"New book on Montrose" Topic

Just out a new and interesting looking book on Montrose by a club member -
link

or

link

Probably also available elsewhere.

Excellent and just in time for my release of 15mm Scots Royalists and Covenanters in 15mm!

Is it revisionist (which is the trend these days, downgrading Montrose's abilities and those of the Irish Brigade) or a more traditional study? Read the summary but wasn't sure.

He has taken a bit of a bashing over the last few years,

20+ years ago he could do no wrong the Irish Brigade was always Veteran, top notch troops now your lucky to get them as average.

He did win a number of battles,so how bad where the Covenanters ?

If it is revisionist maybe it challenges Stuart Reid's view that became wargames orthodoxy twenty odd years ago?

I haven't read this particular book, but I do know this:
If you want to make a name for yourself and/or sell books, you have to say something different. It is even better if you are controversial or attack famous people.
Monday morning quaterbacking is an easy way to do it.
Montrose did more with less than anyone had a right to expect. That makes him a great general.

He did indeed and he won many battles.

I would be interested in seeing a review or two.

IT essentially follows Reid's view of – good grief is it really 30- years ago

maybe *gasp* reid was right?

He most certainly was!! no one has seriously bothered to refute his stance in the past 35 years. Some people- mostly in re-enactment beer tents and in the odd unsubstantiated comment on line, disagree, but no one has taken me up on the challenge to write a counter-argument

THAT Said, 35 year is a long time in revisionist history. and at least he has been pursuing new sources.

Although the bulk of the arguments still stand, the new substantial hardback edition of Scots Armies will have some minor revisions of his major revision!

Ooh, "Scots armies" in hardback. When is that one coming Dave? New artwork too maybe?

I have read it and enjoyed it. marvellous. It has some fine illustrations too. Should go well with the forthcoming PP Irish troops for ECW.

martin

Or the existing Khurasan ones! Or both!

TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

I'm not going to gainsay anyone, because arguing isn't worth it. But is it really that bad having an alternative revisionist viewpoint on such a large subject. If I remember Reid's work has a very good focus on Covenanter regimental organisation, included a fair bit on Montrose, but I do forget whether he does have that much on the Irish regiments. I might be mistaken. Surely by having an alternate view, you're are providing the study market a more healthy viewpoint, rather than a singular research. However, I think, certainly in Singleton's viewpoint there is re-evaluation, it is equally academic and general appealing equally to the wargame and reenactment communities and gives a balanced well thought out argument. Equally as others have mentioned, Helion and Co. have done a fantastic layout job, it is a lovely book to look through. And surely any book that has the ability to draw a wider audiences interest towards Civil War and 17th century studies is something to be applauded. The Scot's and their Irish colleagues are itching to get out of painting table hell :)

Aye well I bought this and have just started to read it.

I note on page 11 that "Irish horse refused to fight against Scottish lance arned troops unless issued with armour".

Not a good start as this refers to the cavalry of the Army of Ulster who disliked facing pistol armed Scottish cavalry as they had no pistols of their own, they asked for armour Eoin Ruadh gave them lances. Big difference.

I feel a critical review coming on. Nice pictures and good maps though.

Its a bit disapointing that the author spends pages waffling on about long disposed of views of 'Celtic Warfare'. Frustratingly he actualy mentions the use of firearms in Ireland before wandering off again to talk about 'Darts' and 'burning'.

In fact there was a military revolution in Ireland and it involved firearms and drilled troops and had he looked at the involvement of Highland Scots soldiers in this we would have a better book.

The authors views about Highland society and therefore its military potential are poorly informed. Old General Hawley from a 100 years post Montrose gets another gentle walk around the paddock as does Culloden. Tribal gets an outing as does Gaelic mob. The Irish regulars are 'mercenaries' why? They fought for their lawful soveriegn and were raised for that purpose. Its a mystery as some lassy once sang. 'Romantic' is of course flogged to death.

There ia also some pious guff about Scottish nationalism which I thought added nothing but minor irritation.

Looking at the bibliography the author has read widely if not always wisely and I cannot but think with a couple of shoves might have given us something good.

Still I paid £10.00 GBP for this including postage and got some some great maps and illustrations and the Claiomh boys in photos, plus quite a few pages of source material. I'm happy enough.

Yeah. I was hoping for more. The writing wanders rather aimlessly. It adds nothing to the few books on Montrose I have, or the previous Reid works. Nice color plates though.
Mike D

A good point Mike tighter editing would have done no harm.

About half way through we suddenly find the term 'Royalist Rebels' has crept in. Clearly as Montrose and Co fought for the king they were Royalist and it would have been accurate to describe them as such through out. A bit of editing might have sorted that.

