Visit ebookmass.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook or textbook

Introduction to Fracture Mechanics Robert O.

Ritchie

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-fracture-
mechanics-robert-o-ritchie/

Explore and download more ebook or textbook at ebookmass.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Introduction to the Variational Formulation in Mechanics

Edgardo O. Taroco

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-the-variational-
formulation-in-mechanics-edgardo-o-taroco/

An Introduction to Statistical Mechanics and

Thermodynamics 2nd Edition Robert H. Swendsen

https://ebookmass.com/product/an-introduction-to-statistical-
mechanics-and-thermodynamics-2nd-edition-robert-h-swendsen/

A Practical Approach to Fracture Mechanics 1° Edition

Jorge Luis González-Velázquez

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-practical-approach-to-fracture-
mechanics-1-edition-jorge-luis-gonzalez-velazquez/

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics John Dirk Walecka

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-quantum-mechanics-john-
dirk-walecka/
Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, Fourth
Edition 4th Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/fracture-mechanics-fundamentals-and-
applications-fourth-edition-4th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Introduction to Engineering Fluid Mechanics 1st Edition

Marcel Escudier

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-engineering-fluid-
mechanics-1st-edition-marcel-escudier/

Nobody Like Us (Like Us Series: Billionaires & Bodyguards

Book 13) Krista Ritchie & Becca Ritchie

https://ebookmass.com/product/nobody-like-us-like-us-series-
billionaires-bodyguards-book-13-krista-ritchie-becca-ritchie/

Applied Fluid Mechanics 7th Edition Robert L. Mott

https://ebookmass.com/product/applied-fluid-mechanics-7th-edition-
robert-l-mott/

Solutions Manual to Introduction to Robotics Mechanics and

Control Third Edition John J. Craig

https://ebookmass.com/product/solutions-manual-to-introduction-to-
robotics-mechanics-and-control-third-edition-john-j-craig/
INTRODUCTION
TO
FRACTURE
MECHANICS
ROBERT O. RITCHIE
University of California Berkeley, United States

DONG LIU
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrange-
ments with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing
Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or
medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety
of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-323-89822-5

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our

website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Matthew Deans

Acquisitions Editor: Christina Gifford
Editorial Project Manager: Isabella C. Silva
Production Project Manager: Kamesh Ramajogi
Cover Designer: Greg Harris

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

 Preface

This book presents a somewhat personalized introduction to the origins,

formulation, and application of fracture mechanics for the design, safe
operation, and life prediction in structural materials and components. It
is not our intent though to provide a formal treatment of the discipline
as all of the mechanics derivations and formulations are readily available
in the literature and in numerous text books. The intent here is to introduce
and inform the reader how fracture mechanics works and how it is so
different from other forms of analysis used to characterize mechanical
properties. We therefore try to present the reader with the appreciation
of these “difficulties” of fracture mechanics because it is our impression
that the use of the discipline is often compromised by a lack of
understanding.
We cover the topics of the foundation and use of linear-elastic fracture
mechanics, involving both K-based characterizing parameter and G-based
energy approaches, to characterize the fracture toughness of materials
under plane-strain and non-plane-strain conditions, the latter using the
notion of crack-resistance or R-curves. We follow that with a description
of the far more complex nonlinear-elastic fracture mechanics based on the
use of the J-integral and the crack-tip opening displacement. These topics
largely involve continuum mechanics descriptions of crack initiation,
slow crack growth, and eventual instability by overload fracture, but
we attempt to couple this with mechanistic interpretations of the fracture
modes using simple micromechanics formulations. Because of this, the
reader may note that we do present somewhat of a bias for the character-
izing parameter approaches, rather than the energy approaches, even
though they are inseparable because the former descriptions are more
amenable to local micromechanical modeling. We conclude with a
description of the application of fracture mechanics to subcritical crack
growth, specifically by environmentally-assisted cracking, creep-crack
growth and especially fatigue, followed by a final chapter on worked
examples of fracture mechanics in practice, with examples involving
failure by plastic yielding vs. fracture, the leak-before-break concept
applied to pressure vessels, the fracture of pre-tensioned bolts, and esti-
mating the safe lifetime of medical heart valve prostheses. The reader
may be disappointed that we do not cover such topics as dynamic fracture
and interfacial failure or treat in detail the application of fracture me-
chanics to all forms of subcritical cracking, but in the interests of keeping

vii
viii Preface

this introductory treatment relatively succinct and concise, we only

provide a brief description of some of these more advanced topics.
This introduction is intended for anyone interested in the field of
fracture, and particularly for students, researchers, professors, and prac-
ticing engineers who need to get started in this discipline and to under-
stand what is behind this somewhat strange form of mechanics. Indeed,
among purists, the topic has often aroused suspicion. When fracture
mechanics initially arrived on the scene in the late 1950s to 1960s, many
physicists could not comprehend how its fundamental parameter, at
that time the stress-intensity factor K, could have such weird units as
ksiOin, i.e., with dimensions of stress times the square-root of distance!
One cannot underestimate the impact of fracture though. Consider the
loss of the RMS Titanic in 1912, the failure of the DeHavilland Comet
commercial jet airliners in the 1950s, and Lockheed DC-10 aircraft some
20 to 30 years later. These were truly traumatic events that in many re-
spects “changed the world”. As someone once said: “Whereas God may
have invented plasticity, the Devil invented fracture!” Need we say more?
 C H A P T E R

1
Introduction
Fracture mechanics was developed comparatively recently, essentially
after the end of the Second World War, to furnish an engineering approach
that could be employed to quantitatively assess the onset of fracture. As
such, it has played a vital role in enabling the creation of safer engineering
structures, including those used in transportation (e.g., airframes, gas-
turbine engines), the construction industries (e.g., supporting beams,
welded structures), and energy production (e.g., power turbines, pressure
vessels, and piping), in establishing (nominal) material properties to
measure the fracture toughness for the development and characterization
of structural materials, and most importantly in linking these length-
scales together. In principle, for a given material which could be a
metal, ceramic, or polymer, a fracture toughness value can be measured
on a relatively small sample in the laboratory and then used directly to
predict the fracture of a much larger structure or component in service.
Similar analyses can be performed for failures by fatigue, creep, or
environmentally-assisted induced fracture. Powerful? In engineering
terms, most certainly. However, when one looks at the literature in this
field, one quickly comes to the conclusion that fracture mechanics has
become one of the most “abused” (for want of a better word) form of
mechanics, with, for example, many measured fracture toughness values
quoted in technical papers being at worst “dead wrong” or at best ge-
ometry and specimen-size dependent.
In light of this quandary, in this primer we will present the rudiments
of fracture mechanics, not specifically in terms of its fundamental origins
based on complex applied and computational mechanics, as this has been
described numerous times in various textbooks, but rather from the
perspective of the philosophy underlying the few principles and, yes, the
assumptions that form the basis of the discipline. We will attempt to
provide the reader with a “working knowledge” of fracture mechanics, to
describe its potency for damage-tolerant design, for preventing failures
through appropriate life-prediction strategies, and for quantitative failure
analysis (fracture diagnostics), while at the same time communicating a

Introduction to Fracture Mechanics

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89822-5.00006-2 1 © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 1. Introduction

necessary understanding of the methodology to avoid the many “pitfalls”

that seem to be implicit with its use. In simple terms, this primarily means
being cognizant of the many engineering approximations and assump-
tions that need to be made to afford a meaningful description of the stress
and displacement fields in the vicinity of a crack, and how this can be
utilized to specify parameters, such as the stress-intensity factor K and
strain-energy release rate G for linear-elastic materials or the J-integral for
nonlinear-elastic materials, that can be measured to characterize the
initiation of cracking and in certain cases its subsequent stable propaga-
tion, i.e., to define a “crack-driving force.”
To quote the words of Dan Drucker and Jim Rice: “Fracture mechanics is
the judicious interpretation of crack tip singular fields.” To our minds, a true
understanding of this statement represents a necessary appreciation of
what fracture mechanics is and how it can be faithfully applied realisti-
cally to prevent engineering failures.
 C H A P T E R

2
Foundations of fracture
mechanics

2.1 Ideal fracture strength

One place to start a description of fracture mechanics is to consider the
atomistic ideal fracture (or “cohesive”) strength. In essence, this, in its
simplest form, represents the stress required to pull two planes of atoms,
e.g., cleavage planes, apart. It is known that two interacting atoms are
subjected to two types of forces: a repulsive force at short ranges due to
Pauli’s exclusion principle, and a force of attraction (dispersion force) at
long ranges. In 1931, John Lennard-Jones [1] at the University of Bristol
estimated the potential energy of two atoms as a function of their sepa-
ration distance, shown schematically in Fig. 2.1a and b. The atoms are at
equilibrium when the potential energy is at a minimum, marked by a
separation of l0 . At this point, the atoms are most stable and remain at this
distance until an external force is exerted upon them. Assuming a far-field
stress, sN , is applied normal to the cleavage planes along the axis of the
atomic bonds over a unit area, it can be approximated to follow a sinu-
soidal form with the distance, Dl:
pDl
sN ¼ sT sin ; (2.1)
l
where l is of a length comparable to l0 , and sT is the amplitude of the
sinusoidal stress, i.e., the maximum cohesive stress (Fig. 2.1c).
For a linear-elastic solid, the stress applied to increase the atoms’
separation by Dl from the equilibrium spacing l0 can be expressed in
terms of Hooke’s law:
sN ¼ EDl=l0 ; (2.2)

Introduction to Fracture Mechanics

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89822-5.00008-6 3 © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
4 2. Foundations of fracture mechanics

FIGURE 2.1 (a) A schematic of two planes of atoms at equilibrium distance l0 , subject to
far-field stress, sN; (b) the Lennard-Jones potential VLJ curve, including a steep (short-range)
repulsive term and a smoother (longer-range) attractive term; l0 is the distance at which two
simple atoms are at equilibrium; (c) the stress required to pull two atoms apart at equilibrium
is simplified to a sinusoidal form with wavelength of 2l; the maximum stress sT is the
theoretical (ideal) cohesive fracture strength.

where E is the elastic modulus. Equating Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2), it is apparent
that:
pDl EDl
sT sin ¼ : (2.3)
l l0
At small angles, sin pDl pDl
l / l , and as l e l0 , we can obtain an estimate of
the ideal fracture strength:
E
sT e : (2.4)
p
These calculations can be performed with far greater accuracy. For
instance, more accurate descriptions of sN can replace the simplified
sinusoidal form used here, yet all these solutions give the ideal fracture
strength sT to be typically in the range of E=4 to E=15, with the customary
value of sT being E=10. However, all these theoretical estimates are very
high compared to the measured fracture strengths. For example, silica
glass has a modulus of 70 GPa, which would give a theoretical strength on
the order of 7 GPa. However, the experimentally measured tensile
strength of glass is usually in the range of 30 to 100 MPa, which is more
than an order of magnitude less. Why, you may ask? Well, analogous to
the fact that the measured shear strengths of materials are typically two
 2.2 Griffith fracture theory 5

orders of magnitude smaller than the ideal shear strength due to the
presence of dislocations, in the case of the fracture strength, this
discrepancy between theoretical and experimental strengths is due to the
inevitable presence of cracks, which results in local stress concentrations.

2.2 Griffith fracture theory

Since the (experimental) fracture strength involves the separation of
atomic planes in the presence of such stress concentrations associated
with pre-existing flaws and cracks, this can make any estimate of the
fracture strength difficult because the stress concentration can be a
function of the shape and size of the crack. The first recognizable theory to
estimate the actual fracture strength, due to Griffith in the 1920s, used
energy methods to avoid this problem [2]. He considered purely elastic
conditions with an internal crack of length 2a, in an infinite sheet of unit
thickness subjected to an applied (far-field) tensile stress, sN (Fig. 2.2).
To estimate the stress to propagate this crack, Griffith considered the
total energy, UTotal , of this system to be equated to the potential energy,
UPE , and the work to create two new fresh surfaces, WS , as the crack
extends:
UTotal ¼ UPE þ Ws ; (2.5a)

FIGURE 2.2 An infinite plate of unit thickness containing a middle crack of length 2a
subjected to a far-field applied stress sN.
6 2. Foundations of fracture mechanics

where the potential energy is the elastic stored energy, Uε , minus the work
done, WD :
UPE ¼ Uε  WD : (2.5b)
By considering fixed displacement conditions, such that WD ¼ 0, the
potential energy will equal the strain energy, which can be estimated as
 
Uε ¼ s2 pa2 E, where E is Young’s modulus. The corresponding en-
ergy to create new fresh surfaces would be the length of the crack, 2a,
times two (as there are two crack surfaces), multiplied by the surface
energy per unit area of the fracture plane, gs , i.e., Ws e 4ags , where gs is
typically on the order of 1 J/m2 (this is the actual value for silicon). The
driving force for fracture is the release of strain energy which must be no
less than the energy needed to create the fresh crack surfaces. This can be
obtained by taking the derivative with respect to a of the total energy,
 
UTotal ¼ 4agS  s2 pa2 E, and setting this equal to zero, such that un-
stable fracture will occur when
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N 2gS E
s ¼ sF ¼ ; (2.6)
pac
where sN is the applied (far-field) stress. This is Griffith’s famous esti-
mate of the actual fracture strength, sF , under ideally elastic conditions,
which is notable because it depends not simply on the applied stress but
also the presence and size of pre-existing cracks. The critical crack size, ac ,
for fracture is thus the crack size above which the crack can extend with
decreasing energy conditions (Fig. 2.3).
As this is an elastic theory, it cannot take into account the work required
for plastic deformation (the plastic work term) which in the case of ductile
materials can involve an energy orders of magnitude greater than gs .
Accordingly, for such materials, the Griffith equation can severely under-
estimate the fracture strength. However, we can consider it as a necessary
but insufficient criterion for fracture.
Irwin [3] and Orowan [4] later revised the Griffith equation (Eq. 2.6) to
include the plastic work term, gp , which gives the expression:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
2 gs þ gp E
sF ¼ ; (2.7)
pac
but as gp >> gs for all ductile materials, it seems somewhat futile to use
this equation containing a large plastic work term to predict the fracture
strength when the relationship is based on ideal elasticity.
 2.3 Orowan approach 7

FIGURE 2.3 In the Griffith theory, the total energy, UTotal , for fracture in a center-cracked
infinite plate with unit thickness, presents a competition between the strain energy Uε that is
released by fracture (the driving force) balanced by the energy required to create new crack
surfaces. UTotal thus varies with crack size, a: Above a critical crack size, ac, fracture is
spontaneous, i.e., occurring without any further increase in total energy.

2.3 Orowan approach

An alternative (ideally elastic) approach to estimating the actual frac-
ture strength, which in some respects is more insightful than Griffith, is
the approach of Orowan which was proposed later [5]. Again, considering
an internal crack of length 2a, in an infinite sheet of unit thickness sub-
jected to an applied tensile stress, sN , the local stress at the tip of any crack
N where k is the stress concentration factor
canpbeffiffiffiffiffiffiffiestimated as kt s t
(e2 a=r, where r is the root radius of the tip of the crack). Orowan then
equated this local stress to the ideal cohesive strength at fracture, sT ;
which led to the expression:
rffiffiffi
N sT r
s ¼ sF ¼ : (2.8)
2 a
In glass, for example, where the crack sizes are the order of micrometers
whereas the root radius of any pre-existing cracks would be of order of
an atomic spacing, i.e., in the nanometer range, this theory also predicts
actual fracture strengths to be an order of magnitude or so lower than the
ideal cohesive strength. These predictions are realistic and, as such, the
Orowan model is certainly physically conceptual, but the approach could
8 2. Foundations of fracture mechanics

never be used in an engineering predictive manner without prior knowl-

edge of the orientation, geometry, and root radius of the worst-case defects
pre-existing in the solid.

2.4 Origins of fracture mechanics theory

The early developments to create a quantitative methodology to pre-
dict the onset of fracture were similarly based on ideal elasticity e linear-
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) e which came basically from two
sources: (i) an energy approach proposed by Irwin [6] which essentially is
a more general version of the Griffith model [2] but now based on the
strain-energy release rate G as the crack-driving force, where G is defined
as the rate of change in potential energy per unit increase in crack area,
and (ii) a parallel approach based on so-called characterizing (or governing)
parameters, such as the stress-intensity factor K, which are global param-
eters that serve to “characterize” the local stress and displacement fields in
the vicinity of a crack tip [7e10].
Many researchers often consider these two approaches to be somewhat
in conflict, yet they are simply “parallel universes.” For example, many in
the polymer community seem to prefer the use of G, whereas the metal
and ceramics communities invariably use the K approach. Although the
use of G makes it easier to analyze the growth of cracks under mixed-
mode conditions (e.g., tension plus shear), it is our belief that fracture
mechanics based on the use of characterizing parameters is a more
“honest” (for want of a better word) methodology; moreover, it is more
amenable to coupling with the mechanistic aspects of fracture. Accord-
ingly, we will begin with a description of linear-elastic fracture mechanics
based on K as the characterizing parameter, and then subsequently
describe the G-based approach (even though the latter more naturally
follows from Griffith).

References
[1] J.E. Lennard-Jones, Cohesion, Proc. Phys. Soc 43 (1931) 461.
[2] A.A. Griffith, The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc 221
(1920) 163.
[3] G.R. Irwin, Fracture dynamics, in: Fracture in Metals, ASM, Cleveland, OH, 1948,
p. 147.
[4] E. Orowan, Notch brittleness and the strength of metals, Trans. Inst. Engrs. Ship-
builders Scotland 89 (1945) 165.
[5] E. Orowan, Fracture and strength in solids, Rep. Prog. Phys. 12 (1948-49) 185.
[6] G.R. Irwin, Onset of fast crack propagation in high strength steel and aluminum alloys,
Proc. Sagamore Res. Conf. 2 (1956) 289.
[7] H.M. Westergaard, Bearing pressures and cracks, J. Appl. Mech. 6 (1939) 49.
 References 9
[8] I.N. Sneddon, The distribution of stress in the neighbourhood of a crack in an elastic
solid, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A-187 (1946) 229.
[9] M.L. Williams, On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack, J. Appl. Mech.
24 (1957) 109.
[10] G.R. Irwin, Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate,
J. Appl. Mech. 24 (1957) 361.
 C H A P T E R

3
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM)

pffiffi
3.1 Stress analysis of cracks: Williams 1= r singularity
and stress-intensity factor K
3.1.1 Crack-tip fields
LEFM and the use of the stress-intensity factor1 K originate from the
analysis of cracks to define the local stress and displacement fields ahead
of a sharp crack. In the years preceding the formal development of fracture
mechanics, several solutions were derived for cracks in isotropic purely
elastic bodies in static equilibrium. Of note here are the singular solutions
of Westergaard [1], Sneddon [2], andpffiffi Williams [3], which predict that the
crack-tip stresses will decay as 1= r, where r is the distance ahead of the
crack tip. Using the nomenclature defined in Fig. 3.1 in Box 3.1, in terms of
Cartesian coordinates, these solutions can be written, as r / 0 in the form:
K
sij /pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi fij ðqÞ; (3.1a)
2pr
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
K r
ui / f ðqÞ; (3.1b)
2E 2p i
where fij and fi are dimensionless functions of q, the inclination with
respect to the crack plane (q ¼ 0 directly ahead of the crack tip), as defined
in Fig. 3.1, and E is Young’s modulus. K is simply a singular characterizing
parameter, unset by the field, but which uniquely characterizes the

1
The stress-intensity factor K, or simply the stress intensity, with units of F$L3/2 (F is force
and L is length), must be distinguished from the stress concentration factor, which is the
dimensionless ratio of maximum stress at a notch divided by the nominal stress.

Introduction to Fracture Mechanics

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89822-5.00007-4 11 © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
12 3. Linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

BOX 3.1

C r a c k - t i p s t r e s s a n d d i s p l a c e m e n t fi e l d s f o r
linear-elastic isotropic materials

FIGURE 3.1 Stress nomenclature definition ahead of a crack tip in terms of (a) Car-
tesian and (b) polar coordinates; (c) specimen dimensions of crack length a, remaining
uncracked ligament b, and thickness B.

For modes I, II, and III:

Local stresses:
Ki
sij ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi fij ðqÞ þ HOT
2pr
Local displacement:

K i  r 2
1
ui ¼ f ðqÞ þ HOT
2E 2p i
where E is Young’s modulus, r is distance ahead of the crack tip, fij(q) and fi(q)
are functions of angle q around the crack tip, Ki is the stress-intensity factor in
mode i ¼ 1 to 3, and HOT refers to higher order terms.
 3.1 Stress analysis of cracks 13

BOX 3.1 (cont’d)

C r a c k - t i p s t r e s s a n d d i s p l a c e m e n t fi e l d s f o r
linear-elastic isotropic materials
For mode I (tensile opening):

szz ¼ nðsxx þ syy Þ ¼ nðsrr þ sqq Þ ½Plane strain

¼ 0 ½Plane stress
sxz ¼ syz ¼ 0 ¼ srz ¼ sqz
0       1
q q 3q
B cos 1  sin sin C
0 1 B 2 2 2 C
sxx B       C
Bs C K B q q 3q C
@ yy A ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi B C
I
B cos 1 þ sin sin C
2pr B 2 2 2 C
sxy B       C
@ q q 3q A
sin cos cos
2 2 2
0     1
q 2 q
B cos 1 þ sin
0 1 B 2 2 C C
srr B   C
B C K B q C
@ sqq A ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi B C
I 3
B cos C
2pr B 2 C
srq B     C
@ q q A
2
sin cos
2 2
0      1
q 3q
  ð1 þ nÞ ð2k  1Þcos  cos
K I  r 2 B
1
ux 2 2 C
¼ B      C
uy 2E 2p @ q 3q A
ð1 þ nÞ ð2k  1Þsin  sin
2 2
0      1
q 3q
  ð1 þ nÞ ð2k  1Þcos  cos
K I  r 2 B
1
ur 2 2 C
¼ B      C
uq 2E 2p @ q 3q A
ð1 þ nÞ ð2k  1Þsin þ sin
2 2
where n is Poisson’s ratio, and k ¼ (3  4n) in plane strain and 3 n
1 þ n in plane
stress.

continued
14 3. Linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

BOX 3.1 (cont’d)

C r a c k - t i p s t r e s s a n d d i s p l a c e m e n t fi e l d s f o r
linear-elastic isotropic materials
For mode II (shear):

szz ¼ nðsxx þ syy Þ ½Plane strain

¼ 0 ½Plane stress
sxz ¼ syz ¼ 0
0       1
q q 3q
B sin 2 þ cos cos C
0 1 B 2 2 2 C
sxx B       C
B C K B q q 3q C
@ syy A ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi B C
II
B sin cos cos C
2pr B 2 2 2 C
szz B       C
@ q q 3q A
cos 1  sin sin
2 2 2
0      1
q 3q
    1 ð1 þ nÞ ð2k þ 3Þsin  sin
ux KII r 2 B B 2 2 C
¼ @      C
uy 2E 2p q 3q A
ð1 þ nÞ ð2k þ 3Þcos þ cos
2 2

For mode III (anti-plane shear):

