describing the sources to discussing the purpose of the work itself.
In studying the aforementioned sources it becomes clear that in this period, for
men such as McBane and Macleod, violence was a part of life. With battlefield
combat, duelling, rebellions, prize fighting, highway robbery and general fighting
these men found much of their life occupied by the sword. What though, were the
differences on an individual level between these areas of combat? In this work the
individual combat undertaken on the battlefield will be compared to that undertaken
as part of duelling. The different weapons will be analysed and discussed to determine
if the tools reveal the differences. The training methods will by analysed and
discussed to determine if the training was different depending on the style of combat
to be undertaken. Finally the actions during and the outcome of both types of combat
will be analysed to determine any differences between the combat at that level. In
order to narrow the scope, only Scottish units will be discussed and in doing so it is
necessary to separate the clansmen and the government men, as both approached
combat differently, with former being predominantly warriors and the latter being
12
0505325
predominantly soldiers. In the concluding section the results of the analysis of the
previous sections will be brought together for a final analysis which will determine
whether there was a difference between both forms of combat at any level or if the
difference was largely in the culture in which the individual was immersed while
participating in the combat.
13
0505325
Chapter 1: Tools
If one is to view this work in the style of a modern teaching syllabus, it is
possible to view the previous section as the materials, this section as the tools used, to
be followed in turn by a description of the teaching and finally a discussion of the
outcome of the application. From the earliest times, man has made extensive use of
tools for many activities, including that of destroying other man. In the period at the
turn of the 18th century, the tools for destruction came in a great many forms, each
designed to be especially effective depending on the circumstances in which they
were employed. It is important to identify and analyse these tools, as their design
denotes their function. Such analysis can assist when later discussing the training
methods used, their tactical application and their overall effectiveness. It should, of
course, be noted, that there were other weapons on the battle and duelling fields of
this period, but what those chosen are representative of the main individual weapons,
rather than squad based weapons. The list has also been constricted to include only
weapons which were in use by Scots, especially Serjeants McBane and Macleod.
Finally, for the benefit of the reader, pictures of surviving examples have been
inserted. These examples were chosen as being the closest match to the weapon in use
in the period, and thus the most likely style to have been carried by the individuals
who wrote or are mentioned within the primary sources.
14
0505325
Basket-hilted Broadsword
Fig. 1.1: Basket-hilted Broadsword, dated 1740, Scottish hilt and German blade.
Kelvingrove Museum: R.L. Scott Bequest 1939.65.la
No other weapon has as many names, nor as much debate over the correct
name, than the basket-hilted broadsword. The single largest point of discussion is
whether the version of this sword used by Scottish soldiers, most notably Highland
Clansmen, was a claymore, or the large Scottish two handed sword was a claymore.
Wagner and Thompson argue in “The words claymore and broadsword” that the
Highlanders themselves called this sword a claidheamh mor or “big sword”, whereas
the two handed sword is never referred to with this term until the 20th century.1 In
1576 both the English and Lowland Scots referred to this sword: in Scotland, as
“heland heltis” and in England,“Irishe2 hilts”.3 McBane, for his part, refers to the
sword as the “broadsword”, whereas Sir William Hope, a prolific writer on
swordsmanship from the period and deputy governor of Edinburgh castle, refers to the
1
Wagner, P. & Thompson, C., “The words claymore and broadsword.” in SPADA, Vol 2 (Highland
Village, 2005) pp 111-217
2
A common term in England for Highland Scots or any Gaelic speaker.
3
Wallace, J., Scottish Swords and Dirks: A reference guide to Scottish Edged Weapons. (London,
1970)
15
0505325
weapon as the “highland broadsword”, suggesting that even in the period the
terminology used for this weapon was varied.4
This weapon was most likely developed by Scottish Highlanders at a relatively
early date. Examples of asymmetric half guards constructed of multiple thin bars
surrounding a simple cross guard appear in England as early as 1520. The style
associated with Scottish Highlanders noted by the classic, full “Edinburgh style” hilt
appears on a portrait of Lyttleton of Longford in 1560.5 Early English examples make
use of the West Highland “snouted”or “beaked-nose” guards, which again suggests a
Highland origin for this weapon.6
As varied as the names for this weapon, are the stylistic differences between
extant examples. Most scholars, however, accept that the weapon can be most clearly
defined as being a single-handed sword, between thirty-three and thirty-five inches in
length, with a fully encompassing guard and rounded pommel. It should be noted that
the three styles of blade can be viewed in another primary source for this weapon
from the period of the '45 rebellion, the Penicuik Sketches. This remarkable set of
drawings from the time of the '45 rebellion is one of the clearest sources with which
4
Rector, M., Highland Swordsmanship: Techniques of the Scottish Masters (Union City, 2001) p3
5
Blair, C., “The Early Basket Hilt in Britain.” in Scottish Weapons and Fortifications 1100-1800 Ed.
David Caldwell (Edinburgh, 1981)
6
Ibid.
16
0505325
to examine the Highland Clansman and his accoutrements.7 In them, we see the
broadsword blade with two edges, both with, and without, a fuller. It is more like a
scimitar in that it is curved with a wide foible8 and finally in “back-sword” style
which is a sword with only a single blade (normally on the true edge).
Fig. 1.2: Highland Soldiers. 1747
Penicuick Sketch 7 & 8
Sir William Hope was particularly fond of this weapon, especially the backsword variant. In chapter four of his New Method, he states that the “Art of the Backsword is the fountain and source of all true defence and that of the small [small
sword] only a branch proceeding and separate from it.” Then, later in chapter seven
when discussing which style of sword a man should purchase if he only purchases
one, he states that the Highland Broadsword is “the most proper sword of them all for
7
Brown, G. & Cheape, H., Witness to Rebellion: John Maclean's Journal of the '45 and the Penicuik
Drawings. (East Lothian, 1996) p50
8
Significantly Gaelic tradition describes these blades as turcaich or “Turks”. See MacKechnie, J.,
The Dewar Manuscripts (Glasgow, 1963) p179
17
0505325
the Wars, either a-foot or on horseback.”9 The weapon was also the choice weapon of
Serjeant Macleod. Although McBane fought against it regularly, and developed a
system of combat against it, he never appears to favour it personally to any great
extent.
This weapon was used in warfare, duels and prizefighting. It was not restricted
solely to the Clansmen, as we are told that in McBane's first duel, against the officer
who is withholding his pay, the officer, a member of a government regiment, uses a
broadsword and defeats McBane.10 In the later sections the damage it could inflict will
be discussed in more detail, but it is the opinion of the author that this was a prolific
and favoured weapon amongst Scottish and English troops of the day due to its high
damage dealing potential and versatility, along with the excellent level of protection
afforded by the basket which covered the hand.
Small Sword
Fig. 1.3: Small Sword, dated between 1690-1740, French.
Kelvingrove Museum: 1911.29.ck
9
Hope, W., New Method of Fencing, or the True and Solid Art of Fighting with the Back-Sword,
Sheering-Sword, Small-Sword and Sword and Pistol; freed from the Errors of the Schools.
(Edinburgh, 1714)
10
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion (Glasgow, 1728)
18
0505325
The small sword, or in Hope's words “the branch that proceeds and is separate
from” the back-sword, was a weapon largely associated with the duel. The name is
descriptive of all parts of the sword itself, which characteristically possessed a stiff,
thin, triangular blade of between twenty-eight and thirty-two inches in length. The hilt
was small and fine for the day consisting of a set of rings and oyster shell shaped cup
to protect the fingers which wrapped over the crossguard, and a single thin metal bar
which extended from the crossguard to the pommel and protected the knuckles. The
blade would remain largely unsharpened as the weapon’s key purpose was the thrust,
which it executed with ease. Donald McBane compares the small sword to the
broadsword in a positive manner stating that, “the Small Sword hath great odds of the
Broad, for the Small Sword kills, and you may receive forty cuts and not be
disabled.”11 In other words, the thrust of a small sword almost always killed an
opponent whereas a man could survive a cut or slash delivered by the broadsword.
The small sword was the first sword which McBane took up and practised under a
master, and in his fencing instructions he offers much advice about the use of this
weapon against weapons such as the broad and back swords.
The weapon's design comes from Italy and was a design appreciated by both
military men and civilians, largely in part due to its compact nature which allowed it
to be easily worn against the hip without it bulging out. Many of the extant examples
are decorated at the hilt and inscribed upon the forté although this decoration rarely
appears to hinder the weapon's functionality. The triangular cross-section of the blade
11
McBane, p38
19
0505325
allows it an element of stiffness which increases the ability of the blade in the thrust.
This did, however, open one up for the danger of the blade snapping in combat.12 The
design though, largely focused on the ability to thrust, which had the effect of making
the weapon extremely quick, stiff and light, however, due to the limitations imposed
by being only capable of thrusting, relatively fragile and not offering much protection
for the hands, the weapon was reserved for duelling and prizefighting, not for use on
the battlefield.
Spadroon
After discussing the broadsword and small sword, the logical progression
would be to discuss the intermediary between the two. If one is to view the
broadsword as largely a weapon for use by military men, and the small sword for use
by civilian men, then the spadroon can be viewed as a weapon that both would be
comfortable using. It did however see a better reception from military men. The
spadroon was also termed the sheering sword in Scotland and both Hope and McBane
refer to it as such: “Because for a general and close engagement, better swords there
cannot possibly be than those kind of stiff, well-edged Sheering Swords, of a
moderate length, and with good, close, or as they are more commonly termed by the
vulgar, Shell or Sheep-head hilts.”13
12
When it is mentioned that someone’s sword was snapped as part of them being dishonoured it is
often in reference to this weapon which could be broken across a rock or even an individual’s own
knee due to the lack of flex in the blade.
13
Hope, Ch V
20
0505325
The Spadroon was “a two edged military sword, lighter than a broadsword,
made for both cutting and thrusting. A spadroon may have a simple cross hilt, or a
shell-guard and knuckle-bow, like a small sword or rapier.”14 The blade itself is flat
and wide in the forté with a strongly tapered foible and, from observing McBane’s
many descriptions, it had a flat or oval profile allowing it to be quick. McBane
describes the spadroon as an “extraordinary weapon that none can compare with it.”15
It should be noted that often discussion of the Spadroon refers to the later weapon,
most notably the Brittish 1796 pattern light infantry sword. This later weapon was
lighter and less suitable for the cut, whereas the spadroon from Hope and McBane's
time would have been slightly heavier with a wider blade.
This weapon saw most common use off the battlefield in duels between
military men, although McBane does discuss using it against a mounted pistol wielder
and also against a combatant wielding broadsword and targe, which suggests it could
be used on the battlefield. At times in his story McBane refers to his “spadroon” while
at other times he refers to his “sword” which suggests that he had two weapons and in
observing at what times the word “spadroon” is used specifically, it appears to always
be while travelling or carrying out his business. All the engagements where he
specifies “spadroon” are engagements where he did not expect an encounter,
14
Rector, p195
15
McBane, p60
21
0505325
suggesting this was his choice weapon for self-defence.
Falchion
Fig. 1.4: Falchion, dated 1640, England.
Wallace Collection: A717
The falchion was a weapon which had been popular for battlefield use in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Designed to be a cleaving weapon, which made it
capable of being effective against heavily armoured opponents, as the use of armour
on the battlefield declined, so did the use of the falchion. By the time of McBane and
Hope, it had left the battlefield entirely, being replaced by weapons such as the backsword and later the sabre. It did however, retain a degree of popularity within the
prizefighting community. McBane himself made use of a falchion in his final fight
against the Irishman O'Bryan. In his description of the combat, as well as that in the
Edinburgh Evening Courant, an interesting piece of evidence about this weapon is
relinquished, “I gave him seven wounds, and broke his arm with the Fauchion
[Falchion].”16 The falchion had been designed to overcome the protection offered by
armour and as such the blade was relatively heavy, which allowed a blow that may not
16
McBane, 1729 p152
22
0505325
cut through the armour to have the percussive force to damage one’s opponent
through the armour itself. This was often exploited during prizefighting, which
involved no armour, due to the purpose being to wound and force a yield of one’s
opponent rather than to kill them. It would appear that McBane made use of this
characteristic to defeat O'Bryan in a non-permanent manner, but enough so as to end
the fight.
A description of a falchion in this period would be that it was a “short, curved,
single-edged sword with a clipped point.”17 It rarely had any form of knuckle guard,
with the hilt in the older arming sword style. It lacked the ability to thrust well and
could most easily be viewed as a tool that is somewhere between an axe and a sword.
These design characteristics made it unsuitable for either the duel or the battlefield of
the period and kept it a weapon only for the prizefighter’s stage.
Lochaber Axe
Fig. 1.5: Lochaber Axe, dated 1740, Scottish
The Highland Clansmen of this period had developed a set of weapons that
were well suited to their style of warfare. One of these was the Lochaber axe. During
17
Rector, p194
23
0505325
McBane's first military encounter, he saw the effectiveness of this weapon in skilled
hands against his captain, and he even added a set of plates to the end of his section
on fencing which describe the proper use of the weapon.18 In the mid-nineteenth
century James Logan wrote that the Lochaber axe was called, tuagh-chatha, in Gaelic.
He goes on to say that it was “usually mounted on a staff about five
feet long, but another sort was wielded with one hand, the thumb being extended
along the shaft, and so forcibly that no mail could resist it. Two soldiers of the Black
Watch fought with this weapon before King George, so late as 1743.”19 The drawings
of the Lochaber axe in McBane, as well as in the Penicuick sketches, show that the
weapon was indeed about five to six feet in length with a single two foot long curved
blade on the true edge and a hook on the back edge. It also appears to have a separate
spear tip in some cases, and in others, the blade overhangs the shaft to allow for
thrusting.
Fig. 1.6: Highlander and Lochaber Axe
Penicuick Sketch 39
Fig. 1.7: Training with Lochaber Axe
McBane, p64
Although the weapon was a battlefield weapon largely used by Highland
18
McBane, p77
19
Logan, J., The Scottish Gael (London, 1833) Ch. VII
24
0505325
Clansmen during the Clan wars and subsequent rebellions, McBane's plates show the
weapon being wielded by individuals who bear little resemblance to Clansmen and in
fact appear to be English and European troops. This may have been for artistic choice,
or perhaps due to the rebellions still occurring at the time his book was written, he
chose to use figures which his audience could identify with easier. John Home
describes the Lochaber axe as having been made “from the shaft of a pitch-fork with a
scythe head attached to it.”20
Targe and Dirk
Fig. 1.8: Scottish Targe, 1740, Scotland
Kelvingrove Museum: R.L. Scott Bequest E.1939.65.om
After the broadsword, the set of accoutrements most recognisable to the
Clansmen of this period, are the targe and dirk. This author has taken the liberty of
discussing both of these weapons within the same section as in many of the primary
sources of this period these weapons are mentioned as being paired. Until the midsixteenth century, “bucklairs”, a small hand-held shield about fifteen inches in
diameter, were the shield most commonly used in the Highlands, however, the target
or “targe” had been in use since at least the fourteenth century, and by the early
20
Home, J., The History of the Rebellion in the Year 1745 (London, 1802) p104
25
0505325
eighteenth century was the shield of choice for Highland Clansmen.21 The targe itself
was expertly crafted, and the following is the author’s own description of a targe held
in the Glasgow Museum Resource Centre's Scott Collection which due to damage
allows one to observe the multiple layers: It is an eighteen inch, round shield
constructed of two layers of what appears to be oak or Scots pine. The layers are
glued at right angles which forms a strong cross-ply. The front of the shield appears to
have a layer of rawhide overlaid with a layer of dyed vegetable tanned cow-hide
which has been carved prior to being dyed. This is then reinforced with brass plate
and studs placed in geometric shapes on the front and [intact] sides. The back appears
to be covered with the pelt of an animal, most likely either deer or goat and is stuffed
with wool, presumably to absorb blows. There are also the fittings for a leather arm
loop and an iron or leather hand grip which is small enough to allow the dirk to be
wielded whilst holding the targe. The targe may have offered a degree of protection
against firearms which would be understandable due to the concept in modern antiballistic technology that what stops a round is the alternation of hard and soft layers,
of which the targe has several.
The claim which suggests this is a letter from Henry Fletcher in 1716 which
states: “The nails sometimes throw off a ball, especially when it hits the Targe a
squint: but tho' a ball came directly upon it and miss the nail heads, piercing betwixt
them, yet they reckon that the leather, the cork, the wooll so deaden the ball, that the
21
Wagner, P., “Gaelic Swordsmanship.” in Rector, M., Highland Swordsmanship: Techniques of the
Scottish Masters (Union City, 2001) p8
26
0505325
Steel plate, tho' thin, repells it and lodges it in the wooll.”22 It is clear the targe in this
description has additional layers which would have added to its weight, but it is a
possibility that such a targe would be able to deflect the musket balls from the period.
Donald McBane does however warn that “a man that does not understand the targe is
better without it than with it, for it blinds his own eyes.”23
The second part of this weapon pairing is the dirk. This would be held in the
left hand along with the targe's grip. This weapon was a thick backed single edged
dagger about eighteen inches in length. Commonly, it would be made from the blades
of broken broadswords or, after the banning of the broadsword, the blades would be
turned into a dirk, which was not a part of the ban. The dirk was always held in an
overhand grip which would allow it to be effective from behind the targe itself. This
method allowed them, as Johnston states, to “bring down two men at a time, one with
the dirk in their left hand and the other with the sword.”24 The dirk most likely
originated from the medieval bollok dagger as it shares a similar hilt, in that both lack
any form of crossguard but rather the handle is carved with two protrusions that stop
the hand from slipping down over the blade during the thrust.
