IT was in this week of 1644 that the arrival on the scene of a great Scottish general was announced with victory at the Battle of Tippermuir.
On September 1, 1644, James Graham, Fifth Earl and later First Marquis of Montrose, led his Royalist force to a crushing defeat of the Covenanter army of the Scottish Government of the day. It took place beside the village of Tibbermore, the alternative name for the battle, some four miles west of the city of Perth.
The battle is renowned because it was the first of a series of victories won by Montrose in the years 1644-45 during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the correct name for the conflict usually just known as the English Civil War.
How did Montrose end up leading Charles I’s forces when he had helped draw up – and was one of the first to sign the National Covenant of 1638 against the King’s attempts to impose Anglican worship on the Church of Scotland?
READ MORE: How Elizabeth cultivated young James VI of Scotland as her heir
He served in the Covenanter army in the so-called Bishop’s Wars in 1639 and 1640, fighting the Battle of the Brig’ o’Dee to an effective draw. He remained a confirmed Royalist, however, and that brought him into bitter enmity with the chief of Clan Campbell, the Earl, later the Marquis, of Argyll.
Montrose began to dislike the way in which the radical Presbyterians were going, and in 1641 signalled his switch to the royal cause when Charles I agreed to lift the imposition of bishops on the Kirk. As far as he was concerned, the King had kept his side of the agreement, but Montrose’s real break with the Covenanter Government came when they drew up the Solemn League and Covenant which allied them to the English Parliamentarians against Charles I and sent many experienced Covenanter troops south of the border, which turned out to be a huge mistake.
Having suffered imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle for five months by Argyll and his party, there’s no wonder why Montrose went straight to the king an offered his services, with Charles making him a Marquis in February, 1644, and appointing him his Lieutenant General for Scotland.
Montrose formed a small army and captured Dumfries, but Argyll had taken charge of a Covenanting army in the north and Montrose knew he had insufficient forces to beat Argyll. Just in time arrived the fearsome Alasdair MacColla MacDonald, son of Coll MacDonald of Colonsay, and known as Colkitto because he was left-handed. He had been in Ulster for six years and at the age of 21 was already a legend for his fighting prowess. Now he wanted to make war on the hated Clan Campbell, so that meant fighting Argyll and his Covenanters.
It was Alasdair who was credited with creating the Highland charge in which his Irish and Scottish Highlander fighting men charged at their enemies, discharged one volley of musket and pistol fire and then slammed into their opponents with broadswords and targes.
With a force of perhaps 2000 battle-hardened Irish fighters, Colkitto landed at Ardnamurchan and marched eastwards, gathering Highlanders loyal to the King as he went. Montrose slipped through the Covenanting forces and met Colkitto at Blair Atholl before turning towards Perth.
On the plain outside Tibbermore, the Covenanters’ leaders under David Wemyss, Lord Elcho, had drawn up their troops to bar the way to Perth. Colkitto and his experienced Irish troops took the centre against John Murray, the Earl of Tullibardine, and his men, with Montrose on the right wing.
READ MORE: We should know a lot more about this Scottish king who drew the Border
The Royalists had few horsed troops and no artillery while the Covenanters had about 200 cavalry and nine artillery pieces. The Covenanters should have won, but it didn’t turn out that way, because the Royalist side had experienced fighters and two inspiring and clever leaders, while Lord Elcho and Lord Drummond were not in the same league as Montrose and Colkitto.
According to Historic Environment Scotland’s website: “The Royalists moved within cannon range, Tullibardine sent forward foot and horse under Lord Drummond to engage the Irish in skirmish, possibly attempting to take advantage of the Royalists’ low supplies of powder and bullets. The Irish skirmishers drove the Covenanters back into their own lines, causing a great deal of confusion and disruption.
“Montrose then gave the order to charge, with MacColla pressing forward his Irish troops to engage the Covenanters. The Royalists broke the Covenanter centre as the first and second ranks lost their composure, possibly because of a lack of training in platoon firing: undisciplined soldiers attempting to withdraw to the rear too quickly may have caused confusion in the rear ranks, leading them to interpret the disorder as the beginnings of a rout.
“On the right wing, Montrose advanced and took control of the higher ground. As the Covenanters were routed, attempts were made by their cavalry and some of their infantry to regroup and return to the action; however, they were again beaten back and fled in the direction of Perth. A significant number of Covenanters were killed in the pursuit.”
That is an understatement. It became a rout, a slaughter, with hundreds of Covenanters lying butchered on the road to Perth. It was no great strategic victory but it did have one effect.
As he states: “One significant outcome of the battle perhaps was that it served to shake the confidence of the Covenanting forces. With much of their army in England and Ireland, this defeat came as a shocking realisation of how unprepared the Covenanting forces left to defend Scotland were.”
It was a remarkable victory for Montrose, who duly occupied Perth which was plundered by his forces, so much so that some of the Highlanders went home with their booty. Many more stayed and more Highlanders joined the Royalist army in Scotland for what became known as the Year of Miracles.
Five more successful battles followed for Montrose at Aberdeen, Inverlochy, Auldearn, Alford and Kilsyth before defeat at Philiphaugh on September 13, 1645.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel