Talk:Battle of Culloden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Scottish clans This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Battle of Culloden, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Bayonet tactics

new bayonet tactics added to Battle section, based on a BBC TV programme about Culloden by military historian Richard Holmes. "Battlefield Britain" os to cover Culloden on BBC2, 9pm 17 sept '04 - will see if this also mentions bayonets. -- dave souza 22:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The programme did indeed cover the bayonet training (using the new "socket" bayonet replacing the old "plug" bayonets which had failed earlier), also emphasised training in rate of fire of the muskets, tired and hungry Highlanders, problems with the ground etc. There were some statements which conflicted with history books, and the highlanders were shown charging with their plaids on at the Battle of Prestonpans when the evidence is they took them off first - any evidence of what happened at Culloden? When time and energy permit will try to revise this article. - dave souza 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The plug bayonet was used at Killiekrankie, but had long been replaced by the socket bayonet by 1746. The new bayonet drill involved not new kit, but a new technique of thrusting obliquely, stabbing at the exposed side of the highlander to the right rather than directly at the highlander in front, who might well have the protection of a targe. There doesn't seem to be any evidence re whether or not the redcoats actually did this at Culloden & it may be that the training was superfluous or only worked as as confidence builder.80.229.9.98 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated pictures of battlefield

i have just recently visited Culloden this week and have newer pictures of the battle field. i have ones from the Jacobite and government lines as well as ones of the central monument and graves of the clansman.The graves look quite a bit differnet from the pictures already there. I am happy for them to be used here if anyone wants them please feel free to email me bonnie.blue.flag@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.129.80 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article seems to have been written to demonstrate that the Duke of Cumberland's army was nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries protecting the private interests of the Hanoverian dynasty, and by inference that it had no base of support in England. This is not true. CalJW 22:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's not true: the article doesn't seem to suggest anything of the sort. Maury 00:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It most certainly did when the notice was posted, but it has improved since and I have tweaked it again. Oliver Chettle 05:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Government Clans

It should be noted that many Scotts clans higland and lowland supported the British Government during the Jacobite uprisings. Including MacKays, Rosses, Munros, Gunns, Campbells, Grants, Agnew and many more. Most fought at Culloden but not under their clan names. The Battalions were named after their commanders, most of the Battalions made from the Scotts clans actually had English commanders, who the battalion was named after. With the exeption of Munro and Cambell whos commanders were their clan chiefs.

[edit] Mainland Britain and Britain

If Culloden was 'the last military clash in mainland Britain' this would imply that there was another part of Britain which was not on the, em, "mainland" where such a clash took place at a later date. Where was that part?

Maybe the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, 1940 - 45, if not the battle of Britain (certainly military and certainly a clash). OtherDave 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure if the Channel Islands really count as, while they are geographically 'British', they are not a part of the British polity and ( to my knowledge) never have been. An Siarach
Not really arguing; I thought that Culloden as "last military clash" neglected that bit of unpleasantness with the Luftwaffe. My Channel Islands comment addressed the "not on the mainland" question. (The Channel Islands may not strictly be part of the British polity, but Islanders are full British citizens.) OtherDave 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I assumed the "mainland" part was superfluous, and that "Britain" was used to distinguish Culloden from the Battle of Sedgefield (which was either 1685 or 1686, I think): we learnt this as the last battle on *English* soil. 86.143.59.14 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Tony).

[edit] Gaelic Language

The Gaelic language may have been discouraged, but it was never outlawed, hardly a pratical arrangement! Rcpaterson 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


(Query only) Cites for etymology leave the correct pronunciation uncertain both as to placement of the stress and the pronunciation of the "o". Could this be indicated somewhere? [Please delete]206.180.136.14 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 9th Lord Cathcart

Does anyone know which British regiment Charles Cathcart, 9th Lord Cathcart was attached to ? He was wounded in the battle.195.137.109.177 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He was Cumberland's ADC and not, I think, attached to any specific regiment. Rcpaterson 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the Campaign

The statement that the campaign was intended to place Charles Edward Stuart on the throne is dubious. His father James Francis Edward Stuart was still alive in 1745 and the aim was probably to win the campaign for his cause. I believe that Charles Edward Stuart became the young pretender when his father died in 1766.User:indigofoxbat 16.49 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

