Scottish Battlefields article

[macwilkin]

Culloden is perhaps a special case in that so many who fell or were subsequently butchered are buried on the site on the orders of the victorious army. This makes it not only a battlefield but also a war grave and, as such, has a special significance and reason to remain untouched. The normal practice of those days was for the dead and wounded to be taken away by their kinfolk and they would have been buried elsewhere which leaves such battlefields as interesting historical sites but little more. Whether they should be allowed to become building sites or anything else is debateable but just consider the battlefields of World War I where so many died and are still buried there, undiscovered, but where agriculture, road building and other development goes on.

As a former park ranger who worked at a American Civil War Battlefield, I'm not so sure I agree with Phil that a battlefield with no graves is somehow less worthy of preservation than those that do, such as the battlefields of Western France.

At our battlefield, the majority of the dead were reinterred in a National Cemetery in Springfield in 1867, or in some cases, claimed by family members. But the majority were simply not able to be identified, as military graves registration had simply not been developed at that time as it is today. Soldiers might pin pieces of paper with their next-of-kin's name and residence to their uniforms, or purchased "dog tags" from sutlers, but even that was no guarantee of proper identification if killed. Many of them lie under "unknown" tombstones in the National Cemetery. If we allow the battlefield where they were killed to be destroyed, then their legacy will be destroyed along with it.

Regardless of where the dead lie, a battlefield still is a national shrine, and an important educational tool for future generations.

T.

[kiltimabar]

Having visited many Civil War battlefields, I was familiar with the fact that many, but not all, have cemeteries associated with them (eg. Stones River, Gettysburg, Shiloh) while others (Manassas) had removed the bodies to local cemeteries. Then when I visited the Revolutionary War battlefield of Saratoga (1777), I asked where the casualties were buried, and I was told "All around--in that day, soldiers were buried where they fell." All were unmarked, except for General Simon Fraser. Although some local casualties might have been retrieved by families, most would not have been. Thus, the Concord (1775)cemetery has local American kia, but at the foot of Old North Bridge there are several British soldiers' graves. And they keep finding new bodies on battlefields of all wars--Little Big Horn (1876), Civil War, WWI-II, Vietnam, etc.

Get to the point, Dave.

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

[KFCarter]

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

I agree.

"...the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract..." Lincoln's Gettysburg address

These places will always be hallowed ground.

[macwilkin]

Get to the point, Dave.

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

Well said, Dave.

Todd

[Scotus]

All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.

[macwilkin]

I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.

And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.

T.

[Scotus]

And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.

T.

But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.

[macwilkin]

But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.

On "my" battlefield, we have a sinkhole that contained the bodies of 34 Union soldiers hastily buried after the battle. The remains were later exhumed and removed to the National Cemetery in Springfied. While not technically a grave, I always asked visitors to treat it as such, because soldiers killed at Wilson's Creek had been buried there at one time, and therefore had "hallowed" the ground in a sense.

T.

[Phil]

As a former park ranger who worked at a American Civil War Battlefield, I'm not so sure I agree with Phil that a battlefield with no graves is somehow less worthy of preservation than those that do, such as the battlefields of Western France.

I didn't say thay were less worthy, just that their significance was perhaps less. The warships sunk at Pearl Harbour and at Scapa Flow are designated war graves and respected as such. We have sites of battles fought by the the Covenanters (a virtual Civil War in which thousands died - Drumclog, Bothwell Bridge, Rullion Green), those of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Prestonpans, Culloden), Jacobites of JamesII (Sheriffmuir & Killiecrankie), other older ones such as Flodden, Bannockburn, Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, and even ones going back to Roman times such as Mons Graupius against the Picts (whose location is uncertain). You could actually reach the stage where a significant part of the country had to be preserved for all time as a result. All I was really trying to say was that while there should be respect for these historic sites where do you draw the line?

[macwilkin]

I didn't say thay were less worthy, just that their significance was perhaps less. The warships sunk at Pearl Harbour and at Scapa Flow are designated war graves and respected as such. We have sites of battles fought by the the Covenanters (a virtual Civil War in which thousands died - Drumclog, Bothwell Bridge, Rullion Green), those of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Prestonpans, Culloden), Jacobites of JamesII (Sheriffmuir & Killiecrankie), other older ones such as Flodden, Bannockburn, Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, and even ones going back to Roman times such as Mons Graupius against the Picts (whose location is uncertain). You could actually reach the stage where a significant part of the country had to be preserved for all time as a result. All I was really trying to say was that while there should be respect for these historic sites where do you draw the line?

I'm sorry, but I disagree again in regards to you use of the word "sigificance". The battlefield where I worked at "only" had 537 killed, but yet the battle was significant in that it 1) kept Missouri in the Union and 2) was a "training ground" of sorts for many of its participants, who went on to serve in other battles during the War, thus gaining valuable combat experience. While casualities should never be dismissed, you're only looking at one aspect of a battlefield's overall history.

T.