Given that I’ve just written a novel about the ’45, it’s somewhat interesting to see that there is a new book out about the “truth” of the battle of Culloden. I do tend to be wary when modern historians try to use modern eyes to judge historical events – I really don’t like the term genocide, used in the article about the discovery at Culloden House for example. The immediate massacre in the aftermath and the clearances were appalling even by the standards of the day, however, the Hanoverian regime was making sure that the Jacobite cause never reared its head again and it didn’t. Given their claim to the throne was much weaker than that of the pretender, it was understandable.
Also Murray Pittock is now casting doubt on the Scottish civil war narrative. Again, I would be wary of an English versus Scottish one as it was more complex than that. Not all of the clans came out for the prince. Not all of the Jacobites were catholic, many being Presbyterian. There were highland regiments on both sides of the dispute, not to mention, French, Dutch, Germanic and Irish. There were English Jacobites – had the French invaded, the Tories might have come out for the Stuart cause after all. And then there was the Manchester regiment. Nor was it a Highland/Lowland thing as the Jacobite army included Lowland regiments. So, not as clear-cut as a Scottish civil war – but even less clear-cut was it an English/Scottish dispute. It was, if anything a dynastic one.
Murray Pittock’s comments about weaponry are interesting. However, whether this is the absolute truth – any more, than say, Stuart Reid’s or Christopher Duffy’s works are, I cannot say. Both sides used muskets – although the preferred Highland tactic was to use pistols, followed by the charge, armed with swords and lochaber axes, whereupon they would attack the horses of the mounted regiments in order to dismount the riders. The targe was used to defend against the bayonet of foot mounted troops. However, following the night march to Nairn and back again before the battle, many of them didn’t bother with the targes as they were too weak and tired.
I know it’s the Daily Mail, but really?
In battle: It has commonly been thought that poorly-led, ill-disciplined claymore-wielding Highland savages were routed by professional British redcoats deploying muskets and cannon fire
Who thinks this? Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research into the conflict doesn’t. The Jacobite army routed the Hanoverians at Prestonpans, Falkirk Muir and Clifton Moor precisely because they were a remarkably disciplined army given that they were put together at fairly short notice and had endured miles of forced marching in hostile conditions. In contrast in every engagement up to Culloden, the Hanoverian army was poorly trained and ran rather than stand and fight. Once again, the DM talks bollocks.
It is also a matter of contemporaneous record that many of the Jacobites fell to artillery fire – so I’m not too sure where Pittock’s research came from to suggest different tactics? Should I buy the book and find out, I wonder? And does it mean that after all that research and writing based upon the known history, I’ve got to tell Leggy to put it on hold while I do a rewrite? Bugger!
“… the DM talks bollocks…”
It’s nice to know there are some things you can still rely on.
I’d always thought that the Jacobites were exhausted by the time of Culloden because Charles had marched them down to England and back immediately before. I’ve read also that they were at a disadvantage at Culloden because they were at the bottom of the slope of the field.
They marched to Nairn the night before intending to take the enemy by surprise. Unfortunately it all went awry and yes they were exhausted.
The terrain didn’t help as their left flank was impeded by boggy ground and both flanks were hemmed in by walls.
The Burgh of Ayr and its Incorporations I understand sent a contingent to fight for King George. One of the major Incorporations was that of the Fleshers, my ancestors, that is the butchers.