The "Highland Charge" and Sword Technique Q.

[dennispbray]

Hello, my name is Dennis and I am doing research on how various weapons types fought and interacted on the early modern battlefield (Shot & Pike era).

To examine the Irish shielded swordsman and how he fought against massed pike formations, I am referencing later accounts of the so called "Highland Charge" or rather the Celtic Charge (contemporary accounts from 17th/18th century Scotland are more detailed and more plentiful than those of their 16th/17th c. Irish predecessors). Anyhow, one description of the charge describes a specific shield technique seemingly to distract or encumber the enemy's musket while the killing blow is delivered with the sword. I would like to know exactly 1) what this technique was, 2) how it was performed and 3) if it could have been used on pikes/long spears and to what degree of similar effectiveness.

Here is the description of a charge against a block of bayoneted muskets: " To make an opening in regular troops, and to conquer, they reckoned the same thing, because in close engagements, and in broken ranks, no regular troops could withstand them. They received the bayonet in the target, which they carried on the left arm; then, turning it aside, or twisting it in the target, they attacked with the broad-sword the enemy encumbered and defenceless [sp]".

Again, what is the "twisting" technique described here (not the "turning aside" which is obviously a parry)? Please limit any guesses to EDUCATED CONJECTURES and please provide me with as much proof and description of your reasoning as you can, particularly from EXPERIENCE and/or CONTEMPORARY TEXTS since I am not a swordsman and am a little slow as it is! Thanks all, I would trust this question to nobody except the fine folks at ARMA.

Cheers,
Dennis Bray

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello there!

Your question centers around the use of a targe and Broadsword used primarily in the highlands of Scotland. For actual accounts of the use of these weapons in combination there are tons of period refrences and descriptions in the information available at the battle of Culloden.

I visited that battlefield and had some tours with a few local experts and form a swordsmen's point of view, the actual "techniques" invloved are not that complex, you move forward, use the targe to offer as a "target" for the bayonet to be thrust into, it's made of leather and wood so it will stick, but usually not penetrate to deeply, this will give you enough time just to open up the bayonett user for a sword stroke, or thrust, by moving your left arm aside, bringing the point of the bayonette with it, as well as occupying both the arms of the person using it. The rifle with the bayonette thus becomes a polearm, and the tactics for fighting polearms are the same as for pikes etc.. get past the point of it, and get in close quickly.

Problems of fighting them are the length of polearms, gives the user a high degree of quickness, and distance from you the target. In fighting (distance = time) time, to act and react, giving you a significant advantage at times.

You wanted to use these weapons (broadsword and targe), in close, so the closer you could be the better, the broadsword also had a massive handguard you could use as an aid to punching and wrenching actions to futher open up the other guy for blows- strikes with the guard itself like a huge set of brass knuckles.

The battle of Culloden was a turning point as the general who had overall command of the Scots Jacobites, using these weapon combinations as thier primary offensive weapons were nuetralized due to the terrain and the French General's failure to understand the way in which these weapons were used.

Do search for information on this battle and it should give you plenty to use.

Hope that helps get you rolling!- AP

[Stacy Clifford]

As Aaron said, "twisting it in the target" probably makes the most sense if the bayonet gets stuck in the wood and you twist it away from you, dragging the barrel of the musket with it. The other options I would suggest are either that the target had an unusual shape or projections like spikes on it that could allow trapping with a twisting motion, or that twisting refers to wrapping your shield arm over and then under the weapon ("twisting" around it) to wrap it up and pin it, which is a common form of disarm with a smaller buckler. Both are plausible and historically documented in earlier times, but don't seem quite as likely as the first suggestion based on the way the phrase is written.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The other options I would suggest are either that the target had an unusual shape or projections like spikes on it that could allow trapping with a twisting motion

Not necessarily spikes; didn't some Highlanders hold a dirk together with their targe in the left hand? If this is true, then the part of the dirk projecting beyond the bottom edge of the targe (which could be quite substantial if the dirk is long enough) might prove useful for this kind of technique by trapping the opponent's weapon between the rim of the targe and the edge of the dirk. I found a similar technique very useful when doing some free-play with spears and large shields (not medieval/Renaissance European stuff)--a second stick (i.e. spear simulator) held in the shield hand helps greatly with defense of the head and the legs against thrusting attacks.

However, I'm not so sure about the utility of the technique against long spears/pikes. Against a single spearman or pikeman, sure, the technique could work well enough. But as far as I know the really effective pike formations in the 16th and 17th century got their effectiveness against infantry from offensive rather than defensive power--that is, they charged ahead with pikes leveled in classic Swiss style or at least plodded onwards at the fastest pace they could manage without breaking up the formation. In open terrain, such a pike charge would simply have overwhelmed an opposing formation of swordsmen, as it did at the Battle of Seminara. Machiavelli's account of Spanish sword-and-target men crawling under the pikes and rising up to strike at short range was (very) probably incomplete because it omitted the fact that the swordsmen would have been able to do so only in terrain unfavorable to pikes (whether naturally-occuring rough ground or man-made field fortifications, especially the latter). The Irish--if they actually made much use of sword-and-target men against English or Continental pikemen--probably relied on such uneven terrain as well, of which Ireland had plenty. Remember that the famous fight where Alasdair MacColla--a Scottish chieftain who led an Irish regiment in the English Civil War--held off a number of pikemen with his sword and target was fought in the close confines of a built-up area (a village?).

But how much did the Irish use the sword-and-targe combination anyway? The only large body of sword-and-target men I can recall being in Irish service was some 17th-century Highland Scottish "Redshank" mercenaries. Otherwise the Irish seemed to have been more famous for sparth axes, two-handed claymores, and javelins, and Tyrone's reforms turned them into a rather conventional pike-and-shot army.

[robrobertson]

I'm currently working in N.E. Ohio and won't be home until mid-May after Pittsburgh, so I can't look up my references.

What I CAN tell you is that the above three are right. My introduction to highland warfare was when I was watching a BBC documentary on the old highland lifestyle, when I was cross training with the 1st Parachute regiment, way back in 1981.

The clans would line up in four ranks. The higher your rank (the better armed and armoured) the closer you were to the front. The basic stratagie was to soften the enemy with musket fire, drop musket while running closer. Soften the enemy some more with pistol fire, throw the pistol at the enemy while rushing and drawing the sword. Catch the bayonet with target (which also held dirk point down, edge out) (further note; the dirk scabbard was carried in front, NOT at the side as the victorians) twist the target to the left. This action was shown to be basically the same as keeping your upper arm stable , elbow at your side while raising the dirk up by the shoulder as if cocking to stab the enemy . This clears the way as you rush past for the dirk and sword work. It was very fast. It was very dynamic!

One of my sources (don't remember off the top of my head) said that one of the reasons that may have contributed to our loss at Culloden was that Cumberland was said to have trained his troops to not thrust bayonets to the man directly in front of him but rather to the right, so as to hit them on their exposed sides.

I hope that this was helpfull.

Rob