Talk:Alasdair Mac Colla

Names, Clans and Charges

Alasdair is mistakenly referred to-both by some of his contemporaries and posterity-as 'Colkitto', a name that belongs to his father, Coll MacGillespic. Also Clan Donald is not a 'branch' of the Macdonald Clan-they are one and the same thing. Technically it is more correct to say Clan Donald (the children of Donald) rather than the Macdonald clan.

There is also a wider point to be made about Alasdair's alleged invention of the Highland charge, first argued, I believe, by David Stevenson. By this argument it is maintained that the tactic first appeared in Scotland at the Battle of Tippermuir in September 1644. Here it took the classic form, soon to become familiar to many Lowland armies: an initial discharge of muskets followed by a close-quarter engagement with blade weapons. But Tippermuir, apart from the innovation of guns, was in many ways little different from Highland battles of ages past, which began with a discharge of missile weapons, followed by an onward surge, like Kinloch-Lochy in 1544. The other side of the equation tends to be overlooked: the changing nature of Lowland armies.

It is important to realise that Tippermuir was the first time Highlanders and Lowlanders had met in full-scale battle since Inverlochy in 1431. At Inverlochy, and at the earlier battle at Harlaw, Highlanders and Lowlanders would have fought with similar weapons and techniques, usually wearing chain-mail or some other form of body armour. By 1644 Highlanders had not lost their skill in the use of blade weapons; Lowlanders, in contrast, had. At Marston Moor the Scots had faced soldiers armed and organized very much like themselves, musketeers whose secondary defence while undergoing the dangerous operation of reloading was provided by pikemen. But neither pike nor unloaded musket were much use against shield and broadsword. More than this Lowland amateur soldiers, quickly raised and badly trained, were little use against men educated all their lives in a warrior tradition. The Highland charge was not a great innovation, but a technique with ancient roots. It would take a century of intermitent experience for Lowlanders to learn that it could be defeated, using defence in depth by well-trained, profesional soldiers. Rcpaterson 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I think Stevenson's point is that while the Highlanders retained the use of bladed weapons those weapons and the tactics changed radically with the advent of firepower. Earlier they employed two-handed claymore type swords and great Lochaber type axes that necessitated body armour of some sort as they could not protect themselves with shields. Chainmail and the padded linen warcoats of old were no protection against musketry. While it is true that fighting Highland Gaels were absent largely in the rest of Britain during the 15th and 16th Centuries, their presence as mercenaries in Ireland was huge. Every Irish or even Anglo-Irish army of the period had its retinue of paid Gall Oglaich shock troops. It was precisely at this time when musketry began to become more and more effective. Indeed, by the end of the Tudor Reconquest, the Galloglass was becoming obsolete. They were being massacred by gunpowder. The Scottish Highlanders fighting in Ireland, so David Stevenson reasons, observed the success of the hit and run guerrilla tactic of the Irish Kern armed with missles, (darts) one handed broadswords and small shields. Later they carried muskets too and discharged them first before closing with the "Sassanach". The Kern also utilized terrain as the later Highland Charge would, often waiting until their enemy was hemmed in by a bog, fording a stream or confined by a narrow glen. Using this kind of topography to their advantage the Irish Kern would also find an easier exit if things got difficult, as the enemy would be less able to pursue them. Night attacks and flanking assaults which would often divide the enemy, were also hallmarks of the Kern's bag of tricks. All the skills learned in Ireland were employed by the Highlanders in the Century between Inverlochy and Culloden. However, I think Rcpatterson's point concerning the changing nature of the Lowland armies is well taken also and the "onward surge" characteristic of the Celts since ancient times is a valid one. Perhaps the Highlands of Scotland, so influenced by the Norse heavily armed style, reverted to a more purely Celtic tactic once the smell of black powder began to fill the battlefield...it was already in their blood so to speak. I think of Brennus the Gallic Chieftain before the Roman Army at Allia (near Rome) in 390 BC. The Romans had formed a straight defensive line but sent a string of spearmen up perpendicular to and in protection of, their right flank. What did Brennus do? He simply attacked the weaker flanking line and routed the army facing him, then sacked Rome itself: VAE VICTUS. BKennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.48.155 (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Stevenson's point is that while the Highlanders retained the use of bladed weapons those weapons and the tactics changed radically with the advent of firepower. Earlier they employed two-handed claymore type swords and great Lochaber type axes that necessitated body armour of some sort as they could not protect themselves with shields. Chainmail and the padded linen warcoats of old were no protection against musketry. While it is true that fighting Highland Gaels were absent largely in the rest of Britain during the 15th and 16th Centuries, their presence as mercenaries in Ireland was huge.

