![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
I don't think so - I've watched the (pretty awful) 'BB' episode a couple of times and don't remember that point being made. It's a pretty basic statement of fact based on comparison with what happened at other battles, so it probably comes from one of the sources that's about more than just Culloden. Thoskit ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
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?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Culloden is not even the last battle on Scottish soil. This is yet another lie put around by establishment historians. The Battle of Bonnymuir took place in 1820.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
He was allowed to take the banner of his father to Scotland, then to act in the interest of his father. To me it seems he became the actual pretender (to the throne) once his father died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 ( talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The current version states:
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:
Just a general idea, not an actual rewrite, since I don't know the details. — OtherDave 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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))
Okay will do ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
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))
If you guys polled the participants in this battle I'm sure you would find that forces fighting for King George would have called themselves "English" and the Jacobites would have called themselves "Scotch." I think that the goal of all this hair-splitting is to avoid drawing this obvious conclusion. The divide between England and Scotland is one that has always been (even to this day) recognized in Scotland; an Englishman might call himself British but a Scotsman never would. And viewed in the proper historical context the Jacobite struggle was not to install a Scotch king on the English throne but to depose a false English king from the Scotch throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.32.113 ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, a Scotsman would call himself British: King James, a Scot, was one of the first pioneers of being British. Millions of Scots have called themself British and millions continue to do so. You forget also that plenty of Scots during WW2 as an example referred to themselves as English. Your ignorance is telling: the whole point of the Stewart campaign was to install a Stewart on the throne of Great Britain. Ridiculous to claim that this was an English v Scottish fight. Methinks you are another American with a tenuous grasp of history. [[ Kentish 0930 GMT 24 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
I am sceptical about the lurid purple tartan added by Celtus. It does not look like anything that would have existed at that date, 120 years before the invention of magenta dye. See [5] for evidence. I suggest deleting it, or replacing it by the more plausible-looking blue-and-green image from that page. Maproom ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? Did the colour of tartan affect the outcome of the battle? Talk about angels on the head of a pin! Dmgerrard ( talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
More image problems. I was looking for images of highlanders or british soldiers and came across a few period illustrations. A is from 18th Century Highlanders, and B and C are from King George's Army 1740-1793 (2), both books are referenced in the article. These are cited as being originally from the 1742 Cloathing Book. Image A is of the 43rd Foot, image B is of 21st Foot (Royal Scots Fusiliers); Image C is of the 37th Foot. Even though they are black and white the author describes the colours of the uniforms depicted (note: i can copy the captions for each image ABC if anyone would like that aswell). And a google search seems to confirm that the 1742 Cloathing Book was coloured.
I found some coloured images which seem to be from the 1742 Cloathing Book here and the New York Public Library Digital Gallery website. But they are different, they can't be from the same source (another edition? a later copy?). The lines in the drawings don't correspond, they don't match their mates. Also, see how image C is listed as 43rd and 3 listed as 42nd. And image B is listed as Royal Scots Fusiliers and image 2 is listed as Royal Scotch Fusiliers. Note the Black Watch was originally the 42nd Highland Regiment of Foot, then later named the 43rd in 1740. I don't know right now when they switch back to 42nd, but they did. So which images should/could be used in this article? The B&W ones are cited in the published works so they should be ok and are supported by an authority. But they aren't as attractive as the coloured ones. Any opinions?-- Celtus ( talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we put this myth to bed please? I include details of two much later battles in Scotland and England. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Reid (2002) has it that the Jacobite prisoners consisted of: 154 taken after the battle, another 222 "French" taken after the battle. 172 more Jacobites were added to the total by Cumberland, but these had been taken after the skirmish at Dunrobin—not Culloden. Harrington (1991) is less specific, just saying that 336 Jacobites and 222 French were taken to Inverness and locked up. So anyways, in the infobox i excluded the 172 that didn't take part in the battle.-- Celtus ( talk) 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why the NATO term for a battle that predates NATO by 300 years? Wouldn't "friendly fire" work just as well, without neccessitating quite so many people to go look it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.17.50 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