In 1745, General Wade described the Highland Clansmen taking an oath “upon
22
Letter from Henry Fletcher to his brother (21/01/1716) quoted in Caldwell, D., Scottish Weapons &
Fortifications 1100-1800 (Edinburgh, 1981)
23
McBane, p60
24
Johnstone, C., A Memoir of the '45 (London, 1858) p68
27
0505325
a drawn dirk, which they kiss in a solemn manner, and the penalty declared to be due
to the breach of the said oath is to be stabbed with the same dirk; this manner of
swearing is much in practice on all other occasions to bind themselves to one
another." This suggests that for the Highland Clansmen in the period this weapon held
a ritualistic sentiment.
The dirk and targe combination was almost strictly for use on the battlefield,
although the dirk would be carried at all times should it need to be used for selfdefence purposes. Nowhere in McBane, Macleod or Hope, is it suggested that either
of these weapons were used for duelling purposes and their very design suggests a
weapon for use in battlefield combat. The targe also appears to have been an
accoutrement of the Highland Clansmen and not in active use elsewhere. By the end
of the eighteenth century it even ceases to be used by these patrons.
Bayonet
Fig. 1.9: British Socket Bayonet, 1740, England.
CMH pub 30–21: American Military History: Volume 1; The United States Army and
the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917
In the period from 1690 to 1740, a series of technological advancements
occurred within weaponry that would set in place changes for the individual soldier
on the battlefield. One such significant change was the introduction of the bayonet.
28
0505325
The bayonet is a blade, often lacking a recognisable hilt, which attaches to a long-arm
such as a musket in order to extend the weapon’s melee capabilities to include
thrusting attacks. The earliest design in use was the plug bayonet, which was inserted
into the barrel and had entered use with most armies between1640 and 1680.25 This
original design had a central flaw as the pike was still needed to defend against
cavalry, due to the musket being unable to fire when the bayonet was fixed. This
problem occurred at the battle of Killikrankie where attempts to fire with bayonet
fixed led to the musket exploding.26 McBane knew all too well the danger posed by
the plug bayonet as he had been one of the unlucky troops under Mackay at the battle
of Killicrankie when, “a highland man attacked me with sword and targe and cut my
wooden handled bayonet out of my gun.”27 It was after this battle that Mackay
designed the socket bayonet which allowed for the musket to be fired even while the
bayonet was fixed due to the bayonet attaching with a ring under or to the side of the
muzzle.28 Starting in 1690, the design replaced the plug bayonet, and it was with this
latter design that the government troops were able to put up serious resistance to the
Highland Charge in the form of firing by ranks. This kept up continuous fire against
the charging Clansmen “and if the highlanders even reached their target they would be
25
Nosworthy, B., The Anatomy of Victory (New York: 1990) p34
26
Ibid.
27
McBane, p82
28
Churchill, W., Marlborough his Life and Times (New York, 1935) v.3 p108
29
0505325
confronted by three closed ranks presenting a hedge of bayonets.29 With this
advancement, the musket became both a ranged weapon, and a melee weapon,
simultaneously, allowing for tactics to adapt.
Firearm
Fig. 1.10: British Land Pattern Musket, 1740, England.
CMH pub 30–21: American Military History: Volume 1; The United States Army and
the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917
It is the author's decision to finish this section by looking at the weapon which
had the most effect on both duelling and battlefield combat, and in time, would
overshadow all other weapons for both these activities: the firearm. A firearm is a
weapon which makes use of a chemical compound, most commonly gunpowder, to
create a controlled explosion with which to propel a projectile. In this period, the
firearm had undergone changes to make it capable of both a two-handed long-arm
configuration, and the much shorter and lighter one-handed pistol configuration. This
weapon was in use by all armies in Western Europe, including the Highland
Clansmen, who developed tactics to make use of the firearm to increase the
effectiveness of their traditional tactics. The pistol was largely the weapon of cavalry,
although both Macleod and McBane specify having had and made use of a pistol at
29
Hill, J., Celtic Warfare 1595-1763 (London, 1986)
30
0505325
times in their military career.
The firearm itself had gone through many changes prior to the period in study,
but by this period, most units were using flintlocks and from 1722 British units were
using the British Land Pattern Musket, known colloquially as the “Brown Bess.” As
stated, long-arms in this period were most commonly flintlock muskets. The term
flintlock refers to the method of igniting the gunpowder whereby a piece of flint
would strike a steel frizzen causing sparks which would land in a pan containing
gunpowder, thus igniting the powder and causing the controlled explosion which
would “fire” the projectile. The term musket refers to the long-arm being muzzle
loading (user would load down the barrel from the muzzle end) and smooth bore,
which meant that the projectile would not be guided out of the barrel by rifling, but
instead make its own way out rarely touching the sides of the barrel. The long-arm
musket was inaccurate which led to firing in mass ranks to raise the number of rounds
going down range during a “volley.” This increased substantially the chances of one’s
opponents being hit. The musket was also employed as a melee weapon, especially
when fixed with the aforementioned bayonet, due to its slow rate of fire. We are told
of McBane attempting to use his musket unsuccessfully in melee form: “I then
clubbed my gun and gave him a stroke with it, which made the butt-end to fly off.”30
However, this appears to have occurred due to McBane swinging the butt-end like a
club instead of thrusting with the butt-end which was much more resilient.
30
McBane, p82
31
0505325
The long-arm firearm did not find use as a duelling weapon nor was it ever
used in prizefighting, due to it being a weapon more suited to luck than skill. The
pistol however, did enter service both as a military and as a duelling weapon (but
never in prizefighting). Much shorter than a long-arm, it could be held and fired with
one hand. Other than the difference in length, it did not differ from the long-arm as
the mechanism remained much the same. Scottish gunsmiths of this and later periods
managed to produce a pistol made entirely of metal, most however, were made with a
wooden grip and metal lock and barrel. Some pistols could be of a remarkably small
size and McBane warns men to be wary of the existence of these weapons. This is
probably due to an event where he duelled a Swiss soldier who, at the point of losing,
drew a pistol from the brim of his hat and fired upon McBane.31 The pistol was largely
carried by mounted troops as the long-arm would be unwieldy on a horse. In the duel,
a great many forms and styles of duelling grew around the pistol but it was largely
considered a weapon for civilian rather than military duelling.
Having examined the tools commonly used in both duelling and battlefield
combat, it is possible to see that many were designed to meet a particular function.
Weapons specifically for duelling were designed to kill, or draw the blood of one’s
opponent with ease, without necessarily doing permanent damage should the duel
finish at the point blood is drawn rather than at death. This is especially true of the
small sword, which made it a popular duelling weapon and yet kept it entirely off the
battlefield. The weapons designed for battlefield use, however, were more robust and
31
McBane, p86
32
0505325
offered a greater amount of protection. They were also designed around the purpose
of the unit carrying them, and had tactics that emphasized their abilities. Some
weapons designed for battlefield use found use as duelling weapons, but notably no
weapon designed for duelling was later adapted for battlefield use.
This work attempts to compare the duel and battlefield combat with regards to
the individual in order to determine if, in this period, the tools, training, tactics and
experiences were the same between the two or if there were differences. The author
would argue that the weapons designed for the duel had no place on the battlefield due
to tactics of the period. In turn this suggests that there was a marked difference in
certain situations when these weapons were used. The use of battlefield weapons in
the duel suggests at the tool level, there existed similarities enough between the
battlefield and the duel, but not the other way around. These similarities of course
may be lessened when one interprets the training, tactics and experiences faced during
participation in these activities.
33
0505325
Chapter 2: Training
It is a sad fact of nature that an unskilled individual, even with the best tools
available, is still easily bested. This fact is recognised by craftsmen, musicians and,
especially, fighting men. It is for this reason that in determining the differences and
similarities of duelling combat and battlefield combat at the individual level, it is
important to take into account the training that accompanies the tools. The difficulty
in studying and understanding the training methods undertaken by individuals seeking
to gain skill in the activities of combat, is that it is rarely discussed clearly (if at all),
within the bulk of primary sources. Thus, in order to carry out a comprehensive study
of the training undertaken, the historian is required to look for other evidence and also
to determine the knowledge that is required to take up the tools used and to carry out
the tactics involved in each form of combat.
In order to produce a thorough investigation of the training methods in use
within Scotland from 1690 to 1720 we must look at the training of both Highland and
government troops, as well as the specific training undertaken by those wishing to
perfect their skills for the duel. This will be approached in two sections, training for
battlefield and training for the duel and will conclude with a discussion of the
similarities and differences observed between the two.
The Battlefield
Often, when one reads about combat training for the battlefield in this period,
what is discussed is the training of officers or the training of men to perform en
34
0505325
masse. What is far less discussed is the training in arms undertaken by men to prepare
them for combat as individuals. Some may argue that the reason that this subject has
not undergone discussion is that this period of warfare did not rely on the individual
but rather on the ability and tactics of large groups. Yet while it can be argued that it
was often the cohesion and ability of the group in combat which won the day, the
individual soldiers that made up these groups were required to be effective in order
for the group to be effective. Each soldier needed to be familiar with his weapons and
capable of deploying them skilfully against the enemy while under great stress.