0  1
q
! sin
sxz KIII B B 2 C
C
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi B   C sxx ¼ syy ¼ sxy ¼ 0
syz 2pr @ A
q
cos
2
1   
4KIII  r 2 q
uz ¼ ð1 þ nÞsin ux ¼ uy ¼ 0
E 2p 2
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
Other documents randomly have
different content
as if these two qualifications were of themselves sufficient, without
any known vice, to put a man completely beyond the pale of virtue.
It seems, indeed, to have been a general belief at the time that this
primitive and sequestered people, as they were avowedly out of the
saving circle of the Covenant, were also out of the limits of both law
and religion, and therefore hopelessly and utterly given up to all
sorts of wickedness. Not only were murder and robbery among the
list of offences which they were accused of daily committing, but
there even seems to have been a popular idea that sorcery was a
prevailing crime amongst them. They were also charged with a
general inclination to popery, an offence which, from the alarms and
superstitions of the time, had now come, in general phraseology, to
signify a condensation of all others. Along with this horrible notion of
the mountaineers, there was not associated the slightest idea of
their ardent and chivalrous character; nor was there any general
sensation of terror for the power which they undoubtedly possessed
of annoying the peaceful inhabitants, and thwarting the policy of the
Low country, no considerable body of Highlanders having been there
seen in arms for several generations.
In pursuance of his determination, Montrose put his small army in
motion the same day towards Strathearn, in passing through which
he expected to be joined by some of the inhabitants of that and the
adjoining country. At the same time he sent forward a messenger
with a friendly notice to the Menzieses of his intention to pass
through their country, but instead of taking this in good part they
maltreated the messenger and harassed the rear of his army. This
unprovoked attack so exasperated Montrose, that he ordered his
men, when passing by Weem castle, which belonged to the clan
Menzies, to plunder and lay waste their lands, and to burn their
houses, an order which was literally obeyed. He expected that this
example of summary vengeance would serve as a useful lesson to
deter others, who might be disposed to imitate the conduct of the
Menzieses, from following a similar course. Notwithstanding the time
spent in making these reprisals, Montrose passed the Tay with a part
of his forces the same evening, and the remainder followed very
early the next morning. He had, at the special request of the Athole-
men themselves, placed them under the command of his kinsman,
Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, and he now sent him forward with a
select party to reconnoitre. Inchbrakie soon returned with
information that he had observed a party of armed men stationed
upon the hill of Buchanty. On inquiry, Montrose ascertained that this
body was commanded by Lord Kilpont, eldest son of the Earl of
Menteith, and by Sir John Drummond, son of the Earl of Perth, both
of whom were his relations. The force in question, which consisted
of about 500 men, was on its way to Perth to join the other
covenanting troops who were stationed there. Montrose immediately
marched up to this body, with the intention, if he could not prevail
on them to join him, of attacking them, but before he had
approached sufficiently near, Lord Kilpont, who had ascertained that
Montrose commanded, sent some of his principal officers to him to
ascertain what his object was in thus advancing. Montrose having
explained his views and stated that he acted by the king’s authority,
and having entreated them to return to their allegiance, they and
the whole of their party immediately joined him. This new accession
augmented Montrose’s army to about 3,000 men.
Montrose now learned from his new allies that the Covenanters
had assembled their forces in great numbers at Perth, and that they
lay there waiting for his approach. The covenanting army, in fact,
was more than double that of Montrose, amounting to about 6,000
foot and 700 horse, to which were attached four pieces of artillery.
Montrose, on the other hand, had not a single horseman, and but
three horses, two of which were for his own use, and the other for
that of Sir William Rollock, and besides he had no artillery. Yet with
such a decided disparity, Montrose resolved to march directly to
Perth and attack the enemy. He appears to have been influenced in
this resolution by the consideration of the proximity of Argyle with
his army, and the danger in which he would be placed by being
hemmed in by two hostile armies: he could expect to avoid such an
embarrassment only by risking an immediate engagement.
 As the day was too far advanced to proceed to Perth, Montrose
ordered his men to bivouac during the night about three miles from
Buchanty, and began his march by dawn of day. As soon as Lord
Elcho, the commander of the covenanting army, heard of Montrose’s
approach, he left Perth and drew up his army on Tippermuir, a plain
of some extent between four and five miles west from the town.
Reserving to himself the command of the right wing, he committed
the charge of the left to Sir James Scott, an able and skilful officer,
who had served with great honour in the Venetian army; and to the
Earl of Tullibardine he intrusted the command of the centre. The
horse were divided and placed on each wing with the view of
surrounding the army of Montrose, should he venture to attack them
in their position. As soon as Montrose perceived the enemy thus
drawn up in battle array, he made the necessary dispositions for
attacking them. To counteract as much as possible the danger
arising to such a small body of men, unprotected by cavalry, from
the extended line of the Covenanters, Montrose endeavoured to
make his line as extensive as possible with safety, by limiting his files
to three men deep. As the Irish had neither swords nor pikes to
oppose the cavalry, they were stationed in the centre of the line, and
the Highlanders, who were provided with swords and Lochaber axes,
were placed on the wings, as better fitted to resist the attacks of the
cavalry. Some of the Highlanders were, however, quite destitute of
arms of every description, and it is related on the authority of an
eye-witness that Montrose, seeing their helpless condition, thus
quaintly addressed them:—“It is true you have no arms; your
enemies, however, have plenty. My advice, therefore, is, that as
there happens to be a great abundance of stones upon this moor,
every man should provide himself, in the first place, with as stout a
stone as he can well manage, rush up to the first Covenanter he
meets, beat out his brains, take his sword, and then, I believe, he
will be at no loss how to proceed.”[258] This advice, as will be seen,
was really acted upon. As Montrose was almost destitute of powder,
he ordered the Irish forces to husband their fire till they should come
close to the enemy, and after a simultaneous discharge from the
three ranks, (the front rank kneeling,) to assail the enemy thereafter
as they best could. To oppose the left wing of the Covenanters,
commanded by Sir James Scott, Montrose took upon himself the
command of his own right, placing Lord Kilpont at the head of the
left, and Macdonald, his major-general, over the centre.
During the progress of these arrangements, Montrose despatched
an accomplished young nobleman, named Drummond, eldest son of
Lord Maderty, with a message to the chiefs of the Covenanters’
army, entreating them to lay down their arms and return to their
duty and obedience to their sovereign. Instead, however, of
returning any answer to this message, they seized the messenger,
and sent him to Perth under an escort, with an intimation that, on
obtaining a victory over his master, they would execute him. Indeed,
the probability of a defeat seems never for a moment to have
entered into the imaginations of the Covenanters, and they had
been assured by Frederick Carmichael, a minister who had preached
to them the same day, being Sunday, 1st September, “that if ever
God spoke truth out of his mouth, he promised them, in the name of
God, a certain victory that day.”[259]
There being no hopes, therefore, of an accommodation, both
armies, after advancing towards each other, remained motionless for
a short time, as if unwilling to begin the attack; but this state of
matters was speedily put an end to by the advance of a select
skirmishing party under the command of Lord Drummond, sent out
from the main body of the covenanting army, for the double purpose
of distracting the attention of Montrose, and inducing his troops to
leave their ranks, and thus create confusion among them; but
Montrose kept his men in check, and contented himself with sending
out a few of his men to oppose them. Lord Drummond, whom Baillie
appears to have suspected of treachery, and his party were routed at
the first onset, and fled back upon the main body in great disorder.
This trivial affair decided the fate of the day, for the Covenanters,
many of whom were undisciplined, seeing the unexpected defeat of
Lord Drummond’s party, became quite dispirited, and began to show
symptoms which indicated a disposition for immediate flight. The
confusion into which the main body had been thrown by the retreat
of the advanced party, and the indecision which seemed now to
prevail in the Covenanters’ army in consequence of that reverse,
were observed by the watchful eye of Montrose, who saw that the
favourable moment for striking a decisive blow had arrived. He
therefore gave orders to his men to advance, who, immediately
setting up a loud shout, rushed forward at a quick pace towards the
enemy. They were met by a random discharge from some cannon
which the Covenanters had placed in front of their army, but which
did little or no execution. When sufficiently near, Montrose’s
musketeers halted, and, as ordered, poured a volley into the main
rank of the Covenanters, which immediately gave way. The cavalry
of the Covenanters, thereupon, issued from their stations and
attacked the royalists, who, in their turn, defended themselves with
singular intrepidity. While the armed Highlanders made ample use of
their Lochaber axes and swords, the Irish steadily opposed the
attacks of the horse with the butt ends of their muskets; but the
most effective annoyance which the cavalry met with appears to
have proceeded from the unarmed Highlanders, who having supplied
themselves with a quantity of stones, as suggested by Montrose,
discharged them with well-directed aim at the horses and their
riders. The result was, that after a short struggle, the cavalry were
obliged to make a precipitate retreat. While this contest was going
on, another part of Montrose’s army was engaged with the right
wing of the covenanting army, under Sir James Scott, but although
this body made a longer and more determined resistance, and galled
the party opposed to them by an incessant fire of musketry, they
were at last overpowered by the Athole-men, who rushed upon them
with their broad-swords, and cut down and wounded a considerable
number. The rout of the Covenanters now became general. The
horsemen saved themselves by the fleetness of their horses; but
during the pursuit, which was kept up to a distance of six or seven
miles, many hundreds of foot were killed, and a considerable
number made prisoners,[260] some of whom afterwards served in
Montrose’s army. The loss on the side of Montrose appears to have
been very trifling. By this victory, and the subsequent capture of
Perth, which he entered the same day, Montrose was enabled to
equip his army with all those warlike necessaries of which it had
been so remarkably destitute in the morning, and of which the
Covenanters left him an abundant supply.[261]
 F O OT N OT E S :
[232] Gordon’s Scots Affairs, vol. ii. p. 209.
[233] Spalding, vol. i. p. 137.
[234] Troubles, vol. i. pp. 107, 108.
[235] Spalding, vol. i. pp. 157, 160.
[236] Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 235.
[237] Id., vol. ii. p. 235.
[238] Spalding, vol. i. p. 168.
[239] Ibid. p. 177.
[240] Gordon of Rothiemay, ii. 240. Spalding, i. 179.
[241] Turray is the old name of Turriff.—Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii.
p. 254. Gordon of Sallagh, p. 401.
[242] Spalding, vol. i. p. 188.
[243] Continuation, p. 402.
[244] Spalding, vol. i. p. 205.
[245] Troubles, vol. i. p. 206.
[246] Spalding, vol. i. p. 207.—Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 268.—
Gordon of Ruthven, in his abridgment of Britane’s Distemper (Spald.
Club ed.), p. 206, makes the number 5,000.
[247] Spalding, vol. i. p. 208. Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 272.
Britane’s Distemper, p. 24.
[248] Wishart’s Memoirs, Edin. 1819, p. 24.
[249] Scots Affairs, iii. 163.
[250] Gordon of Rothiemay, iii. 165.
[251] See Gordon of Rothiemay, iii. 163 et seq. Spalding, i. 290.
[252] Guthrie’s Memoirs, p. 70.
[253] Wishart.
[254] The Duchess of Newcastle says, in the memoirs of her husband,
that the number was 200.
[255] Gordon of Sallagh, p. 519.
[256] Wishart, p. 64.
[257] Wishart, p. 69.
[258] Gentleman’s Mag., vol. xvi. p. 153.
[259] Wishart, p. 77.
[260] There is a great discrepancy between contemporary writers as
to the number killed. Wishart states it at 2,000; Spalding, at 1,300,
and 800 prisoners; though he says that some reckoned the number at
1,500 killed. Gordon of Sallagh mentions only 300. Gordon of Ruthven,
in Britane’s Distemper, gives the number at 2,000 killed and 1,000
prisoners. Baillie says (vol. ii. p. 233, ed. 1841) that no quarter was
given, and not a prisoner was taken.
[261] Britane’s Distemper, p. 73.
 C HAP TER XIII.