While the vast majority of the Jacobite Manchester Regiment was left in Carlisle a small detachment from the Manchester Regiment was present at Culloden and were responasable for the Jacobite Artillery. Quoting: Tony Pollard: "Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the last Clan Battle. Page 42. Published 2009. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The article says: "Cumberland reported that there were 2,320 firelocks recovered from the battlefield, but only 190 broadswords. From this, it can be determined that of the roughly 1,000 Jacobites killed at Culloden, only one in five carried a sword." I'm puzzled by the reasoning here. From the same figures, we could conclude that each Jacobite carried an average of 2.3 firelocks! Something else is being assumed here - is it that the swords were dropped by the dead, while the firelocks were dropped by Jacobites running away? If so, that's a complicated assumption, which needs to be spelled out and supported by some evidence. Peter Bell ( talk) 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Surely this is the consequence of the "Highland Charge" - the Scots fired their guns then threw them aside and charged with their swords or whatever blades they had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.116 ( talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Battle on Culloden Moor section, one of the two maps must be wrong. The map in the Opening Moves subsection shows the Jacobites situated between Culloden Parks to the NW and Culwhiniac enclosure to the SE. But the next map, in Jacobite Charge shows Culloden Park to the SE and forest to the NW. Which is correct? And what are Culloden Park and the Culwhiniac & Leanach enclosures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troymc ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There's an error in the 2nd paragraph of Opening Moves where it states: "...and the Macdonalds on the far right simply ignored him." As the next sentence clearly states, the Macdonalds were on the far left, and the Atholl Brigade was on the right. Troymc ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to know where (or if) this information should be included in the article, but note that Handel wrote the oratorio Judas Maccabaeus as a compliment to the victorious Duke of Cumberland upon his return from the battle of Culloden. Perhaps in a "See also" section? GFHandel . 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out the French translation of this article, and the German, and a few others. There seems to be no hint of French troops turning up at Culloden.-- 85.164.223.189 ( talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes but I believe it was not the Garde Écossaise (1st company of the royal bodyguard) but the Régiment Royal-Ecossais who were present at Culloden. BNS-CLARKE ( talk) 23:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Entries in Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral. In general, I have found them to be so. But in the 2nd paragraph under "Background" in this entry, it is said that Charles Edward Stuart "petulantly" left command to [Lord George] Murray.
The word "petulantly" is not neutral, to say the least. Why is it used in this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupstid123 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Because of how clearly POV this wording was, I removed it. It needed to be removed. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The monarchy was Hanoverian, but the government was British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.116.233 ( talk) 08:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of citations which are factually incorrect, but based on history which was believed to be true at the time. Most notably, these factual inaccuracies cite Barthorp
"Barthorp, Michael (1982). The Jacobite Rebellions 1689–1745. Men-at-arms series #118. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0 85045 432 8."
Multiple claims attributed to him within this article have been shown by more recent scholarship to based on propaganda rather than fact, with numerous primary sources (such as letters and correspondence) proving the claims wrong.
The specific claims in question:
"The bulk of these men were forced to join by their clan chiefs, landlords or feudal superiors... Because of recruiting in this manner, when the campaign began to fizzle out in the lead-up to the battle, desertion was a major problem in the Highland regiments within the Jacobite army."
"One of the fundamental problems with the Jacobite army was the lack of trained officers. The lack of professionalism and training was readily apparent; even the colonels of the Macdonald regiments of Clanranald and Keppoch considered their men to be uncontrollable."
While the claims of the brutality of the tacksmen under the clan system are accurate, the tacksmen were supported by the soldiers, who themselves aided in the brutalizing of farmers. The rank and file soldier was considered to be a gentleman in highland society, and would not engage in any agrarian work. One of Scotland's main exports during the period was soldiers. Some of these men held commissions from multiple European militarizes. They were professional soldiers who were outnumbered, poorly led, and charging across a bog towards superior firepower. They were not untrained, unruly savages. As for desertion, because highland troops were unpaid volunteers whose rewards were loot, they had the right to desert when they felt like it. This was a tradition in highland militaries.
I will provide citations in due course, but I would argue that Barthorp's work is dated, and his information has been proven false. Thus, information attributed to him should be removed.
Once I provide those citations, what is the appropriate method of removing false claims from the article?
NPOV is going to be difficult to achieve with this article because of the difficult subject matter as well as the propaganda that was accepted as fact for centuries. It is only recently that we're doing the necessary archival work to verify or disprove the claims which, in the mind of some, justify the actions taken during this conflict.
