Talk:Independent Highland Companies

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Independent Highland Companies, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.Clans of ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Clans of ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Clans of ScotlandClans of Scotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

the six Independent Highland Companies who by this time were known officially as Am Freiceadan Dubh or Black Watch

This is not correct and none of the sources cited support such an assertion.

The epithet of am freiceadan dubh translated as ' The Black Watch' may have been attached to the independent companies raised to police the Highlands as early as the C17th but regardless of when it first appeared, it was not an official title, which being in Gaelic would have been unlikely in any case. It was a local nickname which was adopted by the companies of the Watch and then retained when they were embodied as a regiment of Foot in 1739, its title then being 'The Earl of Crawfurd's Regiment,' or the 'Highland Regiment.'

It was not until 1861 that the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment were first authorised to include the name 'The Black Watch' as a supplementary title. JF42 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word "officially" from the sentence. However, there are many sources which can be found that refer to the regiment as "Black Watch" long before 1861, even if not the official title, including in the 18th century. For example, I have seen muster rolls in the National Archives for the regiment that date from between 1759 and 1776 and which clearly refer to the regiment as "Black Watch" and these are official records for the regiment.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's still long after 1739. This article should not lead readers into thinking that the IHCs are what "the Black Watch" referred to, unless our sources are absolutely certain that the term was used before 1739 for these militia units. The source pages cited need to be checked with regard to this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain that Groves 1893 is a reliable enough source on this early material? He claims that "Black Watch" derives from the colours of the tartan worn, but other writers give it a different derivation, from watch duty at night. More to the point, he makes the very anachronistic claim that "The independent companies wore the clan tartan (consisting mostly of black, blue, and green) of their respective commanders", while all modern tartan authorities agree that clan tartans did not exist until the early 19th century. It also seems to contradict another source I mention in thread below (Campbell of Airds, 2000), who another editor has cited for a statement that the uniform tartan[s] was/were selected to avoid association with a particular clan or locale. (I don't have a copy of that source, so I can't yet confirm that what it has been cited for on WP is exactly what it says.) Groves was writing long after the "clan tartanry" craze of 1815–1844, and much of the nonsense of that era was not debunked until mid-to-late 20th century research. What Groves says doesn't even make sense on its face: if each of the major units were wearing different tartans depending on their commanders (which is actually credible, since these officers might well have imposed uniforms, but without any romanticized "clan tartan" nonsense), then they could not all have been wearing the same tartan described as "consisting mostly of black, blue, and green". In short, I think we need another reliable Scottish-regiments source that puts the term "Black Watch" in use in this early era, and additional sourcing for claims about what they were wearing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means find additional sources to quote in the article, but until then Groves will have to stay as the source. There were some "clan" tartans before the early 19th century craze, but not that many have been identified.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘to form the 43rd "Black Watch" Regiment / 43rd Highlanders Regiment a regiment of the line’

These references are not correct. See Volume One of the official history of the regiment, Victoria Schofield's ‘Highland Furies: the Black Watch 1739-1899’ (2012) pp 2-10; 41-42.

'Black Watch,' the English version of the Gaelic 'am freiceadan dubh,’ played no part in the regiment's official title for another 120 years or so, only being added in 1861 when the Highland regiments were authorised to include traditional names in their titles.

When the regiment was formed in 1739-40, under the commission granted to the Earl of Crawford, as with the majority of regiments of the line, it had no title other than of its colonel: 'Lord Crawford's Highland regiment' ('Lord Sempill’s' in 1741; 'Lord Murray's' in 1745) but often referred to simply as 'the Highland Regiment.'

The regiment was numbered 43rd in the line, changing to 42nd on the disbanding of Oglethorpe's regiment in 1749, but this number formed no part of its title at that time. It merely indicated seniority in terms of precedence as a regiment of the line.

In 1751 regiments of foot had the Colonel's name formally replaced by a number as their official title and ‘Lord Murray's Highland Regiment' became the '42nd (Highland) Regiment,' although the custom of using the colonel's name informally continued for some time. The number 'XLII' was added to the regiment's colours and appointments. Granted the title ‘42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment' in 1758, so it remained until 1861 (see above).

Only in 1881 when the old regimental numbers were officially dispensed with and a two-battalion regiment was formed from the 42d RHR and 73rd Perthshire Regiment, did ‘The Black Watch’ (Royal Highlanders) become the formal title. JF42 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from with this and have made changes to the article: remove "Black Watch" in sentences referring to formation of the 43rd Regiment of Foot. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ten companies together were embodied to form the 43rd Highlanders Regiment (a regiment of the line)."

At the risk of being wearisome, as per my remarks above, it would be more correct to say 'the Earl of Crawford's regiment, commonly knonw as 'The Highland Regiment,' [+ '43rd in the line' if you feel strongly] it would be wrong to suggest there was ever a '43rd Highlanders Regiment.'

Archibald Forbes, author of the first full-length, single-volume history of The Black Watch post-1881, put it thus: '...the several companies were assembled in May 1740 when the men were mustered and embodied inot a regiment under the title of 'The Highland Regiment' with the number of the 43rd of Foot but retaining firmly the local name of the Black Watch.' ('The Black Watch : the record of an historic regiment,' 1896 p.10) <https://archive.org/details/blackwatchrecord00forbuoft/page/10/mode/2up>

By the way, in case you are interested, Percy Grove's brief 1893 history, attractive though it is, is not the most robust source for the history of the Black Watch. Together with Forbes' equally flawed work, it was the culmination of 70 years Victorian historiography which had evolved from Col David Stewart's 1822 'Annals of the Highland Regiments.'

