11C Scots

[Andreas Johansson]

As I think I've mentioned previously on this forum, I've identified 11th century Scots as a good army to collect in the sense it'd fit well with locally available opposition (there's Norse-Irish, Viking, and Isleman armies around). However, the ususal suspects don't seem to have any reconstructions of what Scots should look like in this period - there's nothing in Heath's ADA or AFE, frex. So I thought I'd ask if anyone can point to another reference, or has any knowledge or ideas what they should look like. Would they be similar to contemporary Irish? Would there be much armour? Did they use particularly long spears as the DBMM classification as Pikes (F) suggests? A fellow gamer once told me they'd wear black and yellow clothing, does anyone know of a basis for this?

Relatedly, can anyone point to good figures to use? It would be a bonus if the same manufacturer did allies like Scandinavians, Islemen, and Galwegians. (It'd be a further bonus if the line included witches, because if I do end up doing this army I just will have to have three witches in the baggage.)

[Swampster]

I have no idea of their accuracy, but TSS/QRF/Freikorp have released a range of Scots for (so far) the 9th to 12th centuries.
http://totalsystemscenic.com/product-category/15mm-ancients-tss/feudal-scots/
These do not seem to be the range they used to sell which was sold to Sgt Major Minis but now OOP I believe. The old range had witches - perhaps the new one will. Magister Militum does pointy hat style witches and also some screaming women with a druid if you want to go more Magrat than Granny Weatherwax.

Thistle and Rose did a range I think. The new owners are supposed to be releasing them fairly soon, but they have been saying that for a while.

[Erpingham]

Well, you are in a very speculative period.  There's a bit of a shortage of images of Scots before the 14th century (when they go from non-existent to very rare).  However, there is little to suggest that the lowland Scots would where anything hugely different to either the later Picts or the northern English.  The Scots may have had more of a love for checks and stripes (its a Celtic thing) than the English but I don't think there is direct evidence for it .

Couple of specific thoughts on questions.  Long spears - maybe but less certain than many seem to think.  Most warriors (Picts, Northern English, Welsh, 14th century Scots) have spears a foot or two higher than head height in the limited pictures we have.  Depends on your definition of pikes I suppose.  I think I'd err on the side of shieldwall.

Trousers - did they wear them?  Probably in Lothian, probably not in the west (tight, Irish-style trews maybe?)  But that's speculation.

Yellow and black.  Guessing but maybe referring to later Irish/Highland practice of saffron leine for the yellow and undyed wool for the black (Irish wool clothing was noted by Gerald of Wales as black, because that was the colour it came off the sheep - lots of heritage sheep breeds like Soays (a Scottish breed) produce brown/black wool, so plausible).

[Andreas Johansson]

Thanks for the replies (and keep 'em coming if anyone else has something to add)

The Scots may have had more of a love for checks and stripes (its a Celtic thing) than the English but I don't think there is direct evidence for it .

Given att we're looking at hundreds of figures for an army, I think I'll keep checks and stripes to a minimum!

Long spears - maybe but less certain than many seem to think.  Most warriors (Picts, Northern English, Welsh, 14th century Scots) have spears a foot or two higher than head height in the limited pictures we have.  Depends on your definition of pikes I suppose.  I think I'd err on the side of shieldwall.

I wouldn't consider a spear of seven feet or so a pike, no, but it's probably enough to justify Pk (F) status in DBMM. The "shieldwall" bit would be more of a concern for the accuracy of the classification, Pk (F) typically being assumed to have small if any shields.

Trousers - did they wear them?  Probably in Lothian, probably not in the west (tight, Irish-style trews maybe?)  But that's speculation.

I guess that's a good option for distinguishing commands - the guys in trousers are in this command, the guys without are in that.

[Imperial Dave]

I have no idea of their accuracy, but TSS/QRF/Freikorp have released a range of Scots for (so far) the 9th to 12th centuries.
http://totalsystemscenic.com/product-category/15mm-ancients-tss/feudal-scots/

bugger.......more figures to add to the list.....!

[Duncan Head]

In the recent discussion on the Kingarth stone (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2718) there were a couple of references to stones that might be close in date to what you're looking for:

That's the rear of the Kirriemuir 2 stone, Roy: at http://warfare2.netai.net/6C-11C/Kirriemuir_2_stone_rear.htm there's a better picture. (Which shows some really cool details: is that a mail cape the upper horseman's wearing? And what's that jacket that the mounted huntsman's got!)

That site suggests a C9th-10th date but at https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_130/130_637_650.pdf, Lloyd Laing sees hints of a later date, Roy's C11th or even later:

Kirriemuir 2 was recognized by Henderson (1978, 56) as 'late' (by implication ninth century or later).

There are external clues to the dating of Kirriemuir 2 and Monifieth 2. The mounted warrior on Kirriemuir 2 (on the back, top) carries a sword with straight guards and domed pommel (illus 2b). This type of sword is found on a few other Pictish stones (notably at Shandwick, discussed below), and seems to have started to replace in the later ninth century the type with down-curved guards and upturned pommel represented for example on Aberlemno 2, Angus. The sword type has been discussed by Davidson (1962, 57 and pl XI-XIII) and Bone (1989, 66). The Kirriemuir type of sword appears in English sculpture in the 10th century, for example at Middleton 2A, Yorkshire (Lang 1991, 183 and pl 677), or the Nunburnholme Cross also in Yorkshire (Lang 1991, 189–93 and pl 721), dated to the late ninth or 10th century. Variants of the type with a pommel shaped like a flattened hemisphere were current in the 11th century, namely Petersen's (1919) types W and X, represented in London as Type VII (Wheeler 1927), and it is with these later variants that the Kirriemuir sword  most closely corresponds.
...
A date as late as the 11th or early 12th century is possible for Kirriemuir 2 on the basis of these analogies, and the form of the sword pommel, as discussed above, would not be out of keeping with this.