A.D. 1644 (September)-1645 (February).

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:—Charles I., 1625–1649.

Montrose crosses the Tay to Collace—Marches through Angus and Mearns—
Battle of Aberdeen—Supineness of the Gordons—Movements of Argyle—
Montrose retreats through Badenoch—Second march of Montrose to the north
—Battle of Fyvie—Montrose retreats to Strathbogie—Secession from his camp
—Montrose enters and wastes Breadalbane and Argyle—Marches to Lochness
—Argyle enters Lochaber—Battle of Inverlochy.

Montrose now entertained confident expectations that many of the

royalists of the surrounding country who had hitherto kept aloof
would join him; but after remaining three days at Perth, to give
them an opportunity of rallying round his standard, he had the
mortification to find that, with the exception of Lords Dupplin and
Spynie, and a few gentlemen from the Carse of Gowrie, who came
to him, his anticipations were not to be realized. The spirits of the
royalists had been too much subdued by the severities of the
Covenanters for them all at once to risk their lives and fortunes on
the issue of what they had long considered a hopeless cause; and
although Montrose had succeeded in dispersing one army with a
greatly inferior force, yet it was well known that that army was
composed of raw and undisciplined men, and that the Covenanters
had still large bodies of well-trained troops in the field.
Thus disappointed in his hopes, and understanding that the
Marquis of Argyle was fast approaching with a large army, Montrose
crossed the Tay on the 4th of September, directing his course
towards Coupar-Angus, and encamped at night in the open fields
near Collace. His object in proceeding northward was to endeavour
to raise some of the loyal clans, and thus to put himself in a
sufficiently strong condition to meet Argyle. Montrose had given
orders to the army to march early next morning, but by break of
day, and before the drums had beat, he was alarmed by an uproar in
the camp. Perceiving his men running to their arms in a state of fury
and rage, Montrose, apprehensive that the Highlanders and Irish had
quarrelled, immediately rushed in among the thickest of the crowd
to pacify them, but to his great grief and dismay, he ascertained that
the confusion had arisen from the assassination of his valued friend
Lord Kilpont. He had fallen a victim to the blind fury of James
Stewart of Ardvoirlich, with whom he had slept the same night, and
who had long enjoyed his confidence and friendship. According to
Wishart, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Covenanters, he
formed a design to assassinate Montrose or his major-general,
Macdonald; and endeavoured to entice Kilpont to concur in his
wicked project. He, therefore, on the night in question, slept with his
lordship, and having prevailed upon him to rise and take a walk in
the fields before daylight, on the pretence of refreshing themselves,
he there disclosed his horrid purpose, and entreated his lordship to
concur therein. Lord Kilpont rejected the base proposal with horror
and indignation, which so alarmed Stewart that, afraid lest his
lordship might discover the matter, he suddenly drew his dirk and
mortally wounded Kilpont. Stewart, thereupon, fled, and thereafter
joined the Marquis of Argyle, who gave him a commission in his
army.[262]
 STUART.
Montrose now marched upon Dundee, which refused to surrender.
Not wishing to waste his time upon the hazardous issue of a siege
with a hostile army in his rear, Montrose proceeded through Angus
and the Mearns, and in the course of his route was joined by the
Earl of Airly, his two sons, Sir Thomas and Sir David Ogilvie, and a
considerable number of their friends and vassals, and some
gentlemen from the Mearns and Aberdeenshire. This was a
seasonable addition to Montrose’s force, which had been greatly
weakened by the absence of some of the Highlanders who had gone
home to deposit their spoils, and by the departure of Lord Kilpont’s
retainers, who had gone to Monteith with his corpse.
After the battle of Tippermuir, Lord Elcho had retired, with his
regiment and some fugitives, to Aberdeen, where he found Lord
Burleigh and other commissioners from the convention of estates. As
soon as they heard of the approach of Montrose, Burleigh, who
acted as chief commissioner, immediately assembled the Forbeses,
the Frasers, and the other friends of the covenanting interest, and
did everything in his power to gain over to his side as many persons
as he could from those districts where Montrose expected
assistance. In this way Burleigh increased his force to 2,500 foot and
500 horse, but some of these, consisting of Gordons, and others
who were obliged to take up arms, could not be relied upon.
When Montrose heard of these preparations, he resolved,
notwithstanding the disparity of force, his own army now amounting
only to 1,500 foot and 44 horse, to hasten his march and attack
them before Argyle should come up. On arriving near the bridge of
Dee, he found it strongly fortified and guarded by a considerable
force. He did not attempt to force a passage, but, directing his
course to the west, along the river, crossed it at a ford at the Mills of
Drum, and encamped at Crathas that night (Wednesday, 11th
September). The Covenanters, the same day, drew up their army at
the Two Mile Cross, a short distance from Aberdeen, where they
remained till Thursday night, when they retired into the town. On
the same night, Montrose marched down Dee-side, and took
possession of the ground which the Covenanters had just left.[263]
On the following morning, viz., Friday, 13th September, about
eleven o’clock, the Covenanters marched out of Aberdeen to meet
Montrose, who, on their approach, despatched a drummer to beat a
parley, and sent a commissioner along with him bearing a letter to
the provost and bailies of Aberdeen, commanding and charging
them to surrender the town, promising that no more harm should be
done to it; “otherwise, if they would disobey, that then he desired
them to remove old aged men, women, and children out of the way,
and to stand to their own peril.” Immediately on receipt of this letter,
the provost called a meeting of the council, which was attended by
Lord Burleigh, and, after a short consultation, an answer was sent
along with the commissioner declining to surrender the town. On
their return the drummer was killed by the Covenanters, at a place
called Justice Mills; which violation of the law of nations so
exasperated Montrose, that he gave orders to his men not to spare
any of the enemy who might fall into their hands. His anger at this
occurrence is strongly depicted by Spalding, who says, that “he grew
mad, and became furious and impatient.”
As soon as Montrose received notice of the refusal of the
magistrates to surrender the town, he made the necessary
dispositions for attacking the enemy. From his paucity of cavalry, he
was obliged to extend his line, as he had done at Tippermuir, to
prevent the enemy from surrounding or outflanking him with their
horse, and on each of his wings he posted his small body of
horsemen along with select parties of musketeers and archers. To
James Hay and Sir Nathaniel Gordon he gave the command of the
right wing, committing the charge of the left to Sir William Rollock,
all men of tried bravery and experience.
The Covenanters began the battle by a cannonade from their
field-pieces, and, from their commanding position, gave considerable
annoyance to the royal forces, who were very deficient in artillery.
After the firing had been kept up for some time, Lord Lewis Gordon,
third son of the Marquis of Huntly, a young man of a very ardent
disposition, and of a violent and changeable temper, who
commanded the left wing of the Covenanters, having obtained
possession of some level ground where his horse could act, made a
demonstration to attack Montrose’s right wing; which being observed
by Montrose, he immediately ordered Sir William Rollock, with his
party of horse, from the left wing to the assistance of the right.
These united wings, which consisted of only 44 horse, not only
repulsed the attack of a body of 300, but threw them into complete
disorder, and forced them to retreat upon the main body, leaving
many dead and wounded on the field. Montrose restrained these
brave cavaliers from pursuing the body they had routed, anticipating
that their services might be soon required at the other wing; and he
was not mistaken, for no sooner did the covenanting general
perceive the retreat of Lord Lewis Gordon than he ordered an attack
to be made upon the left wing of Montrose’s army; but Montrose,
with a celerity almost unexampled, moved his whole cavalry from
