The Highland Charge - The Famous Shock Tactic of the Scottish Clans 

Wait wasn't there a highland charge against Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans in the war of 1812?

I believe a lot of historians are pretty dubious about the impact of the idea of the thrust to the right drill. And if you consider for a moment that you're in that position of someone rushing you down with a sword and shield would you really ignore them and aim at the guy charging the man on your right?

This was a nice look into an incredible tactic. Something like this isn't talked about enough.

Next do the Filipino-American War especially with the Moros down in Mindanao who also charged head first like the Highlanders and did not fear death

I hated the Outlanders Portrayal of Ross'! That Ross Character wasn't even wearing the Ross Tartar! Back Story! The Mackenzie Clan took the Place of the Great Clan Ross because the 1st Stuart King married the Chief of the Great Clan Ross the 4th Earl of Ross Hugh Ross (1st to take on the surname long before the advent of Surnames) daughter, and than the Stuarts took the Earlship of Ross from the Ross' causing a War! And the Mackenzies who's Chief was from the Ross Bloodline (from X amount of Generations back) and was like our Evil Twin decided to Side with the Stuarts and Replace us! And eventually the Great Clan Ross turned into Clan Ross all the Gentry of the Great Clan Ross and than later as per orders of the Stuart Crown after the advent of Surnames for everyone by law (with the Ross' having a Surname before the Stuarts were even Kings) made the Commonality of the Ross Family who could not Prove their Pedigree by Paperwork Mackenzies! Ross' were Sword Masters at that point, and the Gentry, but than again by the Time of the Outlander many Ross' had fallen into Commonality, but if you Look at Ross-shire (that the Out Lander show doesn't mention although some of it takes place in Ross-shire the former Earldom of Ross) Ross' lived in the Prime Real-estate of the Highlands, and we were for generations before the Richest and Most Powerful Family in the Highlands! And that Ross character in the Outlander would of surely had the Money or Means to Afford wearing Ross Colors. The Only Realistic Part is how a Ross shows up and automatically becomes trusted and is basically an officers under Jamie, specially in the context of fighting for the Stuarts, because although Ross' and Stuarts had a Rocky Start, but we were the Matriarchs of the Royal Stuart Bloodline and not by Choice though, and eventually after the Next Generations War over it resulting in Ross-shire being Decimated after a Decade of War we eventually became Half Good, I say Half Good because Ross' seemed to pick a Side whenever multiple Stuarts claimed the Throne and if we picked right we were Good, if we Picked Wrong, we weren't as Good, and Ross' were extremely well known Allies of the Stuarts and the Gentry, but him being Fat and Dressed in None Ross Colors (the Ross Character in Out Lander) is just insulting, and although Clan Ross and Clan Mackenzie had some Issues, allot of the Hierarchy of Clan Mackenzie was from the Ross Bloodline! Which the Chief of Mackenzie was actually trying to use after the 5th Earl of Ross died (Married to Princess Maud and set for the Throne, why the Stuart took his Sister the Countess Ross turned Queen Consort as his 2nd Wife to Concrete his Claims to the Throne and his Bloodlines Royal Lines, yes back than Earls were Considered Royals), and since the Earls of Ross had been abolished by the Crown, and the 4th Earl of Ross' 2nd Son becoming just Count Ross (instead of the Earl of Ross) the Mackenzie Chief was saying he should be the Earl of Ross citing how he came from the Bloodline of the Earls of Ross! And the Only Ross thing you see or hear in that show is some Fat Guy Dressed in Plain Colors! And it was just a very Poor Representation of Ross, and a Poor Representation of Ross-shire X amount of Episode are in (whenever they are North of Inverness) yet never mention that! Won't even show are Tartar, while many Highlanders call Ross' the Original Highlanders! We were Clan Arias (Anrias) before the Great Clan Ross, and from a Bloodline of the Scoti Kings of Old! the once War Master of Scotland the Chief of Clan Arias the 1st Earl of Ross Fearchar the Son of the Priest was a very Formative Leader, bringing Ross and Moray fully under the Crown, and brining the Viking Lairds to Heel, stealing their Lands and Gold! You don't get more Highlander than Ross! And I found that Show Insulting!

I have seen Scottish football matches being best described as "angry, bitter football"

Good one, @free_at_last! #CracksUpLaughing 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

"You Call This a Football Riot?!? Come on Boys, Let's Take Them to School!!"