I also find it frustrating that people seem to be fighting on either side. Those who cannot put their personal feelings one way or the other aside should cease from editing this article. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm laughing here, because I just did a quick lookup of Barthorp's work. It is not a scholarly work. It is a picture book. http://www.amazon.com/Jacobite-Rebellions-1689-1745-Men-at-Arms/dp/0850454328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301243391&sr=1-1
This isn't a scholarly work. At best, it is a tertiary source, a brief summary based on the scholarship of others, and thus is not an appropriate substitution for rigorous scholarship. It makes spurious, dated, claims. But this is not the focus of the book. The book is not about the battle of culloden. It's a picture book depicting the arms and armor of the soldiers of the Jacobite era. I'll be back with actual scholarship based on information which isn't dated. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had time to do this, and don't know how. I've noticed that someone has removed one of the unreliable sources. Here's the issue: the following sources are unreliable:
Reid, Stuart (1996). British Redcoat 1740–1793. Warrior series #19. London: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 554 3.
Reid, Stuart (1996). 1745, A Military History of the Last Jacobite Rising. Sarpedon. ISBN 1-885119-28-3.
Reid, Stuart (1997). Highland Clansman 1689–1746. Warrior series #21. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 660 4.
Reid, Stuart (2002). Culloden Moor 1746, The Death Of The Jacobite Cause. Campaign series #106. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84178 412 4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum.
Reid, Stuart (2006). The Scottish Jacobite Army 1745–46. Elite series #149. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84603 073 0.
They need to be removed for reasons stated previously. I have contradicting quotations from the anti-jacobite "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309454889&sr=1-1 as well as other sources, but I don't know how to just remove sources. I know how to source my own material. This is really frustrating.
This isn't a neutrality issue, as the book I listed here is staunchly anti-jacobite, it's a facts issue. The citations from these sources are so factually incorrect I don't know where to begin, and I don't have the wiki-know how to make such massive edits. Do I need to get together some kind of community consensus? How do I do this? Ollie Garkey ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
During the early-mid 1950's I spent my Summer vacations at Balvraid farm, which was then (and still) owned and farmed by the Rose (Clan Rose of Nairn) family who were and still are my kinsmen and Presbyterian god-parents. The ruins of the original Balvraid farm, from the period of the battle, were still visible about 50 yards from the present-day (1950's) farmhouse. The traditional story is that Gilles MacBean was pursued from the battlefield (about 400 yards away to the East) and British troops cornered him against the walls of the house (then a small and primitive croft). MacBean is then described as having taken up the 'tram' of a cart (the drawbar?) as a weapon and having held off the British soldiers for some time was eventually shot in the back by soldiers who had climbed up on the roof of the house behind him and was bayonetted by those soldiers to his front. The dwelling then burnt down following the discharge of the muskets close to the thatched roof. The actual truth of this local folk tradition is difficult to establish but, normally, such folk-memory accounts have to be taken seriously. I understand the Gilles MacBean has an important place in the history of the battle and the campaign, but I cannot tell you more than this. Miletus ( talk) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole affair was a direct challenge to the established Honoverian throne and that same organisation simply hired reliable troops where they could get them to oppose that challenge. These would appear to be the last mercenaries to fight on British soil anyway.
The suggestion about purple dye seems valid. Synthetic purple/mauve wasn't discovered until some time in the 1880s and in Germany. After that the price fell dramaticaly and it is frequently possible to date 19th century womens clothing by the amount of purple dye used. Before this the only source of purple was Murex shellfish and highly expensive.
Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours? AT Kunene ( talk) 09:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether one's sympathies lie with the Jacobites or the Hanoverians, please remember that 16 April 2012 was the 266th anniversary of the battle. Maclennan123 ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve it. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped improve it. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me how to remove a remark that has been posted twice instead of once? I'll be grateful. macLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 04:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The query: Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours?