Finally, for the Highland units, combat was much more individualistic than group
oriented. The Highlander would have to be familiar with engaging the enemy as an
individual. In order to better discuss the two military styles present in Scotland at this
period: the government style which favoured the group and the Highland Clan style
which favoured the individual, the training methods will be looked at separately and
separate conclusions will be drawn from each. These conclusions will then be brought
together to form a set of general conclusions about the training for battlefield combat
in this period.
35
0505325
Highland Training Methods
Fig. 2.1: Highland Soldiers Training. 1747
Penicuick Sketch 17
In researching the training methods of the Highland clansmen, it becomes
apparent that their training did not begin when they joined a regiment, but rather they
were trained from boyhood. This was also the case of any born in the Highland
communities in this period, regardless of which government or clan they supported, or
which colours they took up. In the memoirs of Serjeant Macleod, we are told that, as
was the custom in the Highlands, children's “heads, necks, legs and feet were quite
bare” regardless of the weather conditions which they faced. In order for them to face
the weather though, they would awaken in the morning and bathe in unheated water
brought in from outside and again at night before going to bed. Both these customs
were believed to prepare the children for hardship and to strengthen the feet of the
boys for warfare.1 Formal instruction of combat was performed in earlier periods
1
Macleod, D., Memoirs of the Life and Gallant Exploits of the Old Highlander (London, 1791) p.9
36
0505325
within taigh suntais, which were akin to martial art gymnasiums often ran by a clan
chieftain, with the purpose of providing martial education. Although primary sources
from this period only hint at their existence, later sources talk of the oral traditions
stating such schools were in use prior to 1745. One such example of this is in the
Dewar Manuscript2, 1875, which states:
“It was a custom in the Highlands of Scotland before the year 1745 that the
gentry kept schools to give instruction to youths in sword exercise, and the
laird of Ardsheil kept a school for the instruction of the youth of his own
district. He stored the cudgels behind his house. There were cudgels for the
lads, and there were cudgels for the laddies, and lads and laddies went every
day to Ardsheil to receive instruction on the cudgel from the laird. After the
laddies had received their day’s instruction each got a bannock and lumps of
cheese. They were then sent to try who would soonest ascend a mountain and
eat the bannock and cheese; and whoever was first got another bannock and
lumps of cheese home with him.”3
The majority of training in this period appears to have occurred through the
encouragement of games that promoted martial skills and informal instruction from
2
A collection of information from the highlands gathered by John Dewar while assisting John
Campbell in the preparation of his Popular Tales of the West Highlands which was published in
1875. The manuscript is a collection of notes and although much of what is referenced comes
through oral tradition the accuracy of stories such as the one used for this work can be expected to
be relatively high as it bears no evidence of being a construct of fiction.
3
Dewar, J., The Dewar Manuscripts as quoted in MacClellan, W., The Dewar manuscripts. Vol. 1:
Scottish West Highland folk tales (London, 1963), p. 161.
37
0505325
adult onlookers. We are told in a later source written by James Logan that these games
consisted of:
“Gleachd, or wrestling...The Clach-neart, literally stone of strength, or the
putting stone...Clach cuid fir is lifting a large stone two hundred pounds or
more from the ground, and placing it on the top of another bout four feet high.
A youth that can do this is forthwith reckoned a man, whence the name of the
amusement, and may then wear a bonnet. Throwing a heavy sledge hammer is
a popular trial of strength...Swiftness of foot was reckoned a very considerable
accomplishment, and was often of much importance in their military
transactions...The Geal ruith, or racing game...Boat racing and Geal-snamh, or
contests in swimming, were also popular, and a native of Isla was not reckoned
a man if he could not catch a seal when in the water.”4
Another form of game that was practised was the single-stick. This was a form of
cudgel fighting which was believed to teach youngsters how to use the broadsword.
Single stick continued past the '45 rebellion in Scotland, and Henry Angelo recalls
training single stick with his Scottish friend, James Perry in 1798 while Perry was
incarcerated in Newgate Prison5. We are told that Serjeant Macleod, while at the
school of Bracadill and as an apprentice, spent “his spare hours, like those of other
4
Logan, J., The Scottish Gaël; or, Celtic Manners as Preserved Among the Highlanders (London,
1831) p 308
5
Angelo, H., Reminiscences of Henry Angelo, With Memoirs of his late Father and Friends,
including numerous original Anecdotes and curious Traits of the most celebrated Characters that
have flourished during the last Eighty Years. Vol. II. (London, 1830) p313
38
0505325
boys...wholly employed in training up himself, by cudgel-playing, to the use and
management of the broadsword and target.”6 This indicates that single stick, or cudgel
play, was a form of training which taught the broadsword and targe from experience
gained in sparring. It is also interesting that this specifies both the broadsword and
targe as this exercise is often misinterpreted to be for the sword alone. If we are to
take the interpretation that this trained youths to use both the broadsword and targe,
then it allows a better explanation of McBane's plate which shows the targe arm being
used as if there is a targe attached: no targe appears in the picture as the technique
would be practised to include the targe even when it was not present.
Finally, it should be stated that there is no mention of Highland firearm
training within the primary sources. This does not mean that it would not have
occurred, but probably much like the swordsmanship training it occurred in an
unstructured manner, probably during sporting events such as the hunt. It was
previously believed that highland clansmen did not use the musket for any other
purpose than the creation of a smoke screen for the Highland charge, and would often
drop their musket following the initial volley, a manoeuvre which would not have
necessitated a great deal of firearms training. This has been challenged, however,by
Dr Tony Pollard, who suggests that due to the density and location of musket balls
found on the field at Culloden it can be reliably assumed that highland clansmen did
use the musket effectively against the government troops. If they had been able to use
the weapon effectively this would have necessitated a degree of training and perhaps
6
Macleod, 1791 p13
39
0505325
even drill work.
It is clear the individuals that came from the Highlands relied to a great extent
on community instruction and learning through training methods such as games and
displays of skill. This contrasts heavily with the Lowland Scottish who relied on
differing training methods for the training of individuals for battlefield combat.
Lowland Training Methods
Fig. 2.2: Training Against Highland Broadsword and Targe.
McBane, D. Expert Swordsman's Companion (1728) p48
In the Lowlands, and for troops joining government units, training methods
occurred differently. The main cause of this difference in training methods was that
the desired outcome was almost opposite to that in the Highlands. With the
government units, the desired outcome from training was that individuals would be
40
0505325
able to work alongside one another to present a united front which allowed for group
tactics as a whole to be successful. The main method undertaken to accomplish this
was drill. Drills are a broken up series of short movements designed to increase
cohesion as a group, prepare an individual for commands and teach the completion of
basic tasks while under stress. Within the government units, much of this training was
learned in a form of apprenticeship whereby a recruit would be brought in and
expected to learn from watching the other, more experienced, soldiers. This training
would be assisted, for those that could read, by drill manuals, which, like that
included in McBane, contained a series of instructions describing the various stages of
the drill. For many of the government troops no training was provided by the state in
fencing with swords. We know that McBane was not issued a sword and had to
borrow, steal and finally purchase one of his own,7 although some training may have
been provided for bayonet fencing. Although little of the government individual
training methods are discussed, most texts discuss the training of officers or of large
group level tactics. From studying McBane, we are able to get an idea of what was not
taught within government units.
Donald McBane gives two primary hints to the training he received upon
joining the army. His first is at the battle between Clan McIntosh and Clan McDonald
of Keppoch, in 1687, in which we see McBane use his musket butt against a
highlander, “I then clubbed my gun and give him stroke with it, which made the butt
end to fly off.”8 This episode suggests that McBane had received little training in
7
McBane, pp.81-85
8
41
0505325
using the musket in an offensive melee context. Had he received such training it is
likely he would have been told to push with the butt in a thrusting motion, or to hold
the musket in such a manner that the side of the butt lay against the forearm while
stepping into the swing in such a manner that it is as if one is striking with their
elbow. Instead McBane appears to have struck with the butt while holding the musket
much like a baseball bat, a technique which would not have been taught, but which
appears to come naturally to the uninitiated.
The second incident which suggests a lack of individual training outside of the
drill is McBane's initial entry into swordplay. An old soldier was put in charge of
McBane's pay, in what appears to be part of the apprenticeship system that again
appears later in the Joseph Donaldson text. This soldier, however, did not give
McBane his money and so McBane went and found a soldier who taught fencing and
paid to be taught how to use the small sword in order that he could fight the old
soldier. The old soldier then used a broadsword and beat McBane, who undeterred,
went back to the instructor and learned how to beat the broadsword whilst using a
small sword. In the second bout between the two, McBane was able to best the old
soldier and after, continued to improve upon his swordplay. He later became a master
in swordplay himself.9 What is of note about this anecdote is that McBane had been a
soldier for five years at the time it occurred and had clearly received little instruction
in swordplay. This suggests that the soldiers were left to their own devices when
McBane, p82
9
McBane, . p84
42
0505325
learning how to use the senior melée weapon. Although McBane learned the small
sword, it is doubtful he would have paid to do so if he had been taught how to use the
more versatile broadsword previously.
