Culloden

[slohairt]

It also reminds us that all historical conflicts and struggles were never as cut and dry or black and white as some would make them seem to be. Indeed as some would desperately like them to be. There is something deep within the human psyche that desires strongly for a cause to be simple and high-minded, for these things stir the heart and are the source of much romantic fable. It's never true of the real situation, however, as every conflict has many layers and many twists and turns. Some of these were even well known at the time, while others were unearthed much later through research.

With the passing of time, it becomes a struggle that never was. A story fit only for a child's book. Unfortunately, there are those who take this to be an exact interpretation of history and use it as some rallying call. We've all seen some newbies who appear on the forum who'd make you think the Jacobite cause was alive and well! They're just waiting for some Bonnie Prince to ask them to take up targe and claymore, sally forth across the ocean, and regain the Scotland of old!

I'm well acquainted with this phenomenon as I come from a land whose ex-pats are often notorious for over-simplifying issues with the passing of time and distance.

The theme I have always taken from the story of Culloden was the folly of a man's ambition and his willingness to drag everyone and everything down with him. Good people were led to believe they were fighting for something for themselves and they paid the ultimate price of his ambition for years to come. Ironically it was the near-destruction of the culture which they were first duped into believing they were defending. Very sad.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The theme I have always taken from the story of Culloden was the folly of a man's ambition and his willingness to drag everyone and everything down with him. Good people were led to believe they were fighting for something for themselves and they paid the ultimate price of his ambition for years to come. Ironically it was the near-destruction of the culture which they were first duped into believing they were defending. Very sad.

Really? And suppose the Jacobites had won. Would you then consider the Duke of Cumberland a mountebank for having duped his troops into fighting to support his father's claim to the throne?

[slohairt]

Really? And suppose the Jacobites had won. Would you then consider the Duke of Cumberland a mountebank for having duped his troops into fighting to support his father's claim to the throne?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you creating a 'what-if' version of history? Suppose the Stuarts had succeeded in reclaiming the throne of Great Britain. The former king flees to the Continent and his son comes back much later, makes a celebrated landing in Wales (or maybe Cornwall) and rallies the Welsh to his father's standard. The Welsh eagerly take up arms, some believing their culture or way of life will be protected in the newly restored regime, or at least no longer subject to increased Anglicisation or maginalisation. When the Duke is later defeated and flees, these same Welsh are mercilessly put down, laws are created to prohibit many of their cultural trappings, and the Anglicisation and marginalisation of their society is 'stepped up a notch'. So, would I then say the Duke duped these Welshmen and used them to further his own ends? Yes.

The truth is, this Anglicisation and marginalisation of Highland culture had started long before 1707. Some Highlanders may have thought (and were likely led to believe) that this would perhaps be halted. We know that probably wouldn't have been the case, but certainly it wouldn't have taken the drastic downturn it did after Culloden.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you creating a 'what-if' version of history? Suppose the Stuarts had succeeded in reclaiming the throne of Great Britain. The former king flees to the Continent and his son comes back much later, makes a celebrated landing in Wales (or maybe Cornwall) and rallies the Welsh to his father's standard. The Welsh eagerly take up arms, some believing their culture or way of life will be protected in the newly restored regime, or at least no longer subject to increased Anglicisation or maginalisation. When the Duke is later defeated and flees, these same Welsh are mercilessly put down, laws are created to prohibit many of their cultural trappings, and the Anglicisation and marginalisation of their society is 'stepped up a notch'. So, would I then say the Duke duped these Welshmen and used them to further his own ends? Yes.

I think you've missed the point-- it's not about "what if", but rather your stated position that due to the alleged vanity of one man-- presumably you mean Prince Charles or his father, the de jure King James-- the Scots (and some English and Irish as well) were duped into going to war. It seems to me that the suggestion that those who are defeated in any conflict are dupes is a rather, indeed extremely, cynical attitude as it either ignores or fails to take into consideration the deeply held convictions of those who rallied to the flag on both sides of the conflict. Their loyalty-- Hanovarian or Jacobite-- was a matter of genuine personal conviction, not the result of some confidence trick concocted in London or Paris.

The truth is, this Anglicisation and marginalisation of Highland culture had started long before 1707. Some Highlanders may have thought (and were likely led to believe) that this would perhaps be halted. We know that probably wouldn't have been the case, but certainly it wouldn't have taken the drastic downturn it did after Culloden.

I agree that with or without Culloden the traditional way of life in the 18th century Highlands was doomed to be dragged into the modern era, and that it was a process that had its roots firmly planted in the 16th century. In my opinion the Highland people of the 18th century could not have survived as they were simply because time had passed them by, leaving in its wake the inevitability of profound cultural change.

[Lachlan09]

I was led to believe the Government army saw off the Jacobite attacks and had them on the run all in well less than an hour.

John Prebble, in his definitive work, “Culloden”, opined that what the Government troops saw arrayed in front of them that morning was the last feudal army in Britain. He also suggested that the average Redcoat looking toward the Jacobite lines must have harboured a similar level of feelings of kinship and empathy to those of a 19th Century British redcoat facing a Zulu impi.

[slohairt]

I think you've missed the point-- it's not about "what if", but rather your stated position that due to the alleged vanity of one man-- presumably you mean Prince Charles or his father, the de jure King James-- the Scots (and some English and Irish as well) were duped into going to war. It seems to me that the suggestion that those who are defeated in any conflict are dupes is a rather, indeed extremely, cynical attitude as it either ignores or fails to take into consideration the deeply held convictions of those who rallied to the flag on both sides of the conflict. Their loyalty-- Hanovarian or Jacobite-- was a matter of genuine personal conviction, not the result of some confidence trick concocted in London or Paris. I agree that with or without Culloden the traditional way of life in the 18th century Highlands was doomed to be dragged into the modern era, and that it was a process that had its roots firmly planted in the 16th century. In my opinion the Highland people of the 18th century could not have survived as they were simply because time had passed them by, leaving in its wake the inevitability of profound cultural change.

I think, when it comes to nobles of that time period or earlier, there were few who could not be considered vain and power-hungry to some degree. I don't consider my viewpoint to cynical in the slightest, merely a realistic observation. I never suggested that all people who are defeated in any conflict are 'duped', I meant a certain segment of the Jacobites in the '45 specifically: Those who felt they were defending Highland culture. True, many Jacobites and Hanoverians did have genuine loyalty to their respective leaders, but there were many would have also switched sides the moment it was politically expedient. I think that James (and later Charlie) would have followed his 17th Century predecessors and set up himself up in a London court. He would maintained the centralist authority bequeathed to him by the Act of Union, forgetting about Scotland and the Highlanders in particular. The Stewarts did, after all, have a very short and turbulent history at the helm of Great Britain.