My answer: The indescribable atrocities at Culloden and the numerous items published about the battle horrified so many people, including people in the British military forces, that British regiments are supposedly prohibited from carrying anything about the battle on its colours.--Check Christopher Duffy's book, "The '45." It's a splendid treatment of a horrifying occasion: It may offer further information on this subject.
macLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
British regiments only receive battle honours for fighting foreign armies, not 'internal' rebels (as the great majority of the Jacobite force at Culloden were), which is why none of the numerous victories from the American War of Independence exist as British battle honours either. Things get a bit blurred when it comes to the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8: several regiments have battle honours from that conflict, and you could argue that as Hon. East India Company regiments, rather than crown regiments, the mutineers constituted a regular, external force, which would justify the award of battle honours, but I personally can't help but suspect that those sepoys who mutinied were regarded as more alien than Jacobites or American rebels because of their skin tones more than anything else... :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.208.0 ( talk) 02:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether it should be the "Government Army" or "British Army". The argument that both sides were British may be true but at the end of the day the official name of the military force is the " British Army". QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The section "Collapse of the Jacobite campaign" states that Scalpay is between Harris and Lewis. This is not correct. It also indicates (in the same sentence) that each of Harris and Lewis is an Island; that is also incorrect.
Harris and Lewis are two parts of one island, not two islands.
Scalpay is south of North Harris, which in turn is south of Lewis, and east of South Harris; the article would be less inaccurate if it claimed instead that Scalpay is between South Harris and North Harris, but even that is not correct. It would be better to say that Scalpay is off the the coast of Harris. In Gàidhlig, this Scalpay (there is anther Scalpaidh off the coast of Skye( is called "Sclapaidh na h-Earradh" (Scalpay Harris) and is never associated with Lewis other than through Harris.
I think these errors in the article arise because (a) the link between N and S Harris is a very narrow strip of land and can be confused as not joining the two parts together and (b) a lot of non-Hebridean people think that the boundary between Harris and Lewis is at Tarbert, on that strip, rather than signicicantly north of there (Scaladale and KinReasort are in Harris, not Lewis), so there is enough of Lewis north of Tarbert to fit the whole of Scalpay in about a dozen times - in fact even the areas of N Harris futher south than Tarbert is as big as the area of Scalpay. Michealt ( talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There are following battles
according to [10]. -- 88.78.251.59 ( talk) 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
I don't think so - I've watched the (pretty awful) 'BB' episode a couple of times and don't remember that point being made. It's a pretty basic statement of fact based on comparison with what happened at other battles, so it probably comes from one of the sources that's about more than just Culloden. Thoskit ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
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?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Culloden is not even the last battle on Scottish soil. This is yet another lie put around by establishment historians. The Battle of Bonnymuir took place in 1820.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
He was allowed to take the banner of his father to Scotland, then to act in the interest of his father. To me it seems he became the actual pretender (to the throne) once his father died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 ( talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The current version states:
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:
Just a general idea, not an actual rewrite, since I don't know the details. — OtherDave 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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))
Okay will do ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
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))
If you guys polled the participants in this battle I'm sure you would find that forces fighting for King George would have called themselves "English" and the Jacobites would have called themselves "Scotch." I think that the goal of all this hair-splitting is to avoid drawing this obvious conclusion. The divide between England and Scotland is one that has always been (even to this day) recognized in Scotland; an Englishman might call himself British but a Scotsman never would. And viewed in the proper historical context the Jacobite struggle was not to install a Scotch king on the English throne but to depose a false English king from the Scotch throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.32.113 ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, a Scotsman would call himself British: King James, a Scot, was one of the first pioneers of being British. Millions of Scots have called themself British and millions continue to do so. You forget also that plenty of Scots during WW2 as an example referred to themselves as English. Your ignorance is telling: the whole point of the Stewart campaign was to install a Stewart on the throne of Great Britain. Ridiculous to claim that this was an English v Scottish fight. Methinks you are another American with a tenuous grasp of history. [[ Kentish 0930 GMT 24 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
I am sceptical about the lurid purple tartan added by Celtus. It does not look like anything that would have existed at that date, 120 years before the invention of magenta dye. See [5] for evidence. I suggest deleting it, or replacing it by the more plausible-looking blue-and-green image from that page. Maproom ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? Did the colour of tartan affect the outcome of the battle? Talk about angels on the head of a pin! Dmgerrard ( talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
More image problems. I was looking for images of highlanders or british soldiers and came across a few period illustrations. A is from 18th Century Highlanders, and B and C are from King George's Army 1740-1793 (2), both books are referenced in the article. These are cited as being originally from the 1742 Cloathing Book. Image A is of the 43rd Foot, image B is of 21st Foot (Royal Scots Fusiliers); Image C is of the 37th Foot. Even though they are black and white the author describes the colours of the uniforms depicted (note: i can copy the captions for each image ABC if anyone would like that aswell). And a google search seems to confirm that the 1742 Cloathing Book was coloured.