I think the last recorded bayonet charge was actually performed by Scottish troops in Iraq in 04 😂

Or in Scottish bars when their team loses😊

Ffs its just a standard v charge used by barbarian cultures since the bronze age.

@@ruzzsverion2728 I mean when they started to implement rifles in the charge

It was the Highlanders who invented the classic shot and pike tactics that were being used in a previous era. The way the Jaccobites were doing it was just a result of falling back upon them because they had less ammo than the enemy. Main difference is pikes stopped being used because they had bayonets, and they were using Highland Targes instead of the Rotella. Both of which served the same purpose. Get in close without getting shot then get past the pikemen. Warfare is primarily using range first then finishing the enemy off in melee. Targes fell out of use when instead of trying to get close one could simply use their own musket. And the addition of the bayonet allows one to be both the pikemen the shooter and the swordsman all in 1. By the time of Culloden the Jacobites had acquired enough muskets off their enemies that they were using more of them than they were shield and sword, which is the reason it took longer before they charged. Who charges first depends entirely on who runs out of ammo first. Because back then when you ran out of ammo you couldn't just run off to hide in a foxhole and wait for a truck or helicopter to bring you more. Not that I think that's what they do.

Probably more screwed than the cavalry would be since you don't have the horses' mass & inertia, or their speed if running away becomes a good idea.

It's just a glorified human wave tactic

You seem to underestimate both the cavalry and infantry charges. Many such charges in history were devastating even if the enemy stood firm - this is why armies were doing them for thousands of years and this is why the first instinct of anyone who faced such a charge was to run!

@@andreydragomirov8559 Three milennia of history have proven that if the phalanx/shildtron/pikeblock/square/whatever holds then the cavalry is f*cked because no amount of training can convince a horse to impale itself on a pointy stick. Every successful cavalry charge in history was either done from the rear or the flank or against a flinching enemy, there's not a single example where cavalry managed to take on a solid formation from the front in melee and win.

@@mnk9073 There are plenty of examples from the Mediaeval period of cavalry charging into the front of infantry and winning. Cavalry that consisted of head-to-toe armoured professional soldiers with giant f-off weapons and giant f-off armoured war horses against levy infantry of suspect morale. But when they tried that and the infantry didn't break, generally the knights were slaughtered, per the Battle of the Golden Spurs. This became enough of a known issue that the English, for example, often deployed their knights *on foot* to better resist enemy charges and mow down enemy infantry. Charging even disciplined infantry often worked - at the Battle of Kosovo Serbian knights broke the centre and right Ottoman infantry, which outnumbered the Serbians and was regarded as unusually well-disciplined for its time, but the Serbian coalition ended up having to retreat because the Ottoman left held fast and the Ottoman infantry after rallying were too much for the Serban knights and infantry once the charge halted.

I agree om all except the sword range disadvantage to a bayonet

@@ioangogov2993 The muskets were long enough for troops to attack men on horseback with cavalry sabers. It's a more than two foot reach advantage. The Highlanders would have to parry past several bayonets to get into the formation because the muskets were long enough for each man to strike in support of his comrades.

​@@Derna1804reason for why the bayonet was an extremely effective weapon in mass formation, but if the charge was effective and the line lost cohesion, the highlander would have found themselves at a advantage in most "1 on 1" situations, thanks to the unyielding nature of a musket. True though that the musket has a reach advantage on a sword, but it's not a big deal, considering how cumbersome and heavy the musket itself is, it was a poor replacement for a true spear.

@@giacomoromano8842 I will grant you that a sword has advantages a bayonet does not. I don't have any training with swords, but I was trained to fight with a rifle and bayonet and I wouldn't underestimate bayonets at all. While it is certainly true that the musket is less of a spear than a spear, it's surprising how well you can wield a firearm as a spear and club. You can't change your direction of attack in an instant like with a spear, instead you take advantage of the weight of the weapon and your body weight for momentum. A "parry" with a musket isn't so much of a parry as an attack with the weight of the weapon to clear the way for a thrust, the soldier posts his thigh and leaps forward into the attack, so that bayonet is going where it's going, you're not stopping it with a sword or even a targe, you'd have to get out of the way entirely. If the formation armed with muskets is breaking up, so is the formation armed with swords, and the reach advantage in that situation becomes critical as men are able to aid their fellows. And we're not talking about people scattered to the four winds at this point, you're liable to trip over somebody or fall on your archibald trying to avoid a bayonet thrust. I suppose the HEMA community hasn't really taken an interest in bayonet fighting because it would be difficult to safely do a close approximation, and even if you did pull it off, anyone watching would be more horrified than impressed. I can only recall one instance in warfare of the period where infantry dropped their muskets in favor of sword sidearms and it was some cheeky Hungarian infantry charging insanely into a swirling cavalry melee during the Seven Years War (it didn't work out) the best evidence we have is that they probably favored their bayonets for a reason.

