Talk:Battle of Culloden

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)