These are stones in the Pictish tradition, so you might still be looking at styles that look "late Pictish" (without the body-art).

See also the infantryman with the lobed shield at the bottom of the Ardchattan cross at http://warfare2.000webhostapp.com/6C-11C/Ardchattan_stone.htm

[Anton]

I seem to recall PV Walsh's Slingshot articles on Fergus of Galloway argued for an Irish appearance and arms for the Galwegians.

The TSS range that Peter mentioned above has just had another pack of warriors added to it, mainly Axemen.

Donnington have some good Scots figures too in their early medieval range.

Just had an email from QRF/TSS they are launching a New Pict range next month.  With a bit of luck some might fit with the images Duncan linked.

[Erpingham]

I seem to recall PV Walsh's Slingshot articles on Fergus of Galloway argued for an Irish appearance and arms for the Galwegians.

There are 12th century descriptions of galwegians which refer to them as "naked" (which may just mean unarmoured) e.g.   

" men agile, unclothed, remarkable for much baldness [shaven heads?]; arming their left side with knives formidable to any armed men, having a hand most skillful at throwing spears and directing them from a distance; raising their long lance as a standard when they advance into battle" (describing troops in 1173)

Contemporary descriptions of the battle of the Standard in 1138 notes their lack of armour, their light spears and that they had swords.

And when the frailty of the Scottish lances was mocked by the denseness of iron and wood they drew their swords and attempted to contend at close quarters


It has been suggested that the well-known pictures of Scots on the seal of Carlisle from 1315 are Galwegians.

[Anton]

Yes, its an interesting quote, especially the 'baldness' should we take it as akin to the "naked" so neither helmet nor armoured?  Or is it a warrior fashion visible because of the lack of helmet?

The formidable knives and skill with throwing spears sounds very Irish.

Two things come to mind, Walsh notes lots of mentions of axes, like the figure on the ladder in your link and we should expect a significant Gall Gael influence in Galloway.

The long, presumably thin, lances interest me apart from the reference you quote does anyone else mention them for Galwegians?

[Andreas Johansson]

Donnington have some good Scots figures too in their early medieval range.

The ones in the Originals Arthurian range? Unfortunately there are no pictures.

Based on Anthony's comments, many of the Irish and Anglo-Saxon figures in the New Era range could serve - but I'd rather not mix Original and New Era Donnington.

Galwegians being warband, giving them long lances may be pragmatically undesirable as they need to be distinguishable from Scots Pk (F). But Anthony's quote has "long lance" singular, so perhaps it's a single lance used as a field sign in lieu of a proper standard?

[Erpingham]

The formidable knives and skill with throwing spears sounds very Irish.

Also I think quite Welsh

The long, presumably thin, lances interest me apart from the reference you quote does anyone else mention them for Galwegians?

I looked up the descriptions related to the Battle of the Standard and it is a bit open to interpretation. Firstly, I made a mistake with my quote.  The property of spears problem isn't they are javelins but they are thin and long.

Why therefore does the great length of those spears, which we perceive afar off, alarm us? The wood is fragile, the iron blunted; when it  smites it is destroyed, when it is struck it breaks, scarcely sufficing for one blow. Catch it on a stick, and the Scot stands there unarmed.

This is part of the pre-battle speeches (the old inferior enemy kit trope).  There is also a mention of calf-skin shields.  But it isn't explicitly directed at the Galwegians.  The fact that the issue of the spears is revisited when describing the Galwegians may be significant though.

Incidently, the viewpoint of the Galwegians on fighting without armour is related as

We surely have iron sides, a breast of bronze, a mind void of fear; and our feet have never known flight, nor our backs a wound.

When someone says something as desperately heroic, you know they're doomed.

[Erpingham]

But Anthony's quote has "long lance" singular, so perhaps it's a single lance used as a field sign in lieu of a proper standard?

Knowing your knowledge of latin, I checked the original

lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signum

Does that help?

[Erpingham]

Incidentally, before anybody thinks Anthony is very knowledgeable about galwegians, while aware of some of the quotes, I have been greatly helped by finding this online.

[Anton]

Andreas, I was thinking of this Donnington Originals Range

http://shop.ancient-modern.co.uk/medieval-feudal-and-cruisades-56-c.asp

Good link Anthony. Yes, I see the Welsh similarity too.

There is a quote before the Standard of a dispute between the Galwegians and the Scots Normans where the former correctly say they have just defeated armoured Normans at Clitheroe and that they can do it again, which as it turned out they could not.  The sense of it is that the Galwegians were not armoured.

[Andreas Johansson]

Knowing your knowledge of latin, I checked the original

lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signum

Does that help?

Well, it certainly seems to speak of a single weapon raised as a standard, but the verb is singular whereas the English translation is plural "they advance", so something funny is going on.