Not that sparsely populated. More so now but not in the 15-18th centuries. Almost every Glen and Strath, had thriving populations and forces. That’s why there are 10s of millions of Highland diaspora around the world. For example MacDonald of Islay could easily raise 10,000 warriors. Mackay of Caithness actually raised his own clan force of 5,000 to come down from Caithness (in the far uninhabited north west these days) to face off against the MacDonalds. Others like the the Gordon’s and Campbells could easily raise 6,000. Duncan Forbes actually wrote to the British Government stating all the Highland Chiefs could raise over 100,000 fighting men. Something that would never happen due to geography and complex feuds.

I can imagine that a group of staggering and stumbling drunks, some of the vomiting, some of them looking for their lost weapons, others who are in fact in the process of getting lost themselves, perhaps one or two who have urinated themselves and a few who are simply passing out must be a dreadful sight to behold.

@@SofaKingShit lol

Yeah, you can add a bunch of others among heavy drinkers. Russians start drinking vodka at breakfast, Germans wash everything down with huge tankards of ale and in WW II they were given methamphetamine to keep the men blitzing on. When they ran out of morphine they created Methadone as well. Booze has been a part of war forever. Sailors...rum. on and on. I like your humor, but ya can stereotype everyone.

What nationality are you?

​@@SofaKingShitI see from your comment that you have spent time in Dundee

I've also been and absolutely it was terrible ground to have picked, the British on the other hand probably would have chosen it from their point of view. Particularly with the low wall that as I recall ran down the right flank of the Scots.

Lord George Murray advised against fighting there at all, he was overridden by Charles Stuart who didn't really have a clue about anything military.

​@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311to be fair to Charles retreating was no longer a option.

Blackadder reference I see

Yes

a man of culture

Most tactical bannerlord player

F1 + F4 For real strategoi.

I will translate for the non gamers: Bannerlord Everyone! + Charge!

That's right. If melee weapons are all you have ( or mostly, anyway), then you have to get close enough to use them. A sword isn't much good at 200 yards.

❤

The highland charge was not used at bannockburn, that's completely diffrent tactics.

@loyalpiper it's a passive buff that all Scottish can use without the animation

It’s a way of life

Indeed I am sure they did meet. Along with Danes and Norwegians. They became blood-brothers and intermarried. They were Vikings.

"They were vikings" wrong century

You need not look past the Napoleonic era and usage of columnar forces to show that bayonet charge tactics *decided* many combats. You have a good point here that well-dug in and defended professionals armies will defeat charging forces... but how actually *common* is that example to happen? And what happens if (as utilized by great commanders such as Napoleon) combined arms of cavalry, artillery, and infantry are utilized to blunt the enemy before a final charge completely shatters their line and cohesion? it's only with the invention of modern massed firepower due to the accessibility of massed production during the Victorian age that we now fight without large blobs and do not utilize melee combat.

Pike and Shot has to be one of the most boring eras in warfare in all of history... Even if two "professional" armies met in battle the battle would conclude with one side retreating in good order and the other not pursuing since both suffered catastrophic casualties.

@@generalaigullletes5830 the exact same thing happened throughout the ancient world up until even technically modernity.

Yeah I was thinking the same. I was surprised by the lack of use of guns from the scots and the fact they laid down after shooting. With more organization, I'm pretty sure they would be devastating on larger scale

@@giorgiociaravolol1998 Where would they get the guns? You're talking about poor tenant farmers in the Highlands drafted for war. They can get a sword or polearm the local blacksmith made and a shield they made themselves, but that's about it. Guns would have to be bought in a major settlement, are expensive, difficult to maintain, and require ammunition and powder, which would also have to be bought.

