In the 1640s Scotland was sacked by a evil leader
The evil king sent a invasion force which massacred 1000s of Scots, from massacres in Aberdeen, to after the battle of Tippermore, and in terrifying raids on Argyll. In what were among the worst massacres in the history of Scotland. The raids on Argyll killed 900 men according to records. It was so men of fighting age would not be available to fight. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Scottish_Civil_War_-_Tippermuir_Aberdeen_and_Inverlochy/id/2133763
He first of all said Scotland must change it's religon. Scotland said, no, and then the king invaded he failed, and then he invaded, again, and after Scots won, his son tried to make Scotland invade England, causing it lose. using links with ruling nobles as dictators. promissing them rewards There were some large scale pro Scottish independance, and Scottish maybe even Socialist style ways revolts, against the incompetent nobles, in the civil war, and some against the king. Often later.
In 1644 Royalist forces massacred 118 Aberdonian civilians, in a town, which before hand had been the least strong supporting city of the Presbyterians, who the Royalists were attacking. As of the local people being less Puritanical many say this massacre was a major factor in the Royalists losingm as now they could not have any of the most populous areas of Scotland, not even the less Knoxite North East. This Massacre of Aberdeen was the worst in Aberdeen's history.
The massacre came after the 13 September 1644 battle, after this, men of the town were stripped of their clothes then shot in the street and women raped. Some sources claim Montrose felt guilty, but some say Montrose promissed a sacking of the city as a reward for effective service by some units. as said in the book The Battle for Aberdeen 1644, by Chris Brown Tempus Publishing 2002, with this balanced source stating it is unlikely Montrose could have lost all control of his army,
The other major battle massacres being 100s in the 1660s-90s, by the Royalists, with more dying in ships and such as prisoners sent away from Scotland,
Other major scenes of massacres included some kills in cities in sackings, but those records are not recorded very well. Plus After the Battle of Tippermore, when soldiers, were fleeing, and when townsfolk were in some numbers there to watch the battle. Many Covenanter side soldiers, and townsfolk were massacred there. There may have been some troops massacred after the Battle of Aberdeen, and some people in villages massacred too.
But the major claims, are that 1300 were essentially massacred after the Battle of Inverlochy, by the Royalist army and the forces it got onside, with only exhaustion stopping the massacre of al fleeing soldiers, including the fact that the leader of the Campbells, was beheaded by the leader of the Royalist force, and 200 after Kilsyth, The fact is 500 prisoners were taken at Kilsyth in some claims. Reports on Kilsyth state though that in the rout after the battle, when essentially untrained Covenenaters were fleeing the demonic Royalist side, that the Royal army not aonly sley fleeing soldiers, but sleyed many Country people, that they found on the way, It was said by many sources of Inverlochy, that no quarter was given. Partly the killings in this rout were revenge on the strengh of the Campbells under prior Kings,
At the battle of Tippermuir, sometimes spelt Tibbermore, it was said barely 10 Covenanters died in actual fighting the rest died while they were fleeing, though 10 is maybe a underestimate, the fact is certainly this involved massacres.
And also there was that raid and some deaths in the 1630s by some from Ireland probabaly organised on some level by the king to see what major Presbyterian lords would do, as he faered after he had made them his allies they would turn against him, but they did, and so he attacked, causing the Bishops war, then saw a truce, then orghanised for another attack, indeed Presbyartians feared a force from Ulster sent by the king would attack, to weaken Scotland, and so make it easier to deal with Parliament, and they were preparing their attack, undoubtably the evidence is certain, so Scotland helped Palriament beat the king, and then the King's army from Ulster invaded Scotland and caused many deaths, it was the same army that had killed many Protestants in Ulster, in the Irish uprising against colonisation by Royalist forces,
Added to this, during the battle of Auldearn one leader of the Royalist army saw that some of his forces were begining to panic, so the low life executed some,
At Auldearn 1-3000 Covenanter soldiers, died, it was said by one source the main reason for this was as very little quarter was givenm by the Royalist side,
So my calculation is that during the 1640s alone, never mind other decades where they massacres many borderers, and jailed serfs, that in the 1640s, that the Royalists just in massacres killed were 118 as of Aberdeen, 1300 as of Inverlochy, 900 as of the massacres in Argyll, 100 as of massacres elsewhere in towns across Scotland and such, for instance I read of a article that said some women were pushed into a barn by the Royalist army in Argyll, and burned by the royalists in that area, and there weere kills I believe in other areas of Scotland surely the other sackings saw deaths, and lets say 300 from Tippermuir, and 500 after Kilysth, but for Auldearn, and Alford lets say the total is 900 combined, so in total 4118, Scotland had about 1 million people at the time, so it's allot, Even the highest reasonable estimates of kills for the Covenaters, and the Cromwellian army put together, can not get up to 2500, so that makes the Royalists the baddies of the seventeenth Century,
And the whole war was started by the Royalists anyhow, and restarted again and again, with messengers sent to Scotland across the 1650s to stir up rebellions, when left wing rebellions against the king were more spontanous, the kings forces had to say we offer you this to stir up revolts, maybe famines caused by Royalisty raids in argyll which caused many deaths ion the 1640s and other places across Scotland can compared to the deaths of massacre deaths too, that would surely add thousands as too the plague spread by the invasion of Scotland In the raid on Campbell territory of Argyll and such, some Royalist allied soldiers boasted that they had left no home, or hold unburned, and that they had rid the Campbells of much cattle, and corn, so surely famine came, in this genocidal attack. Surely this would have caused many thousands of deaths. Like his raid on Moray, and Banff, and Aberdeenshire, Brechin and Dundee, and many other places, Over 4500 I would guess. Especially when including other raiding moves, on other villages. I think the evidence is there would also have been some murders by troops in the Royal sacking of Dundee http://www.electricscotland.com/history/genhist/hist44.html, they killed a Minister, in one town too,
This is all only comparable by the famous massacre by the English king of Berwick, When 30,000 men women and children were massacred in 1296. and 7000 after Culloden.