the right to the left wing, which, falling upon the flank of their
assailants sword in hand, forced them to fly, with great slaughter. In
this affair Montrose’s horse took Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of
Boyndlie prisoners.
The unsuccessful attacks on the wings of Montrose’s army had in
no shape affected the future fortune of the day, as both armies kept
their ground, and were equally animated with hopes of ultimate
success. Vexed, but by no means intimidated by their second defeat,
the gentlemen who composed Burleigh’s horse consulted together as
to the best mode of renewing the attack; and, being of opinion that
the success of Montrose’s cavalry was owing chiefly to the expert
musketeers, with whom they were interlined, they resolved to
imitate the same plan, by mixing among them a select body of foot,
and renewing the charge a third time, with redoubled energy. But
this scheme, which might have proved fatal to Montrose, if tried,
was frustrated by a resolution he came to, of making an instant and
simultaneous attack upon the enemy. Perceiving their horse still in
great confusion, and a considerable way apart from their main body,
he determined upon attacking them with his foot before they should
get time to rally; and galloping up to his men, who had been greatly
galled by the enemies’ cannon, he told them that there was no good
to be expected by the two armies keeping at such a distance—that
in this way there was no means of distinguishing the strong from the
weak, nor the coward from the brave man, but that if they would
once make a home charge upon these timorous and effeminate
striplings, as he called Burleigh’s horse, they would never stand their
attack. “Come on, then,” said he, “my brave fellow-soldiers, fall
down upon them with your swords and muskets, drive them before
you, and make them suffer the punishment due to their perfidy and
rebellion.”[264] These words were no sooner uttered, than Montrose’s
men rushed forward at a quick pace and fell upon the enemy, sword
in hand. The Covenanters were paralyzed by the suddenness and
impetuosity of the attack, and, turning their backs, fled in the
utmost trepidation and confusion, towards Aberdeen. The slaughter
was tremendous, as the victors spared no man. The road leading
from the field of battle to Aberdeen was strewed with the dead and
the dying; the streets of Aberdeen were covered with the bodies,
and stained with the blood of its inhabitants. “The lieutenant
followed the chase into Aberdeen, his men hewing and cutting down
all manner of men they could overtake, within the town, upon the
streets, or in the houses, and round about the town, as our men
were fleeing, with broad swords, but (i.e. without) mercy or remeid.
Their cruel Irish, seeing a man well clad, would first tyr (strip) him,
and save his clothes unspoiled, syne kill the man.”[265] In fine,
according to this writer, who was an eye-witness, the town of
Aberdeen, which, but a few years before, had suffered for its loyalty,
was now, by the same general who had then oppressed it, delivered
up by him to be indiscriminately plundered by his Irish forces, for
having espoused the same cause which he himself had supported.
For four days did these men indulge in the most dreadful excesses,
“and nothing,” continues Spalding, was “heard but pitiful howling,
crying, weeping, mourning, through all the streets.” Yet Guthry says
that Montrose “shewed great mercy, both pardoning the people and
protecting their goods.”[266]
It is singular, that although the battle continued for four hours
without any determinate result, Montrose lost very few men, a
circumstance the more extraordinary as the cannon of the
Covenanters were placed upon advantageous ground, whilst those of
Montrose were rendered quite ineffective by being situated in a
position from which they could not be brought to bear upon the
enemy. An anecdote, characteristic of the bravery of the Irish, and of
their coolness in enduring the privations of war, has been preserved.
During the cannonade on the side of the Covenanters, an Irishman
had his leg shot away by a cannon ball, but which kept still attached
to the stump by means of a small bit of skin, or flesh. His comrades-
in-arms being affected with his disaster, this brave man, without
betraying any symptoms of pain, thus cheerfully addressed them:
—“This, my companions, is the fate of war, and what none of us
ought to grudge: go on, and behave as becomes you; and, as for
me, I am certain my lord, the marquis, will make me a trooper, as I
am now disabled for the foot service.” Then, taking a knife from his
pocket, he deliberately opened it, and cut asunder the skin which
retained the leg, without betraying the least emotion, and delivered
it to one of his companions for interment. As soon as this
courageous man was able to mount a horse, his wish to become a
trooper was complied with, in which capacity he afterwards
distinguished himself.[267]
Hoping that the news of the victory he had obtained would create
a strong feeling in his favour among the Gordons, some of whom
had actually fought against him, under the command of Lord Lewis
Gordon, Montrose sent a part of his army towards Kintore and
Inverury, the following day, to encourage the people of the
surrounding country to declare for him; but he was sadly
disappointed in his expectations. The fact is, that ever since the
appointment of Montrose as lieutenant-general of the kingdom,—an
appointment which trenched upon the authority of the Marquis of
Huntly as lieutenant of the north,—the latter had become quite
lukewarm in the cause of his sovereign; and, although he was aware
of the intentions of his son, Lord Lewis, to join the Covenanters, he
quietly allowed him to do so without remonstrance. But, besides
being thus, in some measure, superseded by Montrose, the marquis
was actuated by personal hostility to him on account of the
treatment he had formerly received from him; and it appears to have
been partly to gratify his spleen that he remained a passive observer
of a struggle which involved the very existence of the monarchy
itself. Whatever may have been Huntly’s reasons for not supporting
Montrose, his apathy and indifference had a deadening influence
upon his numerous retainers, who had no idea of taking the field but
at the command of their chief.
As Montrose saw no possibility of opposing the powerful and well-
appointed army of Argyle, which was advancing upon him with slow
and cautious steps, disappointed as he had been of the aid which he
had calculated upon, he resolved to march into the Highlands, and
there collect such of the clans as were favourably disposed to the
royal cause. Leaving Aberdeen, therefore, on the 16th of September,
with the remainder of his forces, he joined the camp at Kintore,
whence he despatched Sir William Rollock to Oxford to inform the
king of the events of the campaign, and of his present situation, and
to solicit him to send supplies.
We must now advert to the progress of Argyle’s army, the slow
movements of which form an unfavourable contrast with the rapid
marches of Montrose’s army. On the 4th of September, four days
after the battle of Tippermuir, Argyle, who had been pursuing the
Irish forces under Macdonald, had arrived with his Highlanders at
Stirling, where, on the following day, he was joined by the Earl of
Lothian and his regiment, which had shortly before been brought
over from Ireland. After raising some men in Stirlingshire, he
marched to Perth upon the 10th, where he was joined by some Fife
men, and Lord Bargenny’s and Sir Frederick Hamilton’s regiments of
horse, which had been recalled from Newcastle for that purpose.
With this increased force, which now consisted of about 3,000 foot
and two regular cavalry regiments, besides ten troops of horse,
Argyle left Perth on the 14th of September for the north, and in his
route was joined by the Earl Marshal, Lords Gordon, Fraser, and
Crichton, and other Covenanters. He arrived at Aberdeen upon the
19th of September, where he issued a proclamation, declaring the
Marquis of Montrose and his followers traitors to religion and to their
king and country, and offering a reward of 20,000 pounds Scots, to
any person who should bring in Montrose dead or alive.[268] Spalding
laments with great pathos and feeling the severe hardships to which
the citizens of Aberdeen had been subjected by these frequent
visitations of hostile armies, and alluding to the present occupancy
of the town by Argyle, he observes that “this multitude of people
lived upon free quarters, a new grief to both towns, whereof there
was quartered on poor old Aberdeen Argyle’s own three regiments.
The soldiers had their baggage carried, and craved nothing but