I'm considering nominating this article as a featured article candidate (See WP:FAC). It seems to be reasonably comprehensive, referenced and neutral. Comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice article, but might struggle at WP:FAC without inline citations (I know they're not supposed to be compulsory - but the defacto situation is that very few are promoted these days without them). --Mcginnly | Natter 12:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Has it been peer reviewed yet? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be the first step. Inline citations are a cosmetic matter, a mere frippery. The first thing to do, I should say, is to overhaul the quality of writing. Without that, FA or no FA, it's not likely to be worth reading. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative interpretation that may warrant inclusion

I've read an alternative interpretation of the battle of culloden - rather than an essentially english/scottish fight - it was much more divided along catholic/protestant religious lines and highland/lowland rivalry - with many lowland scots fighting for cumberland, and various other nations pitching in for respective sides.

"Captain Cunningham’s Company of Artillery – composed of ten short Saxon six pounders and six coehorn mortars. In total it was an army that mustered 9,000 effective fighting men. It may be worth noting that approximately one third of the 16 battalions present were made up of Lowland Scots together with over 600 highland levies."[1]

--Mcginnly | Natter 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Far from being an "alternative interpretation", this is accepted as fact - no historian would claim it was an England v Scotland match, even if that is the popular romanticised shortbread-tin view. As far as I can see, the article makes this pretty clear: see especially the section Armies, which looks like an accurate summary of the nationalities involved. However, the article could benefit from an extra paragraph or two on the background to the battle, viz. a very brief summary of Jacobitism and its demographics (with special reference to Scotland), and a mention of the failed 1715 rising. Of course the article Jacobite rising already does this, but many misinformed readers will come to this article and not bother to read up on the wider background, so it ought to be to touched upon. --Blisco 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Harry Munro

I will explain about the Munro invlovement. Heres a little history lesson.

Chief Robert Munro (1684 - 1746) led men of the Clan Munro in an independant Black Watch company against the French, in support of the British government. This included action at the Battle of Fontenoy in 1745. As a reward for his exellent service when he returned to the UK he was appointed the commander of the English 37th regiment of foot.

The English 37th regiment of foot was made from Englsih soldiers and not Scotts from the Clan Munro. He commanded the English 37th at the Battle of Falkirk (1746) where they ran off and left him. He was surrounded by Jacobites and killed.

Robert's son Harry Munro would not just be able to just assume the right to command the 37th regiment. It is well documented that Harry had a military carreer in Loudan's regiment at the time of the Jacobite rising. However he had nothing to do with the 37th. Harry was taken prisoner at the Battle of Prestonpans in 1745 as part of Loudan's regiment but was later released. He rejoined Loudan's regiment but after the Battle of Falkirk (1746), Sir Harry was listed as absent "by HRH leave" to deal with the problems at Foulis Castle which was said to have been rendered "a compleat desolation" by the Jacobites. The Munro company under Harry was disbanded in 1748.

The 37th regiment of foot at Culloden is often mistakenly referred to as "Munro's" regiment of foot. Colonel Dejean took over command but the regiment was never renamed Probably because its previous commander Robert Munro (1684 - 1746) had not long died just a few months before. Even today at the Culloden battle site a plaque calls it Munro's regiment. [2] Perhaps in honour of Robert Munro. 195.137.109.177 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fractions of factions

The current version states:

  • Nearly three quarters of the Jacobite army was composed of Scottish Highland clansmen, the majority of them being Roman Catholic, but more than a third being Scottish Episcopalians.
  • Around a quarter of the force were Episcopalians from the north-east Scottish Lowlands, north of the River Tay, so that more than half the total was Episcopalian

I'm unclear about what these two points, taken together, mean. They seem to imply that half the total Jacobite force was Episcopalian (one-third of the Highlanders plus all of the Lowlanders). If that's the case, maybe it would be better to have one bullet for region of origin and another for religion, along these lines:

  • Roughly three-quarters of the Jacobite army were Scottish Highland clansmen; the remaining quarter were from the northeast Scottish Lowlands. [Not sure if the Tay is significant here]
  • More than half the Jacobite army were Scottish Episcopalians: all of the Lowlanders, and over a third of the Highlanders. Two-thirds of the Highlanders were Roman Catholics.

