The Wapenshaw
by Guy Sheldon

Who did the fighting for the Scots? "Everyone" is the easy answer, and would most certainly be the case for home defense. However, the only men required to be the fighting force were the "tacksmen" or "gentlemen" of the clan. These were the men who had "tack" (land in the form of a lease) to call their own, the theory being that they would have more to fight for than a tenant.

As early as the times of Robert the Bruce, there were laws set up to delineate who was required to arm themselves, and to what extent. This differed greatly from the English system (of course). The basic English army of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries consisted of the mounted, heavily armoured knights as the shock troops and main fighting force (who could resist their charge? Ha ha ha!), drawn mainly from the nobility as part of their feudal obligations (though some were also serving for pay at this time, a fraction that would increase later). These heavy troops were backed by paid footsoldiers and archers. Scotland could not afford to pay for troops, and did not have the nobility with their feudal obligations, and so could not match the English one-for-one. Bruce realized he would have to build a strong force of footmen, and so derived his own scheme to create it. Bruce, therefore, borrowed a plan used by the Franks before and during the time of Charlemagne. Back then, it was based on land. A man who held three or more "hides" of land (in feu from his overlord; he didn't own it) was obligated to arm himself with a helmet, coat of mail, sword and scabbard, greaves, lance, shield, and battle steed. A man who held two hides was to join with a man who held one, and similarly equip one of themselves, and three man who each held one hide were likewise to join together to equip one of their number. Three hides of land must have been a substantial holding, as the value of that equipment was 45 cows or 15 mares; basically a village's worth of large animals! And that doesn't include pack animals, riding animals, and supplies!

Since few Scots held much land at this time, Bruce based his system on that time-honored currency, the cow, Any of the "small folk" who owned goods equal to the value of one cow was required to equip himself with a good spear or a good bow with a sheaf of arrows. Any layman who had at least 10 pounds worth of goods must have a padded leather jerkin, steel helmet, and "gloves of plate" (probably mitten gauntlets at this time). These statutes were ordained during the Parliament of 1318. These "small folk" formed the stout, stalwart basis of the schiltron that was so able to resist that charge of the armoured English knights mentioned earlier, and the bowmen who occupied the gaps and flanks of those schiltrons to protect the rear.

The necessity for a good body of archers at this time was well recognized by Robert the Bruce. His levy on those to whom he granted land in tenure was a body of ten archers, instead of the mounted knight that was typical of the English. This covered multiple differences between the purely feudal system and the hodge-podge of clan and feudal organizations that Bruce had inherited. Even a large landholder in Scotland was poorer than in other lands, and couldn't afford the heavy armour, horse, and equipment of a knight. Also, in Bruce's reckoning, ten archers would have more impact than one knight (although I'm not sure the Scots ever got the hang of using their archers, probably due to that Celtic thing about getting right into your opponent's face...).

These obligations were strictly enforced. The local sheriff was to carry out inspections, and anyone found not obeying these laws would be deprived of his goods, which would then be divided half-and-half between his lawful superior and the King.

Over time, the system evolved to be land-based instead of cattle-based. The clan system allowed the chief to give his land in "tack", a form of lease. This was sometimes given for life, but usually was for three generations. At the end of that time, the "tacksman" could purchase the land, if he had done well. (If not, he would be shifted to a smaller tack within the clan lands, but, under the clan system, he would be provided for.) Sometimes, the tacksmen would sub-let some of their land to tenants, or "mailers" (because they paid "mail" or rent; later, many of these mailers became crofters, holding land directly from the Laird, and paying him the rent, but still not owning anything). How different from the feudal system where land was held in feu, that is, a grant or charter from the King. The feudal lord was just a caretaker, and did not own the land and never could; he retained it only as long as he remained loyal to the Crown.

By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the force of the obligation had weakened substantially, largely due to the very system that had spawned it. The clan system meant that the first loyalty was to the clan and chief. If he didn't follow the King, his clan's tacksmen didn't have to either. And, in many cases, the tacksmen didn't always follow their chief; they'd rather stay home and take care of that valuable land. They often had to be forced out to take the field by threats of burning their homes and goods, which power the chief did (questionably) have.

So, what did this mean for the fighting strength of the clans? We have some counts from the Jacobite Rebellions of the 1700's to go by for that era; I have no idea what numbers were available during the earlier times.

One interesting reference is the song, "Come O'er the Stream, Charlie", also called "MacLean's Welcome". This Jacobite song is an invitation to Bonnie Prince Charlie to cross the English Channel from France and join up with his supporters in Scotland. Among other promises of good things waiting for him are the MacLean troops, "...strong arms and broad claymores three hundred and ten".

So if the MacLeans could contribute 310 men, what could the other clans come up with? When Charlie raised the standard at Glenfinnan, the first troops to arrive were 300 Camerons and 700 MacDonalds of Keppoch. Later, the Stuarts of Appin contributed 200 men, and the MacPhersons 300. Also, 1100 Grants pledged their support of the Young Pretender, providing their chief would lead them. One other number that I have is the combined strength of MacDonalds from the Isles, and the MacLeods, also from Skye, totaled 2400 men; these troops , however, were late in being raised and were disbanded when dispatches arrived telling of the disaster at Culloden. Interestingly, when the MacLeods had to pay their respects to Forbes of Culloden, Lord President of the Court of Session and a Hanoverian, a short time later, only 200 of these men followed their chief.

One last note about the clansmen's loyalty, or lack thereof, to their chief is another story similar to the MacLeod's. The Grant chief was much respected and beloved by his people. Those 1100 men mentioned above were only too happy to follow their chief when he was supporting "the cause of their ancient Kings". However, when he was later forced to pay his respects to the Royal General, the Duke of Cumberland, it was a different story. Wanting nothing to do with the English, the bulk of the clan would not follow their chief in this. He only managed to get 95 men to follow him at this time! So the chiefs were not absolute autocrats, exercising their unquestioned will over their people; they had to woo and convince their followers that what they were doing was to the benefit of the clan and/or the individuals therein. A smart chief had to lead and listen (or even lead by listening) to keep his clan together.

So, each clan could raise a few hundred to about a thousand men for battle. Considering the usual difficulty of getting more than a few clans together at any one time, this meant that the Scots usually could only field a few thousand men at a battle. The most common estimates of their strength at Culloden, for example, are 4000-5000 men. This was out of a total population in the Highlands of about 250,000 people. However few their numbers though, they were always the fiercest fighters around, due mainly to the system that picked those who had the most to fight for and ensured they knew their duty and would do it.


References:

Boutell, Charles; Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Reeves and Turner, London, (1907), 1996.

Browne, Ronnie and Williamson, Roy; The Corries Complete. New Town Studios and Wm. Nimmo, Edinburgh.

Delbruck, Hans; Medieval Warfare - History of the Art of War, Vol. 3, Walter J. Renfroe, Trans. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1990

Kybett, Susan MacLean; Bonnie Prince Charlie. Dodd, Mead, and Co., New York, 1988

Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Sir Ian; The Highland Clans. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., New York, 1982

Scott, Ronald McNair; Robert the Bruce. Canongate Publishing Ltd., Edinburgh, 1988