Scottish Battlefields article

[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.