Just a general idea, not an actual rewrite, since I don't know the details. —OtherDave 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Victory?

The article lists the result as being a decisive British vicotry. Don't both sides class as British? Would something like "Decisive Hannoverian Victory" be better? KingStrato 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Prestonpans mentions Hanoverians so I'll change it to this to that.--86.154.195.222 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Appin Regiment

It is incorrect to refer to the Appin Regiment as the Clan Stewart of Appin Regiment. The Regiment was out against the orders of the chief and comprised volunteers from the Appin District. The Appin Regiment is treated on page 11 of the book “No Quarter Given: The Muster Roll of Prince Charles Edward Stuart's Army, 1745-46,” edited by Livingstone of Bachuil, Aikman, and Hart, 2001. Of the approximately 300 men who served in the Regiment, the editors compiled a list of about 92 men killed and about 65 seriously wounded. Of that number, the largest clearly is the Stewarts themselves, numbering about 22 dead and 25 wounded. However, there are others who also made very important sacrifices in this Regiment. To wit:

Clan Dead Wounded MacColl 18 15 MacLarens 13 4 Carmichael 6 2 MacCombich 5 3 Macintyre 5 5 MacInnish or MacInnis 4 2 MacIldeu or Black 1 0 MacKenzie 2 3 MacCorquodale 1 0 M'Uchader 1 0 Henderson 1 1 MacRankin 1 0 MacCormack (Buchanan) 5 1 Cameron 0 1 MacDonald 0 1 MacLachlan 2 0 MacLea or Livingstone 4 1

It was a Donald Livingston who saved the banner of the regiment - one of the very few that survives to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.59.25 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural References?

Is it worth adding that German metal band Grave Digger produced a song called Culloden Muir, on their Tunes of War album? I have already made a contribution to Jacobite rising about another song on the same album, but that article already had an existing 'Cultural References' section. Cheers, Bluebear89 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British casualties?

In what sense were the Hannoverian casualties more "British" than the Jacobite casualties? More than a whiff of POV here, whether "British=English" or something else. Cantiorix (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context of government policy post-Culloden

I have suggested that readers interested in the government's treatment of the defeated Jacobites would find it worth their while to compare the post-'45 policy with the post-'15 policy, & highlighted another series of persecutions in Scotland from this period, but some editors object to this. This is the place to make any relevant comments...80.229.9.98 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be nothing but unsourced opinions and troublesome. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The information in my edits is all sourced from serious works in the bibliography, some of which have been my additions, which carry far more weight scholastically than the work you cite. Please be careful about making accusations of bias - I'm an academic historian and my only bias is towards truth. I'm not sure what you mean by 'troublesome' - if those aspects of the historical record that I contribute upset you because you have some romantic or sentimental attachment to the Jacobites then I have no sympathy - you'll just have to face the fact that, by modern, liberal, democratic standards, they were a thoroughly nasty bunch who were given every chance to mend their ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You are extremely biased as you can see from your derogatory edits to the likes of Bobby Sands, etc. As for calling Jacobites a 'nasty bunch' it just proves your prejudice, as most knowledgeable scholars can account far more British/Hanoverian atrocities in both brutality and number. If you use a reference it should be from a reliable/credible source. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confident that, eventually, a ruling will be made by the appropriate authorities to the effect that it is perfectly valid to record the fact that Bobby Sands was despised & reviled by a very large proportion of those who had heard of him. It is a fact about his place in history. My opinion that the Stuarts & their followers were a nasty bunch is quite the opposite of prejudice - it results from serious historical study, such as my discoveries that Jacobite clergy preached against innoculation against smallpox on the grounds that to try & prevent disease was to oppose divine providence & that the Stuart kings' lackeys routinely put unconvicted Covenanters to torture with the boot & the thumbscrews. Your claim about what "most knowledgable scholars" know demonstrates very clearly that you neither read respectable academic books nor move in the same circles as serious historians of early modern Britain. All the references I've added to articles have been from sources that have far more academic credibility than the 'coffee table book' you've cited.80.229.9.98 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It still seems you are trying to justify the massacre, there were many more atrocities committed by the British side; and using one to justify the other will lead to nowhere. Although my source is not as specific as yours it's definitely not a coffee table book, and your sources are mostly written by a "Covenanter" point of view; which would explain the defense of their faith and its advocates reputations by producing an excuse for such a massacre. -RiverHockey (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to justify anything in the main article - I'm too serious & professional an historian. If you honestly believe that there were many more atrocities committed by Whigs, then I'd suggest that you make sure they're described in WP where appropriate & link to the descriptions from this page. As for books, you clearly haven't even read the back cover of any of those that I've cited - not a single one of them is written from a Covenanter POV. Also, of the 6 books that I've referenced in this article, four were written by academic historians employed by history departments in respectable universities, while Magnus Magnusson was a journalist who became famous as a TV quiz presenter. The weight you give to his book is not in line with the aims of WP in terms of representing serious academic work that has been subject to peer review. I challenge you to find a single university reading list anywhere in the world that includes the book you cite.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retribution for the Killing Times?