Although the government troops appeared to have received little training in
melee combat, they do appear to have received a great deal in the use of their firearm.
One hundred years prior to McBane taking up with the army there is source evidence
for the Privy Council training war bands to use their harquebus effectively. In a letter
to the Lords Lieutenant dating May 1584, it suggests different stages of training,
culminating in training with live shot, and encouraging accuracy rather than just
pointing and hoping for shot to land.10 Later, in 1755 the same level of accuracy
training for British troops (the unit he is addressing was that of Macleod) is remarked
upon by General Wolfe: “There is no necessity for firing very fast; a cool welllevelled fire, with the pieces carefully loaded, is much more destructive and
formidable than the quickest fire in confusion.”11 It is known that the British units
trained with live ammunition more than any other army of the period. This training
was done against long sheets of cloth that stood six feet off the ground to imitate the
enemy line. This made the soldiers comfortable with their weapon when using it in
combat.
10
Privy Council letter to the Lords Lieutenant in Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers and other
Documents 1580-1614 (Gateshead, 1975) pp36-37
11
Entick, J., The General History of the Late War, Containing its Rise, Progress and Events in Europe,
Asia, Africa and America (London, 1764) Vol IV, p94
43
0505325
Having discussed the various forms of training for government units, it does
appear that they were trained most by drill and that the planned, and achieved,
outcome was units that could work as one. This training naturally produced effective
soldiers, the success of British forces attest to this, but it does not appear to have
prepared them as well for individual combat. If it had been possible, a mix of the
government training and the Highland training would have prepared the men in the
best fashion for warfare. This method of advanced group training mixed with
advanced individual training is what is in practise today, in the modern British army.
Duel
Fig. 2.3: The Duel
McBane, D. Expert Swordsman's Companion (1728) p46
The battlefield was a shared experience between many individuals. But what
was the training like for men when they entered into combat alone against a single
opponent in order to defend or to regain their honour? In this period duelling appears
to have been a common occurrence amongst soldiers and was growing amongst
civilians as well. The idea is referred to by McBane as “Gentlemen's satisfaction” and
44
0505325
he states that in his time, soldiers wishing to settle disputes were ordered to do so with
the tip of a sword. What is strange about this though is that it was still considered
illegal in practice for soldiers to duel, as can be recognised by McBane and “the old
soldier” going to “the back of the garrison in the dusk of the evening lest anyone
should see”12 The reader is also told by McBane in a later story that in a duel with an
officer he accidentally struck a killing blow. Upon realising this, the officer gave him
money and forgiveness and told him to “make your escape” for “if I [McBane] was
caught, I would be hanged.” While he ran he came across his officer who asked where
he was going and McBane responded telling him his misfortune and that he was afraid
of “six quarters of St Johnstoun ribbons.” (A colloquialism for the hang man's noose)
The officer then gave him some money and told him to hurry on his way.13 These
episodes make it clear that duelling was considered an illegal but tacitly accepted
activity.
Even if duelling was considered illegal, there were no laws against the training
of people for the purpose of the duel. McBane himself set up schools “for teaching the
art of the sword” anywhere he was camped. He specialised in teaching the art of the
small sword which, as discussed in the previous section, was largely used as a
duelling weapon. It was within schools such as McBane's, and those he learned in
originally, that most of the training in the practise of duelling occurred. McBane even
12
McBane, . p84
13
McBane, . p90
45
0505325
appears to have taught methods of duelling with pistol both on foot and on horseback,
as discussed in the final section of his instructions on fencing “Sword and Pistol is
what is too often practised on Desperate Occasions on Foot.”14 The method advocated
for situations in which gentlemen felt the need to use the pistol to gain satisfaction
was that each should hold opposite corners of a cloak raised up to eye level, thus
obscuring their view of each other. Then they should cock their pistols with their
thumb and pull the trigger while at the same time slipping (moving in combat so as to
avoid injury) to the right. In order to apply a successful defence while using this
method, McBane's technique would have to be practised rigorously making it second
nature to move and fire as one heard their opponent’s pistol cocked. McBane suggests
that if both survive, they should then draw their swords and apply them to one another
until honour is regained.
Due to the number of training manuals discovered from the fifteenth century
through the period in question to the beginning of the twentieth century, it is possible
to gain a clear understanding of how the duel with melee weapons occurred and the
training that preceded it. McBane remarks on the idea of honour within the duel when
he advises the student: “not to trust any man whatever who has been your adversary.
For many have been deceived by not taking care of themselves in these cases, tho'
their adversaries have been men of strict honour, as they thought, and that they would
not be so base and villainous as to be guilty of anything below the character of Brave
14
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion
46
0505325
men and Gentlemen. Experientæ Docet.”15 Much of the training offered by Sir
William Hope and McBane, as well as that offered by Thomas Page, George Silver,
Henry Angelo and others that trained men for the duel has a habit of separating
encounters with “honourable” men as opposed to those considered “ruffians.” When
first looked at, it appears this means a separation between training for duels and for
self defence combat, however, many of these descriptions refer to further parts of the
duel that would be absent in self defence situations such as the salute and the removal
of an opponent’s sword who gives it up as a symbol that satisfaction has been met.16
Much of the training discussed in the manuscripts however, is meant not for beginners
but rather for advanced students, as implied in the title of McBane's work, The
Expert Swordsman's Companion. Many of those interested in training for the duel
would have commissioned an instructor, as McBane did before his first duel, and the
instructor would teach them the art and science of the sword. This period saw a rise in
the view that swordplay could be taught and learnt like a science rather than like an
art. As such, many works on the subject discuss theories and principles and attempt to
understand why they work rather than teaching the techniques in and of themselves.
Hope for example, develops his New Method to attempt to teach the principles of
duelling with any weapon against an opponent making use of any other weapon. He
applies principles such as geometry and physics to explaining why certain weapons
and methods of holding those weapons are more beneficial than others.17
15
Experientæ Docet: Experience is the best teacher. Suggesting McBane had learned this from
experience.
16
McBane, . p63
Hope, W., New Method of Fencing, or the True and Solid Art of Fighting with the Back-Sword,
Sheering Sword, Small-Sword and Sword and Pistol; freed from the Errors of the Schools. (Edinburgh,
1714)
17
47
0505325
From the primary sources, we can determine that training for the duel itself
was largely up to the individual. For those who could afford the cost as well as the
time, an instructor would be sought out at one of the various fencing academies. Due
to the idea that aiming was dishonourable as the pistol gained favour in the duel, luck
began to be applied more than skill and fencing academies fell in number. From a
story in 1824 almost one-hundred years after McBane wrote his book, we learn that
little thought was given to a duel until it occurred. The story recounts the tale of the
last fatal duel in Scotland between Mr Landale and Mr Morgan. In it Mr Landale has
never held a pistol until the night before the duel itself when he went to Edinburgh to
purchase a pair for the upcoming duel. Mr Morgan had military experience yet, when
the smoke had cleared, Mr Landale had shot and killed Mr Morgan.18 This episode
shows the change that occurred in duelling and that instruction ceased to be required
but all that was needed was luck and a well primed pistol in order to take a life in the
name of Gentleman's Satisfaction. The ease of these duels, and their fatal nature,
would likely have been disagreeable to McBane, who recounts multiple duels ending
with a non-fatal wound and with him and his adversary going and taking a drink with
one another in the name of friendship.
In reviewing the information on the training methods between battlefield
combat and that used in the duel, one sees significant differences. The training for
battlefield combat often focused largely on being effective within a group, and for the
18
Landale, J., Duel (Edinburgh, 2005)
48
0505325
Highland training it was largely about personal conditioning and gaining an
understanding of ones place within the larger group so that effective personal tactics
could be used against individual enemies in order to assist the wider group tactics.
Training for the duel however, focused heavily on the individual and their specific
requirements. The duel also represented an activity where it was not always the
purpose to kill one’s opponent, rather to disarm or a disabling blow was just as
effective and permitted. McBane discusses regularly how to strike the hands of one’s
opponent so as to be able to end the fight by forcing them to yield rather than by
landing a fatal blow.18 Hope's work begins with a poem which ends; “Whereby Our
Youth are Taught, with Ease and Skill, To Defend Life and Honour more, as Kill. This!
many times, is an Unlucky PART. But to Defend; not Kill; That! That is ART.”19 This
shows that the training for the duel was believed to be best if it trained the combatant
not to kill their opponent. This is quite different from what was expected of
combatants on the battlefield and thus, the training matches that difference. That said,
like all aspects of study, generalising is never the best option. As the reader will
become aware in the following chapters, sometimes things were not so simple and
easily separated as suggesting that duellists were aiming to allow their opponent to
live if possible, whereas battlefield combatants sought to kill their opponent.
