Just listened to Culloden A new battle on radio 4 .Fascinating stuff Seems they have done some major Archaeological work to find out what really happened .When the Government forces finally defeated the Jacobites .
Got to love the idea of some septic turning up to find where his ancestor died only to be told he was probably on the winning side :D .
They found a lot of musket balls cut in two and came up with either
Soldiers altered the ammo (guess this was before the rules of armed conflict film :D ) Or they got damaged by a raised sword blade :!:
Hopefully its on listen again fascinating if you get the chance.
One thing I heard was that there weren't many englishmen in the battle, when most people thought it was the English against the Scots
Bizarrely enough, this issue arose on 'QI', and ctually there were more Scots fighting against the Jacobites than English, and moreover the Jacobites were suppported by the Tories in Scotland!! You would never guess it to hear the nationalists speak - where now the Tories in Scotland. I know QI is frivolous, but the final answers are correct once the pannelfinally gets there.
Of course the Jacobite uprisings were civil wars and thus there being many Scots on the Hanoverian side was not surprising. The 45 probably failed because too few English Catholics joined the rebel army on the march south along with difficulties in maintaining a highland army far from home and having to live of the land. Mind you it was not just religious there was the genuine debate on whether parliamnet should choose the king or whether true succession should count, and this of course was how Tories ended up on the Jacobite side.

Incidentally there was a majority of Tory MPs in Scotland up till the 50s


Book Reviewer
As far as I can remember
Highland Scots V Lowland Scots
Can't remember which way round but alot of settling of scores and family against family

IIRC a program on weapons of war is this the Battle where the Duke of Cumberland came up with the principle of the baynet charge
Also they devised a plan where they bayoneted the man diaginally to there right as the shield was in the left hand and allowed a gap at the swordsman's right hand side
The point is there was no English vs Scots battle at Culloden (1746), it was the BRITISH Government (act of union 1707) putt?ng down a rebellion to put the pretender on the thrown.

It was a battle where many lessons can be learned and well wotrth a visit if you are up that way. The consequences and immediate aftermath were something history glossed over and the notion it was English defeating Scots crept in.

Bannockburn (1314) Flodden Field (1513) and Wembley (1977) were major English Scottish battles!
The armies at Cullodena re a real mix

If i recall 16 British regular battalions of which 4 were Scottish (plus the highland mainly but not exclusively campbell militia) plus some scottish cavalry.

Opposing it an army in the front line highland battalions heavily armed with imported french muskets behind this various low land battlaion sand French mercnaries of the Irish Brigades and the Royal Eccossais plus the few cavalry the jacobites had

Books woth readin like hungry wolves by Reid

The memoires of The chevalier Johnston
Cumberland's army defeated the Scots at the Battle of Culloden Moor in Inverness on 16 April 1746, at which about 1,000 Scots died.

After the battle he was asked for orders: he wrote, "No quarter", on the back of a playing card (the nine of diamonds - still known as the 'curse of Scotland'). As a result of this action he was given the epithet "Butcher" Cumberland.

A flower was named after him to mark his success at Culloden. In England it is known as the Sweet William but in Scotland it is known as the Stinking Billy.

He remained in Scotland for three months after the battle, rounding up some 3,500 men and executing about 120. The English soldiers killed everyone they found, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation thus becoming the first army to implement an effective equal opportunities policy.
The battle from the Jacobite side was a prime example of fcuked up logistics, sh1t comms and a crap CinC who wouldn't listen to his Generals (who were actually very good). They left there stores in Inverness, they were tired, having marched and countermarched throughout the night and they deployed on fairly good artillery killing ground and the the Government Forces also had Dragoons.

If the Jacobites had been a bomb they be a Cluster Bomb.
There was virtually zero medical support at Culloden or therefore any hope of survival for the badly injured. The Jacobites took heavy casualties against the artillery and the disciplined musket fire of the Hanoverians, and so their casualties were much higher. "Turning off" the badly injured was seen by many after battles in this period as an act of Christian mercy, rather than leaving them to rot in agony for hours or days. In the Ayr Company on the Hanoverian side there were a few men from the Incorporation of Fleshers (butchers) who would have done the job very efficiently.
Butcher Cumberlands idea of mopping up might seem a bit extreme by todays standards, but I dont remember there being another Jockobite rebellion.
Seeing my Mums family come from Inverness and lived there for centuries, and boy didnt half remind me but i digress, They have family members who died at Culloden but they werent willing conscripts for the Jacobites evidently.

Seems when the Jacobite army moved about it was a case of hey your going to fight for us or we will kill you for supporting the English, so a couple of her clan were pressganged into fighting, only to be killed by fellow Jocks, strange i agree that everyone thinks it was Jocks vs English, but it werent.
jonwilly said:
Always thought it was Gen Wade's roadbuilding that 'Pacified' the Highlands.
I walked the entire length of the fcuking thing in my younger days - it gave me sore feet and made me as grumpy as hell. However it did provide Govt troops with a good comms system (and also the Jacobites).
Not true that more Scots fought on the British Army side....close but not quite. The Morning State doesn't give nationalites but you can guess about a third of the 'English' regiments were born in Scotland. And most of the Scottish regiments were.

The new visitor centre appears to be trying to do justice to the Battle, but might be a bit light on the Catholic vs Protestant part.
Scouting for Boys said:
Not true that more Scots fought on the British Army side....close but not quite. The Morning State doesn't give nationalites but you can guess about a third of the 'English' regiments were born in Scotland. And most of the Scottish regiments were.

The new visitor centre appears to be trying to do justice to the Battle, but might be a bit light on the Catholic vs Protestant part.
It was in reality as much a battle between traditionalism and modernism, the real question was does parliament choose the king or tradition. For a variety of reasons of those who actually committed for one side or the other the traditionalists tended to be either catholic, Tory, or Highland Scots, or some combination of the three, and the modernists tended to be protestant, whig and lowland or some combination. Even so people of all persuasions fought on both sides, and like all civil wars it divided families.

One must also remeber that there was wide resentment of the germanic origins of the hanoverians and their descendands, which did not fully die out until after WW1
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
wayner1970 Military History and Militaria 47
Outstanding Films, Music and All Things Artsy 27

Similar threads

Latest Threads