Evil royalist histories lionised the Satanic figure who carried out these 1640s massacres, but I have stated what a scumbag he was. And his king who supported these terrible acts. the evil marquis of montrose. They lionised the murderers, making excuses for the Aberdeen massacre, covering up others, even claiming they were tribal massacres, that old lie, that even though they were fighting for the king, it was for them. The war was caused by the king, and that is that.
The Presbyterian side did in the end committ massacres but only against people who had fought their way through Scotland, massacring and killing, and slaughtering, after they also had comitted some massacres in Ulster too. They killed some innocent too, but considering what the Royalists had done, and what the camp followers had been doing for these murderers, it is similar in being understandable to the executions of Nazis in 1945. To focus on feeling sorry for the executed Nazis, and not the people they killed can only lead to a worse soceity that cares more for evil people than good people.
The Royals also punished catholics, and protestants before and after the war in big executions re-started serfdom before the war, attacked many witches, and had bigger clan warfare causing bigger battles, than in non war era, more republican rule stimes, and were unfair on many clans, who at times were executed for being of the clan, and also were unafair on many Gypsies, and other groups, so killed many more per head than teh republic, and also forced many Covenanters out oif the land, vbia force of what they should believe forcing them to Ulster or even America befgore and after the war just as they did to Puritans in England,. not that the Covenanters were all that pro democartic and nice all the time, but the Covenanters were slightly more pro poor relief if infact not all that much more, so were better in that way, and the left had some anti elitism rebellions in the war, against pro king or the elite's moves and for better policvies by teh people, and after the war with some calls for a non absolutist king, by rebelions, and for more democracym, and even ones and Church clique for a republic in the late 17th century, and the royals killed many by wart and battle after the 1660 era, aswell as killing 100s or 1000s in Engl;and who were Baptist they evicted and caused deaths via bad trteatemnt by not just in Engl;and against Catholics and Puritans who had to flee in low life expectancy ships to America but to scots in Scotland and Ulster, and they oppressed Irish Catolics massively pushing in the Ulster settllement and discriminating against them, when levellers and 20th C British democracy did not, if you look at the stats lots of thinmgs can be interpreted as political i,e unfair ways V supposed witches, and unfair v those just not being normal, actually the covenanters did allot of stuff to people unfairly and pol;itically that way, but the royals did more, V many people, of clans, too beliefs to non crimes, and crimes with no victims people, so that is that for the whole of Britain, if you look at the facst strongly at royalist attacks on people that is so, and their rebelions in the 1650s were mostly just teh king saying rebel for me and I will give this lord something , while repub,lican ones were just discontent spreading to big rebellionm the only royalist ones like that really were for a parliament or national rifghts of place, so teh republic was best from Monmouths rebellion to prooving the terriblness of the Royal rule of hangings to jailings of many Quakers and seeing them die in England to the same in Scotland V presbyueerians and v serfs and the terrible royal settlement moves into Argyll area by James the sixth and into the Hebrides which caused many deaths puerly for his fantasy ways and how James the sixth started the nmass witch burning craze in the 1590s and how some royalists tried to tar parliament with that brush even thopugh their king of the 1640s dad started that in the 1590s and saw another witche killing craze in Scotland in the 1660s, so that is that the republican way of more equality was better, also kings taxes in scotland and england v monopilies were more unfair than the less monpolistic Cromwell and Covenanters, thereis more to look at search for if you look at history from the pro democarcy standpoint and anti royal dictatorship, and pro PC pro liberal 1990s beliefs ways, rather than the pro royalist one, which is a terribly wrong view if britain kept that way it would have had famines in the 1770s like France and if it had become even more leftist in the 1660s -1690s, then a even better way as shown by how Ireland was shifted right in the 1660-90s in discerimation anti equality ways so was teh poorest part of Britain for ages as of thios, The treatment of teh border reivers in the 1600s and other clans, like the Macgreggors and also jesuits and some proestants groups was bad under royals too.