These wars weren't really English vs. Scottish at all, at the time of the Jacobites, about half of Scotland supported the Hanoverians and a lot of people in England supported the Jacobites. Scots fought on both sides in all of these battles he mentioned.

That's an interesting point and is the traditional view(and has worked for poorly armed troops through out history at times) but there is a fairly recent book that came out after a new excavation of the Culloden battle field that took a very different view. One aspect i remember was the English had trained specifically for the tactic and when the Scots broke the lines (or purposefully gave way) the English forced them into a flexible pocket so they could fire on them from nearly all sides.

Smart. So the English pulled the center back while held the flanks, making a U-shape fire zone. Make sense @@JohnJohnson-pq4qz

@@alexanderchenf1 That was my recollection, I'm still trying to remember the book title.

The conflict wasn't a war between "Scotland" and "England", it was a dynastic struggle for the British throne were loyalties split along a number of religious, cultural and nationalistic lines.

Ah. What is the most bloody and bitter. Civil War. Tribe vs. tribe, Earl vs. Earl, North vs. South. Bitter and bloody. You know this well. You know your history very well sir.

Been to dunkeld and stood by the church, incredible to walk past the Coop there and the bridge and wonder what it would of been like. Fine example that the charge only works on open ground.

I'm not aware of many channels that use animation and maps like this one does for the time period, but Brandon F, Chris the Redcoat, and Far Off Station do some of that.

Gauls were celts proper not proto celts

@@anon2427 I already knew that.

Especially against bayonets and grapeshot.

yes, sounds like they should have retreated, but bravery can lead to foolishness@@josephmclaughlin8645

I'm sceptical of this claim I don't know of any battles where this happened.

Absolutely. And you see this also in Irish Confederate cavalry tactics. When facing an opponent with a superiority in firearms, you don't want a stand up fight. You have to cross the killing ground as quickly as possible and get to hand to hand. The charge is a tactic of necessity.

Στην υπόδουλη στους Οθωμανούς Τούρκους Ελλάδα, από τα τέλη τού 15ου αιώνα, υπήρχε μιά ορεινή περιοχή στην Ήπειρο όπου κατοικούσαν οι περίφημοι Σουλιώτες. Εκείνοι για 150 χρόνια ήταν αήττητοι στους πολέμους με τους Τούρκους και χρησιμοποιούσαν τακτικές όμοιες με τούς Σκωτσέζους Χαίλάντερς ενώ παράλληλα ήταν φοβεροί νυκτομάχοι. Επίσης έπαιξαν σπουδαίο ρόλο στην μεγάλη Επανάσταση των Ελλήνων το 1821 με αρχηγό τον φημισμένο Μάρκο Μπότσαρη, για τον οποίο έχουν γράψει ύμνους ο Γάλλος 12:44 Βίκτορ Ουγκώ και ο Σκωτσέζος από την μητέρα του Λόρδος Βύρων.

Yeah, only that the Swedes did it better. I'm inclined to believe that the Swedes influenced the Scots in this regard as by that time the Swedish army was notorious all across Europe as being the best quality military of the time and pretty much everyone was trying to draw inspiration from them.

It's a response to similar conditions - the Swedes were dealing with low manpower and a general lack of resources, so they came up with a strategy that maximised breaking the enemy morale whilst using the fewest manpower and materiel resources possible, and drilled their troops to carry this out as efficiently as possible. Ditto the Highlanders. The problem with both was that when the army eventually encountered a force that did not break at the charge, which then resulted in unrecoverable casualties and the disintegration of the entire army, as at Culloden and Poltava.