I found some coloured images which seem to be from the 1742 Cloathing Book here and the New York Public Library Digital Gallery website. But they are different, they can't be from the same source (another edition? a later copy?). The lines in the drawings don't correspond, they don't match their mates. Also, see how image C is listed as 43rd and 3 listed as 42nd. And image B is listed as Royal Scots Fusiliers and image 2 is listed as Royal Scotch Fusiliers. Note the Black Watch was originally the 42nd Highland Regiment of Foot, then later named the 43rd in 1740. I don't know right now when they switch back to 42nd, but they did. So which images should/could be used in this article? The B&W ones are cited in the published works so they should be ok and are supported by an authority. But they aren't as attractive as the coloured ones. Any opinions?-- Celtus ( talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we put this myth to bed please? I include details of two much later battles in Scotland and England. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Reid (2002) has it that the Jacobite prisoners consisted of: 154 taken after the battle, another 222 "French" taken after the battle. 172 more Jacobites were added to the total by Cumberland, but these had been taken after the skirmish at Dunrobin—not Culloden. Harrington (1991) is less specific, just saying that 336 Jacobites and 222 French were taken to Inverness and locked up. So anyways, in the infobox i excluded the 172 that didn't take part in the battle.-- Celtus ( talk) 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why the NATO term for a battle that predates NATO by 300 years? Wouldn't "friendly fire" work just as well, without neccessitating quite so many people to go look it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.17.50 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
While the vast majority of the Jacobite Manchester Regiment was left in Carlisle a small detachment from the Manchester Regiment was present at Culloden and were responasable for the Jacobite Artillery. Quoting: Tony Pollard: "Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the last Clan Battle. Page 42. Published 2009. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The article says: "Cumberland reported that there were 2,320 firelocks recovered from the battlefield, but only 190 broadswords. From this, it can be determined that of the roughly 1,000 Jacobites killed at Culloden, only one in five carried a sword." I'm puzzled by the reasoning here. From the same figures, we could conclude that each Jacobite carried an average of 2.3 firelocks! Something else is being assumed here - is it that the swords were dropped by the dead, while the firelocks were dropped by Jacobites running away? If so, that's a complicated assumption, which needs to be spelled out and supported by some evidence. Peter Bell ( talk) 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Surely this is the consequence of the "Highland Charge" - the Scots fired their guns then threw them aside and charged with their swords or whatever blades they had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.116 ( talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Battle on Culloden Moor section, one of the two maps must be wrong. The map in the Opening Moves subsection shows the Jacobites situated between Culloden Parks to the NW and Culwhiniac enclosure to the SE. But the next map, in Jacobite Charge shows Culloden Park to the SE and forest to the NW. Which is correct? And what are Culloden Park and the Culwhiniac & Leanach enclosures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troymc ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There's an error in the 2nd paragraph of Opening Moves where it states: "...and the Macdonalds on the far right simply ignored him." As the next sentence clearly states, the Macdonalds were on the far left, and the Atholl Brigade was on the right. Troymc ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to know where (or if) this information should be included in the article, but note that Handel wrote the oratorio Judas Maccabaeus as a compliment to the victorious Duke of Cumberland upon his return from the battle of Culloden. Perhaps in a "See also" section? GFHandel . 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out the French translation of this article, and the German, and a few others. There seems to be no hint of French troops turning up at Culloden.-- 85.164.223.189 ( talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes but I believe it was not the Garde Écossaise (1st company of the royal bodyguard) but the Régiment Royal-Ecossais who were present at Culloden. BNS-CLARKE ( talk) 23:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Entries in Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral. In general, I have found them to be so. But in the 2nd paragraph under "Background" in this entry, it is said that Charles Edward Stuart "petulantly" left command to [Lord George] Murray.