house-room and fire. But ilk captain, with twelve gentlemen, had
free quarters, (so long as the town had meat and drink,) for two
ordinaries, but the third ordinary they furnished themselves out of
their own baggage and provisions, having store of meal, molt and
sheep, carried with them. But, the first night, they drank out all the
stale ale in Aberdeen, and lived upon wort thereafter.”[269]
Argyle was now within half a day’s march of Montrose, but,
strange to tell, he made no preparations to follow him, and spent
two or three days in Aberdeen doing absolutely nothing. After
spending this time in inglorious supineness, Argyle put his army in
motion in the direction of Kintore. Montrose, on hearing of his
approach, concealed his cannon in a bog, and leaving behind him
some of his heavy baggage, made towards the Spey with the
intention of crossing it. On arriving at the river, he encamped near
the old castle of Rothiemurchus; but finding that the boats used in
passing the river had been removed to the north side of the river,
and that a large armed force from the country on the north of the
Spey had assembled on the opposite bank to oppose his passage,
Montrose marched his army into the forest of Abernethy. Argyle only
proceeded at first as far as Strathbogie; but instead of pursuing
Montrose, he allowed his troops to waste their time in plundering the
properties and laying waste the lands of the Gordons in Strathbogie
and the Enzie, under the very eyes of Lord Gordon and Lord Lewis
Gordon, neither of whom appears to have endeavoured to avert
such a calamity. Spalding says that it was “a wonderful unnaturalitie
in the Lord Gordon to suffer his father’s lands and friends in his own
sight to be thus wreckt and destroyed in his father’s absence;” but
Lord Gordon likely had it not in his power to stay these proceedings,
which, if not done at the instigation, may have received the
approbation of his violent and headstrong younger brother, who had
joined the Covenanters’ standard. On the 27th of September, Argyle
mustered his forces at the Bog of Gicht, when they were found to
amount to about 4,000 men; but although the army of Montrose did
not amount to much more than a third of that number, and was
within twenty miles’ distance, he did not venture to attack him. After
remaining a few days in Abernethy forest, Montrose passed through
the forest of Rothiemurchus, and following the course of the Spey,
marched through Badenoch to Athole, which he reached on 1st
October.
When Argyle heard of the departure of Montrose from the forest
of Abernethy, he made a feint of following him. He accordingly set
his army in motion along Spey-side, and crossing the river himself
with a few horse, marched up some distance along the north bank,
and recrossed, when he ordered his troops to halt. He then
proceeded to Forres to attend a committee meeting of Covenanters
to concert a plan of operations in the north, at which the Earl of
Sutherland, Lord Lovat, the sheriff of Moray, the lairds of Balnagown,
Innes and Pluscardine, and many others were present. From Forres
Argyle went to Inverness, and after giving some instructions to Sir
Mungo Campbell of Lawers, and the laird of Buchanan, the
commanders of the regiments stationed there, he returned to his
army, which he marched through Badenoch in pursuit of Montrose.
From Athole Montrose sent Macdonald with a party of 500 men to
the Western Highlands, to invite the laird of Maclean, the captain of
clan Ranald, and others to join him. Marching down to Dunkeld,
Montrose himself proceeded rapidly through Angus towards Brechin
and Montrose.[270]
Although some delay had been occasioned in Montrose’s
movements by his illness for a few days in Badenoch, this was fully
compensated for by the tardy motions of Argyle, who, on entering
Badenoch, found that his vigilant antagonist was several days’ march
a-head of him. This intelligence, however, did not induce him in the
least to accelerate his march. Hearing, when passing through
Badenoch, that Montrose had been joined by some of the
inhabitants of that country, Argyle, according to Spalding, “left
nothing of that country undestroyed, no not one four footed beast;”
and Athole shared a similar fate.
At the time Montrose entered Angus, a committee of the estates,
consisting of the Earl Marshal and other barons, was sitting in
Aberdeen, who, on hearing of his approach, issued on the 10th of
October a printed order, to which the Earl Marshal’s name was
attached, ordaining, under pain of being severely fined, all persons,
of whatever age, sex, or condition, having horses of the value of
forty pounds Scots or upwards, to send them to the bridge of Dee,
which was appointed as the place of rendezvous, on the 14th of
October, by ten o’clock, A.M., with riders fully equipped and armed.
With the exception of Lord Gordon, who brought three troops of
horse, and Captain Alexander Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal, who
appeared with one troop at the appointed place, no attention was
paid to the order of the committee by the people, who had not yet
recovered from their fears, and their recent sufferings were still too
fresh in their minds to induce them again to expose themselves to
the vengeance of Montrose and his Irish troops.
After refreshing his army for a few days in Angus, Montrose
prepared to cross the Grampians, and march to Strathbogie to make
another attempt to raise the Gordons; but, before setting out on his
march, he released Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of Boyndlie, on
their parole, upon condition that Craigievar should procure the
liberation of the young laird of Drum and his brother from the jail of
Edinburgh, failing which, Craigievar and Boyndlie were both to
deliver themselves up to him as prisoners before the 1st of
November. This act of generosity on the part of Montrose was
greatly admired, more particularly as Craigievar was one of the
heads of the Covenanters, and had great influence among them. In
pursuance of his design, Montrose marched through the Mearns, and
upon Thursday, the 17th of October, crossed the Dee at the Mills of
Drum, with his whole army. In his progress north, contrary to his
former forbearing policy, he laid waste the lands of some of the
leading Covenanters, burnt their houses, and plundered their effects.
He arrived at Strathbogie on the 19th of October, where he remained
till the 27th, without being able to induce any considerable number
of the Gordons to join him. It was not from want of inclination that
they refused to do so, but they were unwilling to incur the
displeasure of their chief, who they knew was personally opposed to
Montrose, and who felt indignant at seeing a man who had formerly
espoused the cause of the Covenanters preferred before him. Had
Montrose been accompanied by any of the Marquis of Huntly’s sons,
they might have had influence enough to have induced some of the
Gordons to declare for him; but the situation of the marquis’s three
sons was at this time very peculiar. The eldest son, Lord Gordon, a
young man “of singular worth and accomplishments,” was with
Argyle, his uncle by the mother’s side; the Earl of Aboyne, the
second son, was shut up in the castle of Carlisle, then in a state of
siege; and Lord Lewis Gordon, the third son, had, as we have seen,
joined the Covenanters, and fought in their ranks.
In this situation of matters, Montrose left Strathbogie on the day
last mentioned, and took up a position in the forest of Fyvie, where
he despatched some of his troops, who took possession of the
castles of Fyvie and Tollie Barclay, in which he found a good supply
of provisions, which was of great service to his army. During his stay
at Strathbogie, Montrose kept a strict outlook for the enemy, and
scarcely passed a night without scouring the neighbouring country to
the distance of several miles with parties of light foot, who attacked
straggling parties of the Covenanters, and brought in prisoners from
time to time, without sustaining any loss. These petty enterprises,
while they alarmed their enemies, gave an extraordinary degree of
confidence to Montrose’s men, who were ready to undertake any
service, however difficult or dangerous, if he only commanded them
to perform it.
When Montrose crossed the Dee, Argyle was several days’ march
behind him. The latter, however, reached Aberdeen on the 24th of
October, and proceeded the following morning towards Kintore,
which he reached the same night. Next morning he marched forward
to Inverury, where he halted at night. Here he was joined by the Earl
of Lothian’s regiment, which increased his force to about 2,500 foot,
and 1,200 horse. In his progress through the counties of Angus,
Kincardine, Aberdeen, and Banff, he received no accession of