I am starting a new section for this as a 'clean sheet' that may avoid perpetuating mutual bitterness.

I've removed the following text:

"The suppression of the highlands after Culloden was also retribution for the savage persecution of Scottish Whigs, including the notorious 'Killing Times' that had taken place when the Stuart dynasty had actually been on the throne."

This suggestion, unsupported by citation, seems to me to be unrealistic speculation. If it is from a source considered 'reliable' by WP standards then I think it needs qualification such as 'Prof So-&-so of the University of Poppleton has suggested that...'.

The reason I don't think it's a realistic suggestion is that, while there were a few Covenanting types in the establishment & army in 1746, neither HMG, which approved the suppression, nor the British Army, which carried it out, harboured serious resentment over the Killing Times. We know all about policy towards the Highlands over the period 1688-1746 & it seems reasonable to assume that any 'retribution' would've come much earlier, when the Killing Times were easily within living memory, such as after the end of the Williamite wars or after the 'Fifteen, when in fact a much softer line was taken towards the Jacobite Communities (with the sole exception of the MacDonalds of Glencoe).80.229.9.98 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for citations

The whole of this article is always going to be controversial, because of the subject matter. Until a couple of days ago, there were no inline citations whatsoever & there are still no page numbers given for ANY of the claims made. I trust that concern over an absence of page number references will apply to the entire article & not be used selectively, as an excuse for historically inaccurate editing that reflects an unscholarly bias in favour of the pro-Jacobite POV...80.229.9.98 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I placed two wholly appropriate article improvement templates on this article (as well as some other related articles). If you feel the need to interpret them as being directed at you, well I suppose that's your problem. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Given your record of interpreting WP policy in a highly selective manner, it's the possibility of an attack on the objectivity of the article that concerns me...80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
For the most part the article is neutral, but such a tone can be picked up inadvertently when reading about the rape, slaughter, evictions, etc. committed by the Hanoverians following battle. Your edits, by trying to justify and provide 'reasons' for the slaughter serve as a strictly Williamite view. There were atrocities committed by both parties, but the English/Hanoverians were responsible for the majority, and that is a fact. Of course you will not find this in much early English literature, as history is usually written by the victors. -RiverHockey (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
When I came to this article it was thoroughly Jacobite in its POV, & it remains somewhat Jacobite. My edits help achieve NPOV by providing balance. Your mention of 'the English' demonstrates your gross ignorance of the period & I challenge you to find a single example of an atrocity that can reasonably be described as having been committed by 'the English' rather than by, e.g., the British Army. As for the proportion of atrocities committed by pro-Stuart forces, I suggest you read up on the Killing Time, the Highland Host &c. Your claim about history being written by the victors also demonstrates your gross ignorance of the historiography - far more ink has been spilled by pro-Jacobite authors whining & bleating about Whigs eventually getting round to using the sort of tactics that the Stuarts had used when in power. As Linda Colley (another reputable historian) has observed, it tends to be the same sort of people who were Jacobites that write about Jacobitism.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Malarkey. That's all I have to say, we will never agree. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "English prisoners"