@@therat1117 , I agree with many of the things you've said, however, I must disagree with the notions that: the only purpose of a charge - whether cavalry or infantry - was to break the enemy's morale and if this didn't work, the charge always failed; that the Swedes relied exclusively on breaking the enemy morale with a charge; that the Swedes and the Scotts had the same problems and that the Swedes relied on using the fewest manpower possible. If the charge's sole purpose was to break the enemy morale, it wouldn't have been used for millennia prior, during, and after the period in question, as it is relatively easy to train an army to just stand its ground against a charge. But it's easier said than done. If the morale of the enemy didn't break, a charge could also break an enemy formation physically or could put the charging army in a better tactical position to continue the fighting against a disrupted and disorganised enemy formation. Prior to the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721) the Swedes were the foremost military power in Northern Europe and one of the Great Powers in all of Europe and they had managed to achieve this through various continuous reforms, improvements, and innovations in the course of more than a century. And during the first 10 years of that war they would face numerous times the standing armies of their many enemies - Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania, Russia, Saxony - and would score a streak of victories against 2 to 4 times the odds. This was hardly accomplished by relying solely on breaking their enemies' morale "at the charge" - such extraordinary feats required far more than that. In most of their battles - such as Narva, Düna, Klissow, Grodno, Fraustadt, and others - the Swedes would have to deal with heavily entrenched and fortified defensive enemy positions, the enemy's morale wouldn't break at the charge, a general melee would ensue, and the battles would be long lasting and hard-fought, and yet they would win consistently and against all odds and be undefeated for 10 years. This was mainly due to Sweden having the best quality military force on the continent in every possible respect (the only thing the Swedish army was lacking compared to any other strong army was numbers). The Battle of Poltava (which is a battle the Swedes shouldn't have engaged in in the first place, as far as I am concerned) was only lost because: firstly, the Swedish army was decimated during the Russian Winter, during which about two-thirds of the soldiers died, the rest were exhausted, malnourished, and already strongly demoralised (see "the winter of 1708/09", the coldest and harshest for centuries); secondly, they were outnumbered 4 times; and thirdly, after the Swedish cavalry routed the Russian one, they continued to pursue them for too long, instead of turning back and hit the Russian infantry on the flanks and rear, which would almost certainly have decided the battle in Swedish favour. In the previous battle - at Lesnaya - a secondary Swedish army escorting a supply convoy was intercepted, ambushed, and surrounded from 3 sides by the main Russian army more than twice its size, and still the Russians failed to defeat the Swedes. And why so effective and efficient? Apart from pure quality, the Swedish military doctrine was not just to charge in order to break the enemy's morale, but to surprise the enemy, take the initiative, never lose it, and constantly keep the enemy on the back foot, and this was applied on all levels - from the individual training and drilling, through the organisational, tactical, logistical, and up to the strategic and command level. And that doctrine was to be implemented even in defence (like at Lesnaya) - forming up earlier than expected, fortifying earlier than expected, maneuvering into position earlier than expected, counterattacking earlier than expected, etc. Also, the Swedes relied not on deploying as few men as possible, but rather on suffering as few casualties as possible and not losing a battle, as their lack of manpower wouldn't allow them to replenish casualties as well as their enemies. And regarding the material resources, Sweden at that time didn't have a big problem with that, as whatever the Swedes couldn't produce themselves, they would acquire it via trading (they controlled the Baltic trade) or plunder in a war, especially after a victory in battle. So, the Swedish and Scottish situations, although having some similarities, were largely different. I would recommend that you go through all of the Swedish battles in the Great Northern War and see for yourself what was really going on back then and there...

Millen's PhD thesis makes for a fantastic read and goes some way to clarify why Killiecrankie was a complete disaster for the Williamites.

I would probably die laughing hysterically at that...

"Fookin cop that ya great Jessie.,"

Especially if it's the greeks. The gay orgy takes few prisoners and ask fewer questions...

​@@HrHaakonjokes aside, the Greeks were extremely opposed to homosexuality.

Sword fight my guy ?

I actually think it's just a hilarious irony if nothing else. I mean, the Scots and Irish who were known to use the highland charge were very Catholic, and I just think it would've been hilarious to see how mortified they'd be if they made the connection between the highland charge and the mass charges the ancient Celts were known for. What would make it so funny is that Catholics, especially back then, tended to look down on other Christian groups, and even more so on non Christian peoples.

And the quality of troops you face...

disagree human waves worked in WW1 with much newer weapons. flintlock fire time is low makes them susceptible to this.