The word "petulantly" is not neutral, to say the least. Why is it used in this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupstid123 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Because of how clearly POV this wording was, I removed it. It needed to be removed. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The monarchy was Hanoverian, but the government was British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.116.233 ( talk) 08:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of citations which are factually incorrect, but based on history which was believed to be true at the time. Most notably, these factual inaccuracies cite Barthorp
"Barthorp, Michael (1982). The Jacobite Rebellions 1689–1745. Men-at-arms series #118. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0 85045 432 8."
Multiple claims attributed to him within this article have been shown by more recent scholarship to based on propaganda rather than fact, with numerous primary sources (such as letters and correspondence) proving the claims wrong.
The specific claims in question:
"The bulk of these men were forced to join by their clan chiefs, landlords or feudal superiors... Because of recruiting in this manner, when the campaign began to fizzle out in the lead-up to the battle, desertion was a major problem in the Highland regiments within the Jacobite army."
"One of the fundamental problems with the Jacobite army was the lack of trained officers. The lack of professionalism and training was readily apparent; even the colonels of the Macdonald regiments of Clanranald and Keppoch considered their men to be uncontrollable."
While the claims of the brutality of the tacksmen under the clan system are accurate, the tacksmen were supported by the soldiers, who themselves aided in the brutalizing of farmers. The rank and file soldier was considered to be a gentleman in highland society, and would not engage in any agrarian work. One of Scotland's main exports during the period was soldiers. Some of these men held commissions from multiple European militarizes. They were professional soldiers who were outnumbered, poorly led, and charging across a bog towards superior firepower. They were not untrained, unruly savages. As for desertion, because highland troops were unpaid volunteers whose rewards were loot, they had the right to desert when they felt like it. This was a tradition in highland militaries.
I will provide citations in due course, but I would argue that Barthorp's work is dated, and his information has been proven false. Thus, information attributed to him should be removed.
Once I provide those citations, what is the appropriate method of removing false claims from the article?
NPOV is going to be difficult to achieve with this article because of the difficult subject matter as well as the propaganda that was accepted as fact for centuries. It is only recently that we're doing the necessary archival work to verify or disprove the claims which, in the mind of some, justify the actions taken during this conflict.
I also find it frustrating that people seem to be fighting on either side. Those who cannot put their personal feelings one way or the other aside should cease from editing this article. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm laughing here, because I just did a quick lookup of Barthorp's work. It is not a scholarly work. It is a picture book. http://www.amazon.com/Jacobite-Rebellions-1689-1745-Men-at-Arms/dp/0850454328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301243391&sr=1-1
This isn't a scholarly work. At best, it is a tertiary source, a brief summary based on the scholarship of others, and thus is not an appropriate substitution for rigorous scholarship. It makes spurious, dated, claims. But this is not the focus of the book. The book is not about the battle of culloden. It's a picture book depicting the arms and armor of the soldiers of the Jacobite era. I'll be back with actual scholarship based on information which isn't dated. Ollie Garkey ( talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had time to do this, and don't know how. I've noticed that someone has removed one of the unreliable sources. Here's the issue: the following sources are unreliable:
Reid, Stuart (1996). British Redcoat 1740–1793. Warrior series #19. London: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 554 3.
Reid, Stuart (1996). 1745, A Military History of the Last Jacobite Rising. Sarpedon. ISBN 1-885119-28-3.
Reid, Stuart (1997). Highland Clansman 1689–1746. Warrior series #21. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 660 4.
Reid, Stuart (2002). Culloden Moor 1746, The Death Of The Jacobite Cause. Campaign series #106. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84178 412 4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum.
Reid, Stuart (2006). The Scottish Jacobite Army 1745–46. Elite series #149. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84603 073 0.
They need to be removed for reasons stated previously. I have contradicting quotations from the anti-jacobite "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309454889&sr=1-1 as well as other sources, but I don't know how to just remove sources. I know how to source my own material. This is really frustrating.