You could say as the Royals created border reivers it was a murder for them to kill some, then again they were being unfair and evil in wehat they did so maybe it was like crushing criminals, but certainly maybe evicting so many borderers to Ulster was genocideal as it killed some innocents urely and harmed there at times, and harmed people in Ireland, who would have been harmed, by being evicted for them, also there were Charles I attacks into Scotland before the civil war like from Ulster to teh Hebrides, and then when he asked a lord to invade from Ireland which provkoked teh Covenanters to then attacked the Royals in England, for the English parliament and it's people, as most people opposed teh royals then, in England,. good old Scotland,
Killing of some beggars was bad, though maybe they were not really beggars but thugs intimidating people, but it happened under royals and all regimes for a while, in most of Britain
The Orkney islands saw kills of witches under royals
And teh Orkeny and Shetland isles saw bruital slave oppression by stuarts and invasions by some to change leaders, but still saw slavery stay under stuart kings of r awhile,
The sile of man saw slavery or serf ways ended by parliament's regime and restarted by the king again, and a guy executed by the king there, the channels isles saw witches killed there under royals and some jailed for opposing royals, there and some oppression of their religous beliefs,
Also arsitocrats killing aristoctasts and clans clans was more in the more royals era than later, if looked at honestyly not from a royal persepeftive but from teh democratic one, and we know democ arcy is best so look at it from that one, Somebody should list teh riots and enclosre revolts and riot deaths in Scotland there were many before democarcy and even a election killing in 18th Century in the less democartic era, but before elections for even just some, there were countless riots like ones in edinburgh killing several every so ften, and wars between royalist factions like in Mary Queen of Scots era, and James Vi did I say, killed a alleged witch himself once, and made a man dribnk something to see if it was posioned which he died of, and all the royals of 1600-1646 allowed executiosn of pals, and people for religous reasons, and people they opposed, like some peiople in England who had religous beliefs they found crazy, even in the 1630s, or 1640s some protestant extrme seeming people, some people who were seen as not right to royal disdainful types, some royal dissdainful types allowed many famous and not so famous rustic people die those decades and some jesuits and such and many after 1660 many baptists, and saw some die of bad treament some were well known protestants and some were not well known, people, who would be seen as a bit crazed. believing they were some religous thing, but some of those died in unfair ways, of the laws of the royals not allowing pre 1640s much religous freedom, Lilburne was treated horribly by the royalsm, no wonder so many swung aianst them, Ireland saw royals settlement and evictiosn of Irish to the 1630s, and onwards, and of course there were people tortured to death to get evidence like in teh gu npoder plot and also added to that less violent things than that etc etc and local kills by squires and lords etc etc of people felt to be witches or unusual, James the sixth also toruyted a man himself, and elixbateh the first did horrid things to peopel she knew, and later kings too, allowed and did bad stuff,
The 1680s Killing time by the royal regime death squads, and also 1724 Galloway leveller risings were interesting.
Overseas colonial settlement was more deadly under royalists, from Nova Scotoa to Newfoundland, though Royals and Cromwell sent people against their will out of Britain, the ones not against their will, and against their hopes were also deadly, Royalist slaving of Native Americans in the 17th Century caused very many deaths in raids and slaving, and the Royal slaving group set up in the 1660s caused many deaths for many years and started Britain's big slaving project it was partky led by some of Charles I army people, of whom some acted as pirates aginst the Commonwealth in the 1650s,
Added to this in 1651 General Monk comitted the worst Parliamentry or Covenanter massacre in Scotland of the century when around 200 Dundonina s were massacred in the storming of the city, some claim the figure is 2000 but this is a figure including disease deaths, and fighting deaths. Some claim that the garrison was put to the sword, but despatches show this to be untrue. http://www.generalmonck.com/biography.htm There was a earlier Royalist saxcking of the city in 1644, but evidence of how many people they killed is not total. It is the case though that 200 women and children died, and that is that. Some claim the garrison was massacred in full but the evidence of this is not proven. The source that claimed the massacre had occurred is one which is full of fabrications. If you look at references which look at the era, for many books, from the website British Civil wars to more, the major Source is Frith and he says really the Dundee sacking and massacre probabaly did not occur ion a huge scale.