Human waves "worked" in WWI because most of the time those commanders had the mindset of Zap Brannagan to send wave after wave after wave of men at fortified and entrenched positions that had heavy weapons like emplaced machine guns. They also had a tactic called the creeping barrage where artillery would shell the area in front of the advancing attackers and the smoke and explosions would provide "cover" for the attacking men until they advanced far enough to charge at the enemy but this had to be planned out well and it wasn't uncommon for the artillery to fire too far ahead which would provide much less cover or to even not fire far enough in which case the attacking soldiers would get hit by friendly fire. As for flintlocks, they had limited range and rate of fire true but some armies like the British armies also developed tactics to make up for this by having things like volley fire where only some ranks would fire, then reload while other ranks would then fire and so forth. This would also make it much tougher for an enemy to Leroy Jenkins charge them. As for Culloden, I've actually been to the battlesite when I visited Scotland and the Scots had a lot going against them. They were basically outnumbered melee fighters charging head against an entrenched British army that also had artillery. It was one of the more one sided battles in history. I@@toddpick8007

@@nickm1242 tech outpaced tactics human waves worked to beat modern arty and heavy weapons. creeping barrage wasnt implemented until 1917 because communications were garbage early war.

​@@nickm1242I don't know which Culloden battlefield you visited but the British Hanoverians were definitely not dug in. They were arrayed in two lines of battle and the ground, unlike in earlier battles, suited them rather than the Jacobites. Bloody silly to attempt a charge across a bog into regular soldiers who were Veterans of the European wars.

Search for Culloden Battle and Ambush from the TV serie Outlander

Bit of a pointless comment to say Scots overstate and understate the tactic.

looks like a 30 years war reenactment, so after the renaissance. potentially at grolle

Majority of jacobites had muskets after 1700, they would often close to 30 yards, fire a single volley, throw the muskets down then charge them down.

no.

On the first day of the Somme, the British were ordered not to run, but walk in formation to the German lines. So….more of a Highland saunter.

Aye. Not a bad tactic only problem was the man way out on the left flank had to face 2 jacobites alone. The jacobites tactic facing the bastard direct in front and pushing the bayonet up and left with their Targe (wielded on the left arm) and slashing down with their basket hilt onto the shoulder or head. British lines would try using this to stab with bayonet into the side or under the right arm of the Jacobite to their immediate right while the Jacobites arm is up. Took a lot of trust to the man to your left from british forces. At culloden though the tactic had failed on certain lines where the jacobites broke through the first line and onto the second. Saor Alba

🤦‍♂️

The Jacobites chose the battlefield at Culloden.

Mostly due to the fact that Scott’s actually speak English (in a way) so they can cope more effectively to English speaking audiences

We see this stuff from a position far removed, and with a generally better knowledge of history than they would have. In the 18th century it would have been new again, just like if someone "discovers" bell bottoms all over again in 30 years. The horror.

lowlander strategy mid asf

@@camj4253 specially the Campbell beta as, coward kill kid and women in their sleep

Yea. Thanks for saying "in retrospect"; it's important to keep things in their historical context. The Plug bayonet was only used for a couple decades before the socket bayonet came around. I'm not *completely* sure why it wasn't just immediately replaced with the socket bayonet, but considering advancements in modern "national" armies during that time period, I'd guess it was because the plug bayonet was utilized as a more ad-hoc weapon and the socket bayonet was easier to produce. This comes without evidence on my part, however.

@@generalaigullletes5830 I can see the logic, it's a way to make the musket more than a prodding stick or club if you don't have time to reload, have run out of munitions, or your powder has become compromised, but expecting a formation to smoothly transition between mounting and unmounting a plug bayonet, and reloading and firing, while facing down a charging hoard of pant less kilt wearers, doesn't seem practical!

Would be more or less just a topic about Bushido because a Banzi Charge wasn't a tactic but a response to losing. Instead of surrendering imperial Japanese soldiers ran into the enemy. Surrender was viewed as shameful by dying bravely even if it was futile or 'stupid' was accepted to be the right choice.

What? The main difference between the two IS their equipment and the technological context. At its heart, both are aggressive charges in a context where ranged combat is expected.

What was tribal about the scots in medieval 2?

@@jaygrundy2781I was about to ask the same thing...

@@jaygrundy2781 Perhaps its the painted Scottish highlander units wearing kilts during catholic predominance.

It's in the Highlands duhhh

@@helygg8892 and it's highlanders doing it I suppose Actually I read up on it and the use of a musket volley before the charge to create a smoke screen was apparently quite unique, that's the innovation that seemed to make it different

using short weapons in combination with targes to overpower bayonets, musket volley at 50m both to create an additional smoke as cover and open gaps in the enemy line, laying down to avoid the enemy volley, using psychology above everything else to improve the chances of success.