Sometimes circumstance, or other factors, caused this line to become less visible.
49
0505325
Chapter 3: Application and Outcome
Having discussed the materials, tools used and teaching method, in this final
section, the author will now discuss the outcome of the application of the tools and
teaching method to both forms of combat. Of course, the overall outcome of a duel or
battlefield combat is most clearly defined by which individual or side can be shown to
achieve their objectives, or at least to prevent their opponents from achieving theirs
most effectively. More information can be determined from looking at descriptions of
the wounds suffered, and of what occurred during the combat. In the previous section
it was discussed that, on paper, the training given to those in battlefield situations
favoured a kill, whilst in duelling situations, if at all possible, a non-fatal bout was
favoured. In the following section, descriptions of the wounded as well as what was
seen within the battle or duel, will be discussed in order to determine if the training
gives an accurate account of reality. In addition, the author will attempt to determine
why such variations exist, if they do exist, and whether in practise the two forms of
combat were similar or different from one another.
50
0505325
Outcome of Highland Battlefield Methods
Fig. 3.1: The Battle of Culloden.
Of note the musket with severed bayonet in bottom left corner.
Penicuick Sketch 30
As with the previous section this section will separate the Highland battlefield
combat and Lowland battlefield combat due to the significant differences in form
between these two. When observing the combat practised by the Highland units, it is
largely the accounts from their opponents that are available to the historian. Yet in
many circumstances, these accounts correspond well with one another, which suggest
a degree of accuracy in these descriptions. The battlefield tactic most used by the
Highlanders discussed in the records from the period is the Highland charge. This was
a highly effective charge that was favoured by Highland units, it removed the
effectiveness of the enemy’s musketry, and forced them to fight in single combat. If
successful, the enemy was quickly destroyed, but if unsuccessful the result for the
Highlanders was catastrophic. The most famous failure of the Highland charge
occurred at the final battle of the '45 rebellion when it was performed at Culloden. In
this instance, it was not supported after the initial charge, allowing the government
51
0505325
troops the opportunity to reform and counter.
McBane records two instances of being on the receiving end of these charges,
both near the beginning of his career. The first instance being a clan battle in 1688,
between the Macdonells of Keppoch and Clan McIntosh1 (to which McBane's clan
had been allied since the Scottish Wars of Independence2) In his descriptions we learn
a little of the Highlanders’ application of techniques: “then they [highland clansmen]
broke upon us with their sword and target and lochaber axes, which obliged us to give
way. Seeing my captain sore wounded and a great many more with heads lying cloven
on every side, I was sadly affrighted, never having seen the alike before.”3 In this
description, the Highland clansmen are attacking the upper body kill zones, which is a
tactic used when the objective is to kill as many opponents as possible. The head, in a
melee combat, is difficult to strike, as in striking for an opponent’s head, one risks
opening their own torso and sides to attack. It is however, a highly sought after target
in the training method of Highland broadsword, with the single stick. In later periods,
bouts did not end until one combatant drew the blood of the other above the eyebrow.
This tactic also provides psychological damage to the soldiers not yet attacked, which
would be lost in the application of a thrust, as a cloven or severed head is more
obvious than the relatively small wound created by a fatal thrust.
1
For further details see: Innes, T., The Tartans of the Clans and Families of Scotland (Edinburgh,
1975) and Petrie, C., The Jacobite Movement (London, 1959)
2
Eyre-Todd, G., The Highland Clans of Scotland (New York, 1923) pp.219-220
3
McBane, p. 84
52
0505325
The second charge described by McBane is one of history’s more famous
examples of the application of the Highland charge, as such there is more primary
source evidence for the wounds caused by the Highlander techniques. The Battle of
Killiecrankie fought on the 27th of July 1689 between the government troops (of
which McBane was one) and Jacobite troops, saw the Jacobite army gain victory due
to a successful Highland charge. McBane describes it thus: “The sun going down
caused the highland men to advance upon us like mad men, without shoe or stocking,
covering themselves from our fire with their targes. At last they cast away their
muskets, drew their Broad Swords and advanced furiously upon us, and were in the
middle of us before we could fire three shots apiece, broke us and obliged us to
retreat.”4 After the battle it was reported that; “Many officers and soldiers were cut
down through the skull and neck, to the very breasts; others had skulls cut off above
the ears. Some had both their bodies and crossbelts cut through at one blow; pikes and
small swords were cut like willows.”5 These two descriptions provide more evidence
of the Highland clansmen favouring the upper body strikes. Very few strikes are
capable of cleaving from skull to breastbone, and all that do leave the body exposed.
The mention of weapons such as pikes and small swords being cut down “like
willows” suggests that the clansmen would disable the opponent’s weapon before
engaging. This is also mentioned by McBane who in the earlier battle had his bayonet
cut from his musket, and is visible in the battle picture of the Penicuick sketches
4
McBane, p 86.
5
Brown, J., Memoirs of Lord Viscount Dundee, the Highland clans, and the massacre of Glencoe:
with an account of Dundee’s officers after they went to France. By an officer of the
army (London, 1714) Quoted in Guest, Ken, Denise, British Battles (London, 1996) p179
53
0505325
which shows a bayonet clearly cut off from the musket of a fallen government soldier.
The technique of striking for the upper body region and leaving oneself open
for attack from the sides was recognised later by the Duke of Cumbernauld, who
ordered his troops to “thrust bayonets at the clansman to the right rather than the one
directly ahead.”6 The Highlanders appear to have adapted to this though, and in a
painting of the battle of Culloden by Laurie and Whittle from 1747 we see evidence
of clansmen covering their right side with the targe, whilst striking from above.7 This
suggests that although the Highlanders are often viewed as having been unwilling to
adapt their combat methods, that when pressed they could do so. It should be noted
that all of McBane's guards for the broad/back sword are notably high or medium
guards, and the point of the broadsword never drops below the waist. This is similar
to the Penicuick sketches which only show three figures in combat with their sword
points below their waist, and in all of these, it appears to be an action-shot which
would suggest that the sword is in a transitionary-guard,8 having just struck at the
enemy.9
6
Quoted in Wagner, p15
7
See enlarged section of the painting in Wagner, p8
8
Term used in the study of swordplay to describe a guard that immediately follows a strike. This
position is not held longer than necessary.
9
Brown, G. & Cheape, H., Witness to Rebellion: John Maclean's Journal of the '45 and the Penicuik
Drawings. (East Lothian, 1996)
54
0505325
Outcome of Government Battlefield Methods
Fig. 3.2: Government Preparation for Culloden.
Penicuick Sketch 18
For soldiers in the government lines battlefield combat was based largely
around the principle of safety in numbers. This was not due to consideration of the
men but rather the fact that the musket, and other early non-rifled firearms, were not
reliably accurate and so tactics were based on the concept of using multiple troops to
send as much lead down range as possible thus increasing the odds of an enemy being
hit. Maurice of Nassau, with advice from his cousin, Willem Lodewijk, is credited
with having developed volley fire in a set of tactics known as the countermarch.
According to Geoffrey Parker, “It required almost six years to perfect volley fire
(from Willem Lodewijk's "stippelckens" in December 1594 to Nieuwpoort in July
1600).”10 By the period McBane and Macleod were taking the field the volley fire had
undergone a series of developments to improve its effectiveness in battle. Following
10
For a full account of the development of volley fire and the countermarch see: Parker, G., “The
Limits to Revolutions in Military Affairs: Maurice of Nassau, the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600), and
the Legacy” in The Journal of Military History 71.2 (2007) pp. 331-372
55
0505325
the example of the Dutch under Maurice of Nassau the standardisation of weapons
also began to occur and in 1722 British units began to be issued with the British Long
Pattern Musket.11 The tactics favoured by government troops involved drawing up as
a company in two platoons (a platoon being half a company with 1st platoon on the
left and 2nd platoon on the right), then firing in volleys by rank so that a constant rate
of fire was sustained. This tactic was employed with great effect at the battle of
Culloden which saw the government troops use volley fire as well as artillery shelling
in order to halt the Highland Charge. Troops from the second line also swung round
so as to be able to fire upon the flanks of the Highland Units.12 The success of this
tactic relied largely on the bravery of the individual troops involved.
At Killiecrankie, as has been discussed earlier in this work, the line broke
under the force of the Highland Charge. In order for the volley tactics to be successful
the line can not waver, the men need to be drilled to such a degree that firing,
reloading and manoeuvring under stress becomes a reflex rather than cognitive action.