Victoria Schofield's recent history, while not perfect, is the best account of the regiment we will have for some time to come. Her version reads: 'According to military custom, the Regiment, numbered 43rd in the order of precedence... was known by the name of its Colonel as 'the Earl of Crawford's Highlanders.' Subsequent contemporary references are to 'The Highland Regiment.' ('Highland Furies, The Black Watch 1739-1899.' 2012. p.8) JF42 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I heed what you are saying and can make some minor changes, it seems to me that this might be an attempt to distance the present Black Watch regiment of the British Army from the 43rd Highlanders, not to mention the Independent Highland Companies. One reason I do know of as to why some people want to do this is because of the fact that one company of the regiment fought at the Battle of Culloden which means we have the Highland Regiment fighting against their own people. For many years a lot of people even denied that the regiment was present at the battle stating that they were stationed in London. Alright it is only one company of the regiment but it is still a part of the regiment. Tony Pollard's well respected work Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle (2009) refers to the regiment both as the "43rd Highlanders" and the "43rd Highlanders (the Black Watch)" on page 71. The title of Victoria Schofield's book also seems contradictory if the regiment only became named the Black Watch in 1881: The Highland Furies: The Black Watch 1739-1899, thus suggesting that they were Black Watch as early as 1739.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the battle of Culloden comes into this but it has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is that in 1739 the regiment may have numbered 43rd in the line, as explained above, but it was not referred to as the '43rd Highlanders'; far less the '43rd Highlanders (the Black Watch)'. Mr Pollard was mistaken in this regard, whatever his merits as an archaeologist. '43' was in effect a catalogue number. The regimental title remained that of the Colonel (Crawford/Semple/Murray) until 1751 when numerical titles were assigned instead and the number at the time was authorised as the official title: 'FORTY SECOND, or Highland Regiment' and thenceforth the Roman numeral 'XLII' was displayed on colours, drums and appointments.

In the 'Historical Record of the Forty Second, or Royal Highland Regiment' (1845) the author refers to the regiment's mustering thus:

"...the several companies were assembled in May 1740... and there constituted a regiment under the title of the “Highland Regiment;” but the corps retained for some years, the country name of the BLACK WATCH" (p.30). The number '43' is not even mentioned: the author referring only to the 'Highland Regiment' or to 'The Black Watch.'

Col. David Stewart in the Military Annals of his 'Sketches of the Highlanders' (1822) on which the above Historical Record is clearly is based, describes the companies as:

"mustered... under the number of the 43d regiment but they still retained the country name of the Black Watch." The number is never mentioned again.

Clearly, the regiment was not 'only named the Black Watch in 1881.' The name however was entirely unofficial, coined by Gaelic-speaking locals, adopted in English translation, and carried over when the Independent Companies were embodied as Lord Crawford's Highland Regiment. From then on they were no longer a Highland police force or 'watch' but a regiment of the line, although the men believed they would continue with their former duties. Consequently 'Black Watch' remained as a nomme de guerre used within the regiment but it formed no part of the regiment's title in the offices of the Adjutant General. Meanwhile, contemporary letters and newspapers referred to 'The Highland Regiment,' 'Lord Sempill's Highland Regiment' or 'Highlanders,' etc.

Col David Stewart's 1822 history of "the corps which has been so well known for the last eighty year under the appellation 42nd Highland Regiment"- was tersely titled 'BLACK WATCH'- but it took 120 years for the 'country name' to be recognised as part of the official regimental title. Only in 1861 were the Highland regiments authorised to include their traditional or regional names, resulting in the amended title: '42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot, The Black Watch,' This prefigured the eventual assumption of the old name as the actual regimental title when numbers were done away with, officially at least, in 1881 and the 42nd and 73rd were re-united to form 'The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders).'

If I understand you aright, I am not sure who you mean by 'some people' but there would be no concern in Black Watch circles at "the Highland Regiment fighting against their own people." After all, that had been their job, essentially, since the formation of the Highland watch under Captains of (mostly) Hanoverian sympathies. Bear in mind, also, there were Scots on both sides at Culloden. In the Royal Highland Regiment, a deeper tradition of loyalty to the crown and the established order one cannot imagine. My father was once rebuked for his piper playing 'Hey Johnnie Cope' at reveille- "that 'ranting rebel tune'!" (despite the fact it had been customary in the regiment for the previous 150 years or so). True, there may have been men of the same name in the ranks of the rebels as in the Highland regiment, but the dominant concern in the Black Watch would always be that the regiment proved loyal to its oath.

Be that as it may, my recommendation remains to omit references to 'the 43rd regiment' etc. in order for the article to as accurate as possible and not to promote error, which I believe is always preferable.

Some source references-

Sketches of the Highlanders

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gfU9AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Crawford&f=false

Historical Record of the Forty Second

https://archive.org/details/cihm_48390/page/n43/mode/2up

42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot, The Black Watch

http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/042-751.htm

JF42 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have made some changes to reflect what you are saying to be "accurate".QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the harvid notations as they are inherent to the template now, then resolved sfn discrepancies, sorry if I caused alarm. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reviewed and changed from start class to C class. regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have no information in this article on [some of?] the IHCs apparently adopting a uniform, including a consistent tartan. This is mentioned at the article Tartan: From 1725, evidence suggests that the militia force of the Independent Highland Companies introduced a standardised tartan chosen to avoid association with a particular location or clan.^[1]

I don't own this obscure book cited, so I don't know if it goes into any detail (like whether the tartan is known, and if so whether it was the now-famous "Black Watch" tartan used after ten of the IHCs were almagamated to become the 43rd Highland Regiment of Foot (later 42nd) in 1739. I suspect that the claim is overgeneralized and should read "... some of the militia forces of the ...", since the IHCs were not all one group of soldiers, but several that were mustered and led separately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]