@@SandRhomanHistoryLaying down to avoid the enemy volley is pretty common thou.

The weapons and tactics used - the Highlanders would jog up to pistol range, discharge a volley, drop their pistols and then charge forward with claymore and targes.

Why the sarcasm?

As a Scotsman I'm not impressed by your gaelic pish, deed language nobody cares about except bitter wee jacobites, indy wishers. The SNP failed, thank God. Long live our glorious union. God save the King 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

@@SpaceHCowboy I shall toast to the King as well. Dinnae fash that my glass is above a jug of water. It is only a coincidence ;)

Hector Brocklebank from HB fash.

Probably too specialised to use effectively in campaign

Probably would work well if they could also fight with firearms when necessary

​@@ComCommieoh bother 🙄

that sounds similar to the early tercio, where one third of the forces (I wonder if the name refers to the three unit types?) were sword-and-buckler men, also known as coseletes. No relation to Cosette from Les Miserables. They stopped using them because they died so much.

This is what cavalry was for

This is the truth of the situation.

@@paulkirk7120 They've fought Geoge Loyalists of similar numbers multiple times both of Brits Welsh and Scots. It was only a matter of time before they would suffer such a massacre if France did not uphold their end of the bargain. The Union's majority simply did not want Catholicism to return to power, which is what Charls Edward Steward wanted should he have reclaimed the throne and become king.

It's honestly more of a meme than truth that the Jacobites were primarily Catholic. The French and Irish in their ranks were. The majority Highlanders were mostly non-juring Episcopalians (ie, Anglicans that refused to swear loyalty to the monarch), which was suppressed heavily in Scotland after the '45 rising. Catholicism was not, because there were barely any Catholics in Scotland. The Lowland Covenanters didn't like them because they were Episcopalian rather than Presbyterian.

I've heard that claim but it's definitely false. There were certainly highlanders on both sides but from memory it's about 5000+ Highlanders on the Jacobite side at Culloden, less than a thousand on the government side.

Yeah because it wasn't a war between "Scotland and England", it's far more complex than that, it was a civil conflict over the British throne in which loyalties were split over a variety of religious, cultural and national factors.

Not quite, but a good chunk of Cumberland's forces were from Scotland, at least 1/4 of the army and possibly more.

It was, yes. Getting the actual date wrong is kinda worrying.

i suspect it was a typo rather than a wrong date

@@sammyclassicstarfoxfan9827 that'd make the most sense.

@@phillipdavies1081I doubt its a purposeful error, calm down.

To my understanding from watching this video, the highlanders fired once (I suppose the distance varied widely?) and then melee charged with war cries, often carrying broadswords and targes. The Swedes, however, stopped to fire twice, with the two rear ranks firing at approximately 50 meters and the two front ranks at 20-the range was slightly modified during the course of the war. Between the two volleys, the Swedes jogged, followed by a charge only after the final volley; it's possible that the charge was done in a slower pace compared to the highlanders, seeing as the Swedes put a lot of emphasis on cohesion and order. Furthermore, about a third of the Swedes carried pikes, either standing in the center of the formation or spread out along the whole line, while the rest had muskets (often with bayonet). Every soldier also carried a rapier, which was preferred over the bayonet-equipped musket in melee combat. However, the soldier would probably carry both weapons in his hands when charging. Unlike the highlanders, the Swedes would be mostly silent during the attack so that the commands conveyed by the drummers could be heard. TL;DR 1. The highlanders fired once-the Swedes fired twice. 2. The highlanders had broadswords and targes-the Swedes had pikes, muskets and rapiers/short swords. 3. The highlanders charged over a great distance-the Swedes charged at a distance of only 20 meters. 4. The highlanders prioritized speed-the Swedes prioritized cohesion. 5. The highlanders made war cries-the Swedes were silent.

@@DillsyYourDaddy67 Thanks! If you know at what range the highlanders typically unleashed their volley, please let me know.

They still had the advantage even as late as 1745, but it relied on the element of surprise, witness the battle of Preston Pans.

Most of these battles were Highland Scot v Lowland Scot.

@@memofromessex so

​@@memofromessexthat's a myth, much more accurate to say that's it depended who you were supportive of.