Every Irish or even Anglo-Irish army of the period had its retinue of paid Gall Oglaich shock troops. It was precisely at this time when musketry began to become more and more effective. Indeed, by the end of the Tudor Reconquest, the Galloglass was becoming obsolete. They were being massacred by gunpowder. The Scottish Highlanders fighting in Ireland, so David Stevenson reasons, observed the success of the hit and run guerrilla tactic of the Irish Kern armed with missles, (darts) one handed broadswords and small shields. Later they carried muskets too and discharged them first before closing with the "Sassanach".

The Kern also utilized terrain as the later Highland Charge would, often waiting until their enemy was hemmed in by a bog, fording a stream or confined by a narrow glen. Using this kind of topography to their advantage the Irish Kern would also find an easier exit if things got difficult, as the enemy would be less able to pursue them. Night attacks and flanking assaults which would often divide the enemy, were also hallmarks of the Kern's bag of tricks. All the skills learned in Ireland were employed by the Highlanders in the Century between Inverlochy and Culloden. However, I think Rcpatterson's point concerning the changing nature of the Lowland armies is well taken also and the "onward surge" characteristic of the Celts since ancient times is a valid one. Perhaps the Highlands of Scotland, so influenced by the Norse heavily armed style, reverted to a more purely Celtic tactic once the smell of black powder began to fill the battlefield...it was already in their blood so to speak.

I think of Brennus the Gallic Chieftain before the Roman Army at Allia (near Rome) in 390 BC. The Romans had formed a straight defensive line but sent a string of spearmen up perpendicular to and in protection of, their right flank. What did Brennus do? He simply attacked the weaker flanking line and routed the army facing him, then sacked Rome itself: VAE VICTUS. BKennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.48.155 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Stevenson's point is that while the Highlanders retained the use of bladed weapons those weapons and the tactics changed radically with the advent of firepower. Earlier they employed two-handed claymore type swords and great Lochaber type axes that necessitated body armour of some sort as they could not protect themselves with shields. Chainmail and the padded linen warcoats of old were no protection against musketry. While it is true that fighting Highland Gaels were absent largely in the rest of Britain during the 15th and 16th Centuries, their presence as mercenaries in Ireland was huge.

Every Irish or even Anglo-Irish army of the period had its retinue of paid Gall Oglaich shock troops. It was precisely at this time when musketry began to become more and more effective. Indeed, by the end of the Tudor Reconquest, the Galloglass was becoming obsolete. They were being massacred by gunpowder. The Scottish Highlanders fighting in Ireland, so David Stevenson reasons, observed the success of the hit and run guerrilla tactic of the Irish Kern armed with missles, (darts) one handed broadswords and small shields. Later they carried muskets too and discharged them first before closing with the "Sassanach".

The Kern also utilized terrain as the later Highland Charge would, often waiting until their enemy was hemmed in by a bog, fording a stream or confined by a narrow glen. Using this kind of topography to their advantage the Irish Kern would also find an easier exit if things got difficult, as the enemy would be less able to pursue them. Night attacks and flanking assaults which would often divide the enemy, were also hallmarks of the Kern's bag of tricks. All the skills learned in Ireland were employed by the Highlanders in the Century between Inverlochy and Culloden. However, I think Rcpatterson's point concerning the changing nature of the Lowland armies is well taken also and the "onward surge" characteristic of the Celts since ancient times is a valid one. Perhaps the Highlands of Scotland, so influenced by the Norse heavily armed style, reverted to a more purely Celtic tactic once the smell of black powder began to fill the battlefield...it was already in their blood so to speak.

I think of Brennus the Gallic Chieftain before the Roman Army at Allia (near Rome) in 390 BC. The Romans had formed a straight defensive line but sent a string of spearmen up perpendicular to and in protection of, their right flank. What did Brennus do? He simply attacked the weaker flanking line and routed the army facing him, then sacked Rome itself: VAE VICTUS. BKennedy

War Crimes Charge

I don't know who put in those allagations but they are not true. It is merley a politically motivated smear campaign against a national hero of Scotland and Ireland.--86.142.142.210 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) RS 23/09/09

The "Barn of Bones" refers to Mc Colla's burning down a barn full of Campbell women & children. This is important to recall the motivation behind later events such as the Glencoe Massacre & McColla's own execution in 1647 -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.152.152 (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)