Also in a book called Famous By My Sword should we not have had potted biographies of Montrose and Mc Colla.

The latter might have helped shed light on the military revolution that largely remains undiscussed here. When Eoin Ruadh ordered his men in a battle, not far from where Mc Colla grew up, not to give fire until at pike length what were the infuences on his decision?

What of the social revolution in native Ulster when the Princes armed and trained the unmilitary classes as shot thus ensuring social mobility at a stroke. Hundreds of Highland soldiers served in these armies they would have noticed such upheaval in the Gaelic social order.

We have Hawley's 'arrant scum' but not Mountjoy's view on the Gaelic soldier surely it should have been the other way round.

Reference has been made to Montrose role as a general and the Highland viewpoint represented. What we need to understand is that the book clearly sets out in the introduction, its main focus area swings upon the Scottish-Highland theatre of conflict, rather than focusing upon Montrose's Northumbrian or indeed the Irish Confederate Wars (an area that deserves its own book in its own right).

His referral to the Scot's as "Royalist Rebels" I feel is quite justified-certainly, while it did divert Covenant Troops from the Northern theatre of the war in 1645, the continual ability for Covenant forces to put troops within a working army system back into the field within a couple of weeks of a defeat argues that Montrose's actions were punitive in merely prolonging the conflict.

The fact that at battles such as Aberdeen, Auldearn and Kilsyth, any modicum of command and control centres on The Irish Brigade, with his Highland clan levies become separated from the main body argues that just as in the Jacobite rebellions of a century later, battles are decided by massed assault, chance and conglomerating small weaknesses in troop effectiveness and command and control on the opposing side, thus agreeing with Jacobite description.

Certainly in talks with the author on the Military Revolution subject, the clear reason for its inclusion and stressing in the book is merely to produce validity to the point that Montrose's army was not merely the "Romantic but wrong" highlanders so often presumed, not just in respect to The Irish Brigade, but equally to his highland troops, with shot armed troops being far more in the ascendant than previously believed supported by the 1638 Blair Atholl census. If you are going to produce such an argument, you need to back up why you have not gone for the "Romantic" version, a factor that needs a modern historiographical focus to be thrown upon it, hence references to the Scottish National analogy. Obviously analogies to the Irish conflict is made, often evidence for the manner of fighting employed in Scotland is lacking and therefore for a more complete analysis of Montrose's conflict to be addressed, limited numbers of Irish examples need to be used.

In conclusion, ultimately I feel the arguments made against the publication are unfair and occasionally unsupported. This is not a criticism of the contributors, merely asking that should they feel the need to provide such criticism, some of it quite scathing, that it should be in a constructive, informed manner, having a objective view referring clearly to the book and where to find further information. For my own part, I feel the book is a good overview of the Scots Royalist forces and The Scot's and their Irish colleagues are itching to get onto of painting table :) It's not the tome, it doesn't claim to be, but it's still a useful reference work whether historian, reenactor or wargamer. Just my thoughts and concerns on the matter

Ok lets take this in order.

You may feel that the changing appellation from Rebels, to Royalist Rebels and by the end of the book Royalists is justified tho' you don't tell us why. The point is its confused thinking or poor editing for all three terms to be used for the same people.

Montrose and Co were part of a Royalist grand strategy operating across the three kingdoms. The idea that the Scottish Campaign was merely punitive cannot be sustained – it was intended to influence the outcome of the war in all three countries.

I'm struggling with your second paragraph but here goes.

Command and control is easier with regulars that is what the training is for but irregulars can play an important role. To take your three examples.

There were only 100 highlanders at Aberdeen and 300 at Auldearn so centering command and control on them rather than the more numerous reguars would have been bizzare.

At Kilsyth the Highlanders under Mac Colla are decisive in the outcome of the battle.

Anyone seeking to project backwards from the later Jacobite Wars in order to produce a pattern for these battles is wasting their time. We might have more joy examining Scots and Irish military methods before they took place.

There is nothing wrong with discussing the military revolution indeed its a interesting topic. In discussing Scots and Irish soldiers the author showed in my view a poor knowledge and understanding of his subject. Of course the number of examples used is limited that is why its important to get them right. So if you want to demonstrate how shot armed troops became more important you could start with how and where Highlanders first became exposed to such methods. Then you might think what effect did that have on their tactics and arms as part of Montrose's battles.

The romantic version has been a long time dead and to flay the corpse at length in a book subtitled 'The Army of Montrose And The Military Revolution'is at best a poor use of space.

My criticisms of the book come from a longterm interest in the subject and I have no wish to be unfair. Reenactors and wargamers will very much enjoy, as I did, the illustrations and appreciate the maps.