Talk:Battle of Culloden

Manchester Regiment

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)

Weapon statistics

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)

Go on GoogleBooks and search "2,320 firelocks", and the ref will pop up. Here's the statement: "Even if some allowance is made for units which are known not to have carried broadswords, such as the 'French' regulars, this suggests that no more than one in five of the 1,000-odd Highlanders killed at Culloden were armed with broadswords". So that makes sense, it's not complicated: 190 goes into 1,000 no more than five times, that's a fact. I think the 'something else' that is being assumed is that during a retreat there's a tendency for soldiers to ditch their heavy kit that only hinders their escape - in this case the firelock. The totally skewed firelock/dead ratio must have to do with battlefield-survivors throwing down their cumbersome firelocks during the retreat. A member of my family was at Dunkirk in 1940, and the story was that their 'ticket on the boat' was 'a rifle per man'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:21, 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)

Confusing Maps

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)

Error in page

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 just fixed it. It says "far left" now.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Handel's oratorio Judas Maccabaeus

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)

French involvement?

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)

Those articles combined have one source and two footnotes. Look up the articles Irish Brigade (French) and Garde Écossaise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:04, 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)

Query About Neutrality of Entry

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 British government wasn't Hanoverian

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)

NPOV, Factual Errors, Unreliable Sources.

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)

Help Requested

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.

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).

the battlefield in the 1950's

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)

Yes, what you have mentioned is a traditional story of the Clan MacBain. It could well be true but I doubt that there is any contemporary evidence to prove it. It's quite a good story though I have to admit. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

small points

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)

Battle of Culloden

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)MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Praise for Editing and Revising This Article

This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Praise for Editing and Revising This Article

This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped improve it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Query About Duplicate Posts

Can anyone tell me how to remove a remark that has been posted twice instead of once? I'll be grateful. macLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to query

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.

macLennan123Maclennan123 (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)

Government or British ?

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)

I think is is more important to make it clear which side won, than to use the winning force's correct official title. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If the full title of British Army were being used I would say that British was appropriate, although it was probably called the royal army at this point. The opposite of Jacobites is Hanoverians, does that help?--SabreBD (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The British Army was not called the royal army, unlike the Royal Navy (and later the RAF), due to the Civil War when Parliament claimed the right to control the Army. Hanover was a completely independent state separate from Britain, Hanoverian means the forces of the state of Hanover, not Britain.--Britannicus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a legal fiction that the army was founded after the Restoration and Hanoverian has several meanings, which include a follower of the House of Hanover. If not not we need to edit the disamb page for Hanoverian.--SabreBD (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If Hanoverian has several meanings it will be best not to use it. Let's call the British Army the British Army.--Britannicus (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been officially known as the British Army since 1707 and this battle was in 1746.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in using British army to describe the army, but British is probably a bit confusing. We could of course do a survey and see what major books use, but the Hanoverian suggestion is a bit not worth arguing about unless it gets more support here than just my suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

When both the participating armies were mostly British, saying that the "British Army" won is unhelpful. "Hanoverian" is not ideal, but is at least unambiguous in the context: one of the armies was fighting in support of the House of Hanover, the other, against it. Incidentally, this issue has been discussed before, here. Maproom (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed a bit of the link.--SabreBD (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath - Geography

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)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected the article. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List

There are following battles

1. Battle of Drumclog - 1679
2. Battle of Bothwell Bridge - 1679
3. Battle of Sedgemoor - 1685
4. Battle of Killiecrankie - 1689
5. Battle of Sheriffmuir - 1715
6. Battle of Prestonpans - 1745
7. Battle of Falkirk II - 1746
8. Battle of Culloden - 1746

according to [1]. -- 88.78.251.59 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Culloden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://freespace.virgin.net/gerald.hughes/indexa.htm?http://freespace.virgin.net/gerald.hughes/history/cullcum.htm&content
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611095954/http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/282.html to http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/282.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611100402/http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=402 to http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=402
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611110942/http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=283 to http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=283
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611100729/http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=401 to http://www.nls.uk/maps/military/record.cfm?id=401

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)