The Glencairn Uprising, 1653-54 Helen Baker Department of ...

However, Cromwell had left a substantial force in Scotland under the command of the
talented commander, Lieutenant General George Monck. 6
Monck proceeded to subjugate the rest of the country, capturing Stirling on 6 August
and then Dundee at the beginning of September. A few days before, Colonel Matthew
Alured and his men stormed Alyth in Perthshire, where part of the Scottish
Committee of Estates was taking refuge. In his position as chancellor, the Earl of
Loudoun commented that this was a sad blow for the resisters as it deprived the
Scottish people of the central authority necessary to unite national efforts against the
invaders. 7 The conquests at Worcester and Alyth meant the virtual destruction of,
respectively, Scotland’s military and political independence. 8 However, a number of
royalist strongholds continued to display the standard of Charles II, namely the Bass
Rock, Dumbarton, Dunnottar and Brodick Castles.
Monck, aided by the arrival of a number of new regiments of horse and foot, now
busied himself with overcoming these last pockets of military resistance. At the
beginning of September, Dundee was stormed and plundered by uncontrollable
English troops. The excessive brutality displayed by the English soldiers has often
been attributed to the recommendations of their leader. However, it appears that
although Monck did grant permission for a full day of plundering, his men continued
to loot for a further fortnight against his direct orders. On 15 September, the General
finally issued proclamations forbidding plunder on pain of courts-martial and ordering
the troops to restore all shops, cellars and warehouses to their Scottish owners. 9
6 ibid., p.11.
7 Firth, C.H. Scotland and the Commonwealth: Letters and Papers Relating to the Military Government
of Scotland, from August 1651 to December 1653 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1895),
p.xviii.
8 Dow, F.D. Cromwellian Scotland, p.11.
9 Ibid., pp.15-16. Hale has written about the impact of war on civilian society and identifies the siege as
the most drastic and direct civilian confrontation with the military. In instances where civilian
populations aided the defence of their city, the conquering army little distinguished them from the
professional soldiers. Furthermore, if the civilian was spared personal attack by the siege-army, it
suffered in terms of the destruction of local homes, farmland and places of worship alongside being
exposed to diseases frequently introduced by the conquering army. Often the longer a town resisted, the
worse its surrender terms would be. Hale has written that whatever followed a surrender was ultimately
determined by the mood of the victorious troops, the hold over them of their officers, the influence of a
municipal government and the decision whether order or terrorism would be a better strategy. Indeed,
the actions of the English army in Dundee can be viewed as a standard wartime response to a town that
resisted and was eventually taken by storm. See Hale, J.R. War and Society in Renaissance Europe
1450-1620 (Leicester: Leicester University Press in association with Fontana Paperbacks, 1985),
pp.191-4 and written comments by Michael Seymour to the author on 2 February 2000.