By joining the line, an individual soldier became a link in a chain, if all links
succeeded in holding together and presenting a united front as one then it was difficult
to overcome them however, if any link attempted to draw back often it would cause a
chain reaction and others would follow thus weakening the entire line. Due to the
nature of the collation between increased range and decreased accuracy with the
11
Prof. Holmes, R., “From Musket to Breech Loader.” BBC, 02 Sep. 2010,
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/weapons/musket_to_breech_01.shtml>
12
For further details of the tactics used at Culloden see: Pollard, T. (ed.). Culloden: The History and
Archaeology of the last Clan Battle. (Barnesly, 2009)
56
0505325
musket, government soldiers were often required to hold their fire until the enemy
was within fifty yards. This required disciplined fire-control as any man firing too
early could induce the line to also fire early which could cause an entire volley to be
ineffective and have disastrous consequences.13 For a government soldier, the group
mentality was psychologically significant to his battlefield experience, and this would
have had an effect on his fighting practises which can be seen to distinguish them
from that experienced by Highland units or by individuals during the duel. This was
increased during the charge or melee combat as the soldier would need to rely on
comrades next to him being effective against their opponents as the bayonet was a
thrusting weapon, which would mean that for effectiveness the individual wielding it
would have to commit to thrusts which for a brief moment exposes him to attacks. He
would also be exposed if the thrust was successful, due to there being a period when
the bayonet was lodged in his opponent and was thus unable to be used defensively.
It can be conjectured that it is from this moment come many of the muskets and
bayonets that, in the aftermath of battles involving Highland clans, have been found to
have been hacked into. When the bayonet is embedded at one end and braced by the
government soldier at the other, a descending broadsword would cut through it or the
musket. If it was not embedded in man or targe then a descending broadsword would
merely knock the musket and bayonet down or to the side. The thrust of a bayonet to
the torso did have the benefit of stopping a charging opponent and at a length of two
meters (when the 43cm bayonet was fixed) the musket was longer than both the
broadsword and Lochaber axe of a highland clansman which would allow a
13
For an example of this occurring (although in a later period) see the description of the Peninsular
War by Thomas Bugeaud in Chandler, D., The Campaigns of Napoleon, (London, 1995) p.98
57
0505325
government soldier to attack before his enemy was close enough to counter. At the
battle of Culloden the casualty reports show another difference between the highland
individual combat tactics and the government individual combat tactics. The Jacobite
army had 1500-2000 wounded or killed whereas the government had 50 dead and 259
wounded14 The high proportion wounded as opposed to killed in the government lines
suggests that the Highland clansmen technique of slashing as opposed to thrusting
with their weapons led more often to wounding rather than killing whereas
government forces would more often kill due to a thrust causing more internal trauma
to vital organs, as well as the effectiveness of the large calibre musket ball when fired
at close range. Accounts from the battle state that during the initial volley from
government troops when the Highland clansmen were fifty yards from the
government line, hundreds of clansmen were seen to fall.15 Again this suggests the
lethality of the musket round and volley fire during combat. The government troops
caused the same rate of casualties at Killiecrankie as well as Culloden, in both
instances killing around one third of their opponent’s troops.16
The effectiveness of government troops in these situations came largely from
effective fighting as a group. If the line broke and buckled, government troops
struggled to be as effective individually compared to their highland clansmen
opponents. If the line held however then the result was devastating upon their
14
Reid, Stuart. 1745: A Military History of the Last Jacobite Uprising (New York, 1996) p85
15
Reid, p78
16
Hill, James. Celtic Warfare, 1595-1763. (Edinburgh, 1986)
58
0505325
opponents. The group nature of combat for government units was in great contrast to
the solitary nature of combat in the duel and the techniques used would bear little
resemblance to those employed during duelling, except for the concept of the thrust.
Outcome of Duelling Combat Methods
Having discussed both forms of battlefield combat methods and their outcome
the final set of outcomes to observe are those of the duel. Duelling with the sword
required a certain level of skill not just to be able to defeat one's opponent but in many
cases to be able to do so while sparing their life. As duelling was performed to
preserve honour the outcome was considered largely irrelevant, it was the act of
participating and doing so in a manner that upheld honour which was important. To
participate in a duel did not bring more honour but to refuse a duel did cause the loss
of honour. Death or injury in the duel, were considered unfortunate accidents by the
proponents of duelling.17 It becomes obvious while reading McBane that in many
cases he viewed that the purpose of the duel was not to actually take life but rather to
better one's opponent, perhaps the reason for his distaste of duelling with firearms.18
In many of his duels, he did not kill his opponent and in the one discussed previously,
where McBane believed he had killed an officer, he “wishes it weren't so”. Many
17
For a full discussion of views held regarding the duel see: Manning, R.B., Swordsmen (Oxford,
2003) Ch. 6
18
McBane, D., The Expert Swordsman's Companion (Glasgow, 1728) Sword and Pistol is what is too
often practised on Desperate Occasions on Foot
59
0505325
years later, he and the officer met again and McBane was greatly pleased to see that
the officer had survived. The two stayed in touch thereafter with the officer retiring to
run a public house in Gravesend, Kent.19 It is common for McBane to state he had a
drink with his opponent following the duel, and he suggested in his old age that one
should just skip the duel altogether and have the drink instead, “my advice is for all
gentlemen to take a hearty cup and to drink with friends to avoid trouble.”20
The techniques described by McBane involve largely thrusting and disarming
techniques. This can be explained by the small sword being a solely thrusting weapon
and the spadroon being very effective in the thrust. The largest contrast between the
duelling experienced by McBane and Macleod and their battlefield experiences is that
the duel only involved their opponent and themselves, at least this was the case in
most respectable duels. This lack of other parties meant that fighting was less
restrained; they had the freedom to move, and could focus on a single opponent rather
than needing to be wary of multiple opponents. The duel wasn't without its own
drawbacks, however, as McBane states that even amongst gentlemen fair play was not
guaranteed and there were cases where men would throw dust at your eyes in order to
get the better of you.21 In the duel the thrust was a much less risky technique to
employ as, if performed correctly, it would finish one's opponent and, as there were
not multiple opponents as in battle, there was no risk of a follow-up attack from a new
19
McBane, p. 92
20
McBane, p. 52
21
McBane, pp. 29-30, 35-36
60
0505325
opponent. The risk with the thrust, however, was that performed correctly it could
easily puncture a vital organ and, if not cause immediate death, cause death after the
duel. Sir William Hope advises taking the hanging guard which allows one to block
opponent’s attacks with ease and is the most defensive of the guards; it does have the
added benefit of thrusts coming from it being restricted to more of a flick which
causes less damage than a thrust or lunge from another guard.22
Donald Macleod discusses three duels in which he took part, two for slights
against his honour and one to regain a pair of deserters from a French recruiter. In one
he killed the man, who, according to Macleod, forgave him with his dying breath and
gave him a gold watch. In another all he says is that his opponent fell and so it is
impossible to determine if the man was killed or rather just injured. The third duel
was against a German who took the place of the man who had slighted Macleod,
because of this Macleod only gave him a pair of superficial wounds, one on the calf
and one on the sword arm, after which the two spent the night drinking together and
cried when they had to part ways.23
The duel remains a concept difficult for modern historians to understand as it
is built around ideas no longer present within modern culture. Charles Moore
undertook a study in 1790 to try to determine why the practise of duelling persisted
for so long. He concluded that duelling had become synonymous with courage and
22
Sir William Hope's New Method of Fencing (Edinburgh, 1707) is a treatise detailing the benefits
and techniques to be used with the Hanging Guard.
23
All three accounts are discussed in Macleod, pp. 33-36
61
0505325
that the “possessors of courage will always meet with admiration” and moreover those
who refused a duel were “ever after deemed incapable of performing one honourable
action, and not deserving the attention of [their] equals in life”24 The duel, although
having similarities with battlefield combat, was different in the very core of its
purpose. Although there was honour in battle, soldiering (especially for government
troops) was a profession. McBane ran at Killiecrankie as he had no other option,
retreat had been sounded and no honour was lost in his running. If one ran or
attempted to escape from a duel honour would be lost and in this period a man's
honour was of greater worth than morality, ethics or anything else in his life, to lose it
was a fate worse than death.25 This separated the duel from battlefield combat as well
as the fact that death or injury was not required and honour was met merely in
participating so the disarm as well as effective tip-control were employed rather than
solely movements to kill or maim an opponent. After all in the words of Hope,
“Whereby Our Youth are Taught, with Ease and Skill,
To Defend Life and Honour more, as Kill.
This! Many times, is an Unlucky PART.