strength, from the dread which the name and actions of Montrose
had infused into the minds of the inhabitants of these counties.
The sudden movements of Argyle from Aberdeen to Kintore, and
from Kintore to Inverury, form a remarkable contrast with the
slowness of his former motions. He had followed Montrose through a
long and circuitous route, the greater part of which still bore recent
traces of his footsteps, and instead of showing any disposition to
overtake his flying foe, seemed rather inclined to keep that
respectful distance from him so congenial to the mind of one who,
“willing to wound,” is “yet still afraid to strike.” But although this
questionable policy of Argyle was by no means calculated to raise his
military fame, it had the effect of throwing Montrose, in the present
case, off his guard, and had well-nigh proved fatal to him. The rapid
march of Argyle on Kintore and Inverury, in fact, was effected
without Montrose’s knowledge, for the spies he had employed
concealed the matter from him, and while he imagined that Argyle
was still on the other side of the Grampians, he suddenly appeared
within a very few miles of Montrose’s camp, on the 28th of October.
The unexpected arrival of Argyle’s army did not disconcert
Montrose. His foot, which amounted to 1,500 men, were little more
than the half of those under Argyle, while he had only about 50
horse to oppose 1,200. Yet, with this immense disparity, he resolved
to await the attack of the enemy, judging it inexpedient, from the
want of cavalry, to become the assailant by descending into the plain
where Argyle’s army was encamped. On a rugged eminence behind
the castle of Fyvie, on the uneven sides of which several ditches had
been cut and dikes built to serve as farm fences, Montrose drew up
his little but intrepid host; but before he had marked out the
positions to be occupied by his divisions, he had the misfortune to
witness the desertion of a small body of the Gordons, who had
joined him at Strathbogie. They, however, did not join Argyle, but
contented themselves with withdrawing altogether from the scene of
the ensuing action. It is probable that they came to the
determination of retiring, not from cowardice, but from disinclination
to appear in the field against Lord Lewis Gordon, who held a high
command in Argyle’s army. The secession of the Gordons, though in
reality a circumstance of trifling importance in itself, (for had they
remained, they would have fought unwillingly, and consequently
might not have had sufficient resolution to maintain the position
which would have been assigned them,) had a disheartening
influence upon the spirits of Montrose’s men, and accordingly they
found themselves unable to resist the first shock of Argyle’s
numerous forces, who, charging them with great impetuosity, drove
them up the eminence, of a considerable part of which Argyle’s army
got possession. In this critical conjuncture, when terror and despair
seemed about to obtain the mastery over hearts to which fear had
hitherto been a stranger, Montrose displayed a coolness and
presence of mind equal to the dangers which surrounded him.
Animating them by his presence, and by the example which he
showed in risking his person in the hottest of the fight, he roused
their courage by putting them further in mind of the victories they
had achieved, and how greatly superior they were in bravery to the
enemy opposed to them. After this emphatic appeal to their feelings,
Montrose turned to Colonel O’Kean, a young Irish gentleman, highly
respected by the former for his bravery, and desired him, with an air
of the most perfect sang froid, to go down with such men as were
readiest, and to drive these fellows (meaning Argyle’s men), out of
the ditches, that they might be no more troubled with them. O’Kean
quickly obeyed the mandate, and though the party in the ditches
was greatly superior to the body he led, and was, moreover,
supported by some horse, he drove them away, and captured
several bags of powder which they left behind them in their hurry to
escape. This was a valuable acquisition, as Montrose’s men had
spent already almost the whole of their ammunition.
 While O’Kean was executing this brilliant affair, Montrose observed
five troops of horse, under the Earl of Lothian, preparing to attack
his 50 horse, who were posted a little way up the eminence, with a
small wood in their rear. He, therefore, without a moment’s delay,
ordered a party of musketeers to their aid, who, having interlined
themselves with the 50 horse, kept up such a galling fire upon
Lothian’s troopers, that before they had advanced half way across a
field which lay between them and Montrose’s horse, they were
obliged to wheel about and gallop off.
Montrose’s men became so elated with their success that they
could scarcely be restrained from leaving their ground and making a
general attack upon the whole of Argyle’s army; but although
Montrose did not approve of this design, he disguised his opinion,
and seemed rather to concur in the views of his men, telling them,
however, to be so far mindful of their duty as to wait till he should
see the fit moment for ordering the attack. Argyle remained till the
evening without attempting anything farther, and then retired to a
distance of about three miles across the Spey; his men passed the
night under arms. The only person of note killed in these skirmishes
was Captain Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal.
Next day Argyle resolved to attack Montrose, with the view of
driving him from his position. He was induced to come to this
determination from a report, too well founded, which had reached
him, that Montrose’s army was almost destitute of ammunition;—
indeed, he had compelled the inhabitants of all the surrounding
districts to deliver up every article of pewter in their possession for
the purpose of being converted into ammunition; but this precarious
supply appears soon to have been exhausted.[271] On arriving at the
bottom of the hill, he changed his resolution, not judging it safe,
from the experience of the preceding day, to hazard an attack.
Montrose, on the other hand, agreeably to his original plan, kept his
ground, as he did not deem it advisable to expose his men to the
enemy’s cavalry by descending from the eminence. With the
exception of some trifling skirmishes between the advanced posts,
the main body of both armies remained quiescent during the whole
day. Argyle again retired in the evening to the ground he had
occupied the preceding night, whence he returned the following day,
part of which was spent in the same manner as the former; but long
before the day had expired he led off his army, “upon fair day light,”
says Spalding, “to a considerable distance, leaving Montrose to
effect his escape unmolested.”
Montrose, thus left to follow any course he pleased, marched off
after nightfall towards Strathbogie, plundering Turriff and Rothiemay
house in his route. He selected Strathbogie as the place of his
retreat on account of the ruggedness of the country and of the
numerous dikes with which it was intersected, which would prevent
the operations of Argyle’s cavalry, and where he intended to remain
till joined by Macdonald, whom he daily expected from the Highlands
with a reinforcement. When Argyle heard of Montrose’s departure on
the following morning, being the last day of October, he forthwith
proceeded after him with his army, thinking to bring him to action in
the open country, and encamped at Tullochbeg on the 2d of
November, where he drew out his army in battle array. He
endeavoured to bring Montrose to a general engagement, and, in
order to draw him from a favourable position he was preparing to
occupy, Argyle sent out a skirmishing party of his Highlanders; but
they were soon repulsed, and Montrose took possession of the
ground he had selected.
Baffled in all his attempts to overcome Montrose by force of arms,
Argyle, whose talents were more fitted for the intrigues of the
cabinet than the tactics of the field, had now recourse to
negotiation, with the view of effecting the ruin of his antagonist. For
this purpose he proposed a cessation of arms, and that he and
Montrose should hold a conference, previous to which arrangements
should be entered into for their mutual security. Montrose knew
Argyle too well to place any reliance upon his word, and as he had
no doubt that Argyle would take advantage, during the proposed
cessation, to tamper with his men and endeavour to withdraw them
from their allegiance, he called a council of war, and proposed to
retire without delay to the Highlands. The council at once approved
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookmass.com