"Immediately after the battle, Cumberland rode into Inverness, his drawn sword still covered in blood, a symbolic and menacing gesture. The following day, the slaughter continued, when patrols were sent back to the battlefield to kill any survivors. Cumberland emptied the jails of English prisoners, and replaced them with Jacobite sympathisers." So the jails in Inverness had been full of English prisoners? This seems most improbable. I don't mind the pro-Jacobite stance of this passage, but I would prefer the statements to be credible. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bit about the prisoners is correct. It should probably say British though, that is what i have read. Murray wrote how an officer in the Jacobite Army was stripping prisoners to clothe his troops, and tried to get Charles Edward Stuart to put a stop to this officer's abuse of prisoners. Stuart Reid says that the officer was probably Lord Kilmarnock. The condition of British prisoners found in Inverness hardened some units of Government troops against suspected Jacobite sympathisers: "Our Men have really been pretty severe, and gave little Quarter, being exasperated at the Treatment our Prisoners met with, they being found in dark Dungeons at Inverness, almost naked and eat up with Vermin", Stuart Reid says that this quote was from an officer in Cobham's Regiment and also fought at Culloden.--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's correct now. I just couldn't swallow the claim that the Inverness jails were full of prisoners from south of the border. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British losses

I just removed an edit to the Government Army's casualty section, which someone had either edited or vandalised to 200-400 killed without citing a reliable, linked source. I have made the appropriate adjustments, and cited a reliable, online internet source. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

New comments go at the bottom of the page, and please use an edit summary. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] British or Hanoverian?

This has been a matter of some debate, but since British is technically wrong, as the Jacobites had not declared independence as a different nation, nor were they foreign. However, Hanoverian is technically troops from Hanover, a German state. British troops fighting there were not from Hanover, only the government was. It wont make sense to a battle that involves British and Hanoverian soldiers. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to declare it either a "Decisive British Government Victory", a "Decisive Royalist Victory" or a "Decisive Loyalist Victory" to distinguish between the rebels. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

A nameless editor has recently changed the page to describe the result as a "British" victory. As both sides were British, this is distinctly unhelpful. One side supported a king of the house of Hanover, the other, a king of the house of Stuart. Describing the battle as a "Hanoverian" victory is not ideal, but it is much better than calling it a "British" victory. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I have reverted those changes as unhelpful, but we need to reach a consensus here so that this does not keep happening. "Hanoverian," as you say, is not ideal, but it is better than saying "British" or "English." ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the infobox says "Great Britain", shouldn't it be Kingdom of Great Britain? I also believe the Result section should say "Decisive British Government victory" rather than "Hanoverian". Using two very different descriptions of the 'British' side could be confusing for some.--Celtus (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Both sides considered themselves as supporting the legitimate British king. So describing it as a "British" victory is unhelpful, with or without words such as "royalist", "loyalist", and "government". I accept that "Hanoverian" is not ideal, but it is better than "British" as a designation of the winning side. Maproom (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes just using just "British" alone is too vague for this article. The thing is only one side sided with the British Government, and only one side consisted of the British Army. These aren't used as descriptive terms, but as names of real things. Either something is the British Army or it isn't. So, i think we could easily use either "British Government" or "British Army", without causing any confusion. Maybe, "Decisive victory by the British Army"? That shouldn't be confusing.
I'm going to change "Great Britain" to "Kingdom of Great Britain", i don't think this is anything controversial. (see: The Kingdom of Great Britain, also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain,[1] was a state in Western Europe, in existence from 1707 to 1800).--Celtus (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

I created an image of the Jacobite Standard for the infobox. Its based on a replica which can be seen at these two websites: [3] [4]. There seem to be varying accounts of the standard, with some calling for a blue border, but others not mentioning the border at all. If you google Jacobite Standard you can find many different variations of clip art of the standard. But they mostly seem to have a much smaller white centre, and don't contain the motto. According to those two weblinks, it is not certain whether the standard, which was raised at Glenfinnian, contained the motto. But it was certainly upon it 16 days later, "... in the afternoon the young Chevalier entered the town where the main body soon rendezvoused, having set up a standard with the motto 'Tandem Triumphans'". This according to the second link. Any objections to placing this flag in the infoboxes for battles in the second rising?--Celtus (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)