But to Defend; not Kill; That! That is ART.”26
24
Moore, C., Two Treatises on Duelling and Gaming, (1790) ii, p.262
25
Manning, p201
26
Hope, W., New Method of Fencing (Edinburgh, 1707) poem at the beginning entitled “To the
AUTHOR”
62
0505325
Conclusions
Upon undertaking this project, I, the author, set out with a series of beliefs and
assumptions gained from my own Military1 and Historical European Martial Arts2
experience about the nature of these subjects. Over the course of this work it has been
found that whilst some of these assumptions are true, others are false. For example,
despite expectations that the duel was performed between two people holding such
malice for one another that they would fight to the death, or part ways upon one
giving the other a devastating wound, McBane, Macleod and Hope have each shown
that this was not always the case and often after the duel both men drank as close
friends. The duel itself is a difficult subject due to a series of contradictions, namely:
the weapon designed solely for duelling, the small sword, has a tip designed to pierce
skin with ease and a blade stiffened in such a manner that all force is put behind the
tip to assist this: The blade also is of a triangular cross-section which means any thrust
delivered will open the wound wide causing greater blood loss. Yet for all these
designs, the primary sources appear to be almost against killing ones opponent in a
duel. Another contradiction is that in legal terms duelling was always considered
premeditated murder and yet this was ignored by men who considered themselves
upstanding lawful citizens.3 Other expectations prior to beginning this work,
suggested the difference between duelling and battlefield combat to be in the
technique but rather found that the largest differences occurred in the weapon designs,
1
British Territorial Army Officer Corps
2
I hold the rank of Senior Instructor within the Academy of Historical Arts
3
For a full discussion of the legality of the duel see: Manning, Ch. 7
63
0505325
the desired outcome and in the purpose behind undertaking the combat. The final
assumption made was that in the training for duelling the thrust would be emphasised,
whereas in that for battlefield combat slashing would be emphasised. This belief
stemmed from the knowledge that the thrust would stop a single opponent but would
also tie up one’s weapon which could be dangerous in the case of further opponents
being present. The slash or cut was less likely to kill but did keep the weapon free for
defensive action; although this assumption remains sound, it was not the reason for
the differences between battlefield and duel combat, rather the reason was the
differing suitability of weaponry used. The bayonet was a thrusting weapon and thus
had to be used in such a manner even though this involved thrusting on the battlefield,
while the broadsword was more suited to cutting and slashing and is used in such a
manner even within the duel.
McBane and Macleod both lived to die away from the battlefield or duelling
field. McBane at 63 swore off the sword and resolved to not fight any more but to
“repent for former wickedness”.4 Whereas the last that is heard of Macleod, is that he
was returning to Inverness from London, an out-pensioner of Chelsea Hospital, at the
age of 103.5 The two sources used provided a fascinating insight into the life of lowly
soldiers during the 17th and 18th centuries. Although neither has received much
academic attention, their first-hand accounts were indispensable in providing the
information required to compare and contrast the individual combat in the duel with
4
McBane, p. 92
5
Macleod, p90
64
0505325
that of the battlefield.
In modern times it is common to view this era of history in an almost romantic
fashion, due to Hollywood and literature making the duel and battlefield actions into
stories of great men carrying out fantastic deeds in the name of love and honour. It is,
however, important that the realities of combat in this era are remembered. Men, like
McBane and Macleod, felt fear and saw horrifying acts carried out in the name of the
honour of men, the honour of kings and the honour of countries. The sentiment of
both McBane and Sir William Hope should be kept in mind that better than winning a
fight is avoiding it and enjoying a drink with your opponent.
End
65
0505325
Glossary
Contrasting Terms Used:
Traditional Highland Broadsword: Generally used to describe the broadsword
practise in use prior to the Battle of Culloden
Regimental Highland Broadsword: Describes the broadsword methods trained
within the Scottish Regiments after 1745
Warrior:
Soldier:
person experienced in or capable of engaging in combat or warfare,
especially within the context of a tribal or clan-based society that
recognizes a separate warrior class.
member of the land component of national armed forces. This role is a
profession whereas that of a warrior is much more a class.
Definitions of technical terms:
Fuller:
A depression on a sword blade, often mistakenly termed a “blood
groove”, the purposes of which are to lighten the blade, lower the
amount of steel used thus lowering the cost of the blade and finally
strengthen the blade.
Foible:
The half of the blade closest to the tip and thus considered the weakest
part of the blade.
Forté :
The half of the blade closest to the hilt. This is the strongest part of a
blade.
Overhand grip: When gripping a knife or dagger the tip extends up from the hand as
opposed to the underhand or ice-pick grip in which the tip extends
down from the hand.
True edge:
Whichever edge of a blade is facing away from the wrist at any given
moment.
66
0505325
Bibliography
Primary Sources
•
Angelo, H., Reminiscences of Henry Angelo, With Memoirs of his late
Father and Friends, including numerous original Anecdotes and curious Traits
of the most celebrated Characters that have flourished during the last Eighty
Years. Vol. II. (London, 1830)
•
Brown, J., Memoirs of Lord Viscount Dundee, the Highland clans, and
the massacre of Glencoe: with an account of Dundee’s officers after they went
to France. By an officer of the army (London, 1714)
•
Entick, J., The General History of the Late War, Containing its Rise,
Progress and Events in Europe, Asia, Africa and America (London, 1764)
•
Hope, W., New Method of Fencing (Edinburgh, 1707)
•
Hope, W., New Method of Fencing, or the True and Solid Art of
Fighting with the Back-Sword, Sheering Sword, Small-Sword and Sword and
Pistol; freed from the Errors of the Schools. (Edinburgh, 1714)
•
Hutton, Alfred. Old Sword Play. (London, 1892)
•
Logan, J., The Scottish Gaël; or, Celtic Manners as Preserved Among
the Highlanders (London, 1831)
•
Macleod, D., Memoirs of the Life and Gallant Exploits of the Old
Highlander (London, 1791)
•
McBane, D., The Expert Sword-man's Companion (Glasgow, 1728)
•
Moore, C., Two Treatises on Duelling and Gaming, (1790)
67
0505325
Secondary Sources
•
Blair, C., “The Early Basket Hilt in Britain.” in Scottish Weapons and
Fortifications 1100-1800 Ed. David Caldwell (Edinburgh, 1981)
•
Brown, G. & Cheape, H., Witness to Rebellion: John Maclean's Journal
of the '45 and the Penicuik Drawings. (East Lothian, 1996)
•
Caldwell, D., Scottish Weapons & Fortifications 1100-1800
(Edinburgh, 1981)
•
Castle, Egerton, Schools and Masters of Fence. (London, 1892)
•
Chandler, D., The Campaigns of Napoleon, (London, 1995)
•
Churchill, W., Marlborough his Life and Times (New York, 1935)
•
Cope, G., Genealogy of Dunwoody and Hood Families (Princeton,
1899)
•
Dewar, J., The Dewar Manuscripts as quoted in MacClellan, W., The
Dewar manuscripts. Vol. 1: Scottish West Highland folk tales (London,
1963)
•
Eyre-Todd, G., The Highland Clans of Scotland (New York, 1923)
•
Guest, K.& D., British Battles (London, 1996)
•
Hill, J., Celtic Warfare 1595-1763 (London, 1986)
•
Home, J., The History of the Rebellion in the Year 1745 (London,
1802)
68
0505325
•
Innes, T., The Tartans of the Clans and Families of Scotland
(Edinburgh, 1975)
•
Jeffries, F., The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle for the
year 1791 (1791, London) Vol 61
•
Johnstone, C., A Memoir of the '45 (London, 1858)
•
Keegan, J., The Face of Battle (London, 1976)
•
Landale, J., Duel (Edinburgh, 2005)
•
Lynn, J. A. The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714. (London, 1999)
•
MacKechnie, J., The Dewar Manuscripts (Glasgow, 1963)
•
MacKinnon, D & Morrison, A., The Macleods--The Genealogy of a
Clan, Section II, (Edinburgh, 1968)
•
Manning, R.B., Swordsmen (Oxford, 2003)
•
Morrison, I.A., “Survival Skills: An Enterprising Highlander in the
Low Countries with Marlborough” in Simpson,G. The Scottish Soldier
Abroad 1247-1967, (Edinburgh, 1992)
•
Nosworthy, B., The Anatomy of Victory (New York: 1990)
•
Parker, G., “The Limits to Revolutions in Military Affairs: Maurice of
Nassau, the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600), and the Legacy” in The Journal
of Military History 71.2 (2007)
•
Petrie, C., The Jacobite Movement (London, 1959)
69
0505325
•
Pollard, T. (ed.). Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the last
Clan Battle. (Barnesly, 2009)
•
Prof. Holmes, R., “From Musket to Breech Loader.” BBC, 02 Sep.
2010,
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/weapons/musket_to_bree
ch_01.shtml>
•
Rector, M., Highland Swordsmanship: Techniques of the Scottish
Masters (Union City, 2001)
•
Reid, Stuart. 1745: A Military History of the Last Jacobite Uprising
(New York, 1996)
•
Reid, Stuart, The Battle of Killiecrankie (Partizan Press, 2009)
•
Rose, M.A. “The Adventures of Donald Macleod” in The Celtic
Magazine (March, 1881; Edinburgh)
•
Spencer, C. Blenheim: Battle for Europe. (Phoenix, 2005)
•
Thompson, C., Lannaireachd:Gaelic Swordsmanship (New York, 2002)
•
Wagner, P. & Thompson, C., “The words claymore and broadsword.”
in SPADA, Vol 2 (Highland Village, 2005)
•
Wagner, P. & Rector, M. Highland Broadsword; Five Manuals of
Scottish Regimental Swordsmanship (Highland Village, 2004)
•
Wallace, J., Scottish Swords and Dirks: A reference guide to Scottish
Edged Weapons. (London, 1970)
70