The bias in loads fo sources i crazy,. if a repubvlicanm linked source commits a massacre it is exajjaertaed at all extrmity by many sources if a royalist does, then the usual, even supposedly unbviased source gives a excuse, this is what happens normally.
So my conclusion is that Cromwell's invasion massacred 500 people, as I read in one article 1000 died in the massacre, but few say 2000 did, but in another I read that 800 died in the fighting and massacre in total, so I can accept 500, lets say 200 women and children, who would not have been soldiers, so they are innocent in all likelyness, and then add 300 men, as some say the garrision was not exexuted so that is hard.
Then for the Covenanters they would have comitted massacres in and after battles, I say they can be held accountable for 1000 murders. at the very most including executions of political dissidents and religous dissidents. Though I am not including kills of witches or people killed by Social policies of the Covenanters as that should be compared with the Royal era instead. as they were peacetime acts and were occurring when the Royals led too. I could include them too. But I think 1000 is the sheer naxinum for how many the Covenanters killed, and that may be a overestimate, and allot of those they killed were war criminals and the people who were their lovers. In a way that was not really comparable to killing innocent people.
So my conclusion is the Covenanters were not really a regime you would want to live under, though they broughht in more school and social help and were less corrupt than the serfdom imposing kings of the century and the witch burning culture starting kings. But they were better than the Royals. The Civil war also in my view can be blamed on the kings for making no sacrifices and no compromises, evenm the people they allied with as they hated other nobles like the, as the earlier kings had made them so powerful i.e they opposed Argyll as earlier kings made him their essentially sheriff of these lands, and the Ulster Catholics and Irish Catholics the king used were only able to be used as earlier kings were colonising Ireland and making the area unhappy, and many of the colonists were pushed there by the kings against their will. The Cromwellian regime was not all that bad, but was bad in some ways as it was a occupying power, even if it did add the name Scotland to the name of the Commonwealth and had Scottish MPS, and allowed Scots on the army. Then the Royals were worst.
In 1648 there was engagers revolt when when Scots refused to enroll in teh army, though it was dealt with by small ways, even executions were pardoned, and in this it was as most Scots wanted peace and did not want to pointlessly invade Englansd for things that just benfeited the kings and elite, nobles, and maybe church, The king Charles was happy Scotlabnd lost at Dunbar despite being allied to it on his wish and request against Cromwell at the timer, nd when fl;eeing from Cromwell's then invasion he brought on, said he wdid not wnat to go to Scotland to help defend it as he had had enough of it, despite loads dying in his name,
Serfdom which surtely would have caused deaths, in some way to non serfs or serfs, and the Royal army caused famines could be considered massacre deaths too.
So its a relief we have a left wing society now, not the terribl;e bigoted master race ruling over us society of then
Links to our 100s of websites, http://www.lonympics.co.uk/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen
www.strathearn.com/ge/history2.htm
Reasons to be Proud to be Scottish
Which places in Scotland have won the most trophies, and success in football find out here http://www.lonympics.co.uk/top10scottishcitiesinfootball.htm
A site stating how many people died in the Highland Clearances http://www.lonympics.co.uk/Highland%20Clearances.htm
A site on the Massacre of Berwick 1296
The Story of the Scottish Covenanters
A Multiple Choice Quiz on Scottish History
Bad stuff by Royalists in Britain in the 1640s
Click here to Find a Cottage in Scotland
Click here to view cottages in Scotland
A Timeline of the English Civil War, some events in the Wars of the Isles
A Quiz on Seventeenth Century Britain
The 10 Most successful Politicians ever
In conclusion I like to think the 1560s Scottish revolt helped bring in democracy and socialism, as it made the covenanters get in power, in Scotland they helped Cromwell to power in the 1640s, this opprtunity only arrived as of Ireland's revolt in the 1640s against imperial oppression and Cromwell was Welsh, and a more democratic Britain for the 18th Centiry than before was better than before, and this inspired France's revolution and the US's and these helped 3rd world ones so the world is democratic and relativelpy prosperopus if the Covenanters had not used some socialist welfare statements in the 1560s they would never have got power, not that they were great to live under, but they were better than the royals in many ways, so if we did not have that we would probabaly still have famines in Europe, just like how Bruitain'[s working class were poor before democarcy in the 1840s depiste Britain being wealthy as to France in 1780, with LEs of 18 in some towns in Britain in the 1840s before democracy and for France in the 1780s, when it was wealthy in some ways but when many people died of famine in huge numbers, and when the LE was dreadful, without these tools created by covenanters etc against aristo-royal dictats, we would have been in their control and democarcy would not have come, so thats what I feel, It was actions of the people that beat Royal dictat control tools were needed and won,