This isn't a neutrality issue, as the book I listed here is staunchly anti-jacobite, it's a facts issue. The citations from these sources are so factually incorrect I don't know where to begin, and I don't have the wiki-know how to make such massive edits. Do I need to get together some kind of community consensus? How do I do this? Ollie Garkey ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
During the early-mid 1950's I spent my Summer vacations at Balvraid farm, which was then (and still) owned and farmed by the Rose (Clan Rose of Nairn) family who were and still are my kinsmen and Presbyterian god-parents. The ruins of the original Balvraid farm, from the period of the battle, were still visible about 50 yards from the present-day (1950's) farmhouse. The traditional story is that Gilles MacBean was pursued from the battlefield (about 400 yards away to the East) and British troops cornered him against the walls of the house (then a small and primitive croft). MacBean is then described as having taken up the 'tram' of a cart (the drawbar?) as a weapon and having held off the British soldiers for some time was eventually shot in the back by soldiers who had climbed up on the roof of the house behind him and was bayonetted by those soldiers to his front. The dwelling then burnt down following the discharge of the muskets close to the thatched roof. The actual truth of this local folk tradition is difficult to establish but, normally, such folk-memory accounts have to be taken seriously. I understand the Gilles MacBean has an important place in the history of the battle and the campaign, but I cannot tell you more than this. Miletus ( talk) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole affair was a direct challenge to the established Honoverian throne and that same organisation simply hired reliable troops where they could get them to oppose that challenge. These would appear to be the last mercenaries to fight on British soil anyway.
The suggestion about purple dye seems valid. Synthetic purple/mauve wasn't discovered until some time in the 1880s and in Germany. After that the price fell dramaticaly and it is frequently possible to date 19th century womens clothing by the amount of purple dye used. Before this the only source of purple was Murex shellfish and highly expensive.
Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours? AT Kunene ( talk) 09:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether one's sympathies lie with the Jacobites or the Hanoverians, please remember that 16 April 2012 was the 266th anniversary of the battle. Maclennan123 ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve it. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped improve it. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me how to remove a remark that has been posted twice instead of once? I'll be grateful. macLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 04:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The query: Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours?
My answer: The indescribable atrocities at Culloden and the numerous items published about the battle horrified so many people, including people in the British military forces, that British regiments are supposedly prohibited from carrying anything about the battle on its colours.--Check Christopher Duffy's book, "The '45." It's a splendid treatment of a horrifying occasion: It may offer further information on this subject.
macLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
British regiments only receive battle honours for fighting foreign armies, not 'internal' rebels (as the great majority of the Jacobite force at Culloden were), which is why none of the numerous victories from the American War of Independence exist as British battle honours either. Things get a bit blurred when it comes to the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8: several regiments have battle honours from that conflict, and you could argue that as Hon. East India Company regiments, rather than crown regiments, the mutineers constituted a regular, external force, which would justify the award of battle honours, but I personally can't help but suspect that those sepoys who mutinied were regarded as more alien than Jacobites or American rebels because of their skin tones more than anything else... :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.208.0 ( talk) 02:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether it should be the "Government Army" or "British Army". The argument that both sides were British may be true but at the end of the day the official name of the military force is the " British Army". QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The section "Collapse of the Jacobite campaign" states that Scalpay is between Harris and Lewis. This is not correct. It also indicates (in the same sentence) that each of Harris and Lewis is an Island; that is also incorrect.
Harris and Lewis are two parts of one island, not two islands.
Scalpay is south of North Harris, which in turn is south of Lewis, and east of South Harris; the article would be less inaccurate if it claimed instead that Scalpay is between South Harris and North Harris, but even that is not correct. It would be better to say that Scalpay is off the the coast of Harris. In Gàidhlig, this Scalpay (there is anther Scalpaidh off the coast of Skye( is called "Sclapaidh na h-Earradh" (Scalpay Harris) and is never associated with Lewis other than through Harris.
I think these errors in the article arise because (a) the link between N and S Harris is a very narrow strip of land and can be confused as not joining the two parts together and (b) a lot of non-Hebridean people think that the boundary between Harris and Lewis is at Tarbert, on that strip, rather than signicicantly north of there (Scaladale and KinReasort are in Harris, not Lewis), so there is enough of Lewis north of Tarbert to fit the whole of Scalpay in about a dozen times - in fact even the areas of N Harris futher south than Tarbert is as big as the area of Scalpay. Michealt ( talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There are following battles
according to [10]. -- 88.78.251.59 ( talk) 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)