After the '45

[John Little]

Right. I have a gap in my knowledge and there's a plug of knowledge in it that does not fit.

I am not after any irony or controversy but genuinely want to know from someone who is up on Scottish History.

The accepted version of what happened after Culloden is that Cumberland's army brought fire, mayhem, massacre and injustice to the Highlands and crushed the clans etc etc etc.

I know that - but in my head it does not stack up.

If I think about the 18th century army, it moved at about 10 miles a day along roads that barely existed. It wore bright red coats and drew its recruits, not from the finest physical specimens. but from the dregs of society. It fought in lines and was viciously drilled in formal battle. Essentially they were weeds, drunkards, convicts, social misfits etc etc - as Wellington was to call them later - the scum of the earth. Indeed the quality of the average redcoat was so bad that in order to fight in the American colonies thousands of Hessian mercenaries were hired.

I cannot square the picture of these less than perfect soldiers chasing fit highland warriors over their own hills- men used to guerilla war, clan wars, perfectly used to their climate, knowing their territory by heart etc.

Basically, the moment that army came off a formal battlefield it should have been open season on redcoats, ambushes from behind every boulder, a musket at the top of every cliff and sword charges after dark.

So what did happen?

[golach]

Among those clans who fought with the Prince at Culloden were: Cameron, Chisholm, Drummond, Farquharson, Ferguson, Fraser, Gordon, Grant, Innes, MacDonald, MacDonell, MacGillvray, MacGregor, MacInnes, MacIntyre, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, MacKintosh, MacLachlan, MacLeod or Raasay, MacPherson, Menzies, Murray, Ogilvy, Robertson, and Stewart of Appin.

Many of these clans were virtually wiped out at Culloden including their chiefs, this brought the old established clan system into a state of chaos. The passing of the Act of Proscription in 1747, made the life of living in the old Clan way impossible, No wearing of your clan colours (Tartan) No carrying of Arms and No Ownership of a Gaelic Bible, anyone of these "Crimes" were punishable by imprisonment or death or transportation.
35 thousand Highlnders were either killed or transported between 1747 and 1822 when the act was repealed.
No one can fight back against organised troops if you have no weapons.
And many of the Red Coats were Lowland Scots, they treated the Highlanders worse than the English.

[Kodiak]

There are several reasons why the Clans were defeated. One was that they had tried a Suprise attack on the English during the night. Due to the terrain and the wet conditions they were unable to carry this attack through. So they had to retreat and reform at Culloden.

They arrived there at dawn and they were Wet, Hungry and Completely Exhausted. They were also in the wrong place as the part of the field where they found themselves was now a sea of Mud. Due to this there were virtually stuck there and unable to move either back of forward.

So the English started their attack by firing their rifles at a distance and the Clansmen could not get close enough to counter attack due to the muddy terrain. They ground the English were on was fairly firm and they just stood there firing their rifles while the Highlanders struggled through the Mud in vain trying to attack the English. But to no avail as majority of them were killed where they floundered exhausted. The final few fled the field of Death. So they never stood any chance at all.

[NickInTheNorth]

35 thousand Highlnders were either killed or transported between 1747 and 1822 when the act was repealed.
No one can fight back against organised troops if you have no weapons.
And many of the Red Coats were Lowland Scots, they treated the Highlanders worse than the English.

Is it any wonder that the highlander had little love of "Sassenachs" either in it's original meaning, or it's more usual connotation today

[Green_not_greed]

I agree with what's already been posted in response to JL's question.

The other factor is that of weaponry. The southern cannon and muskets had little if any opposing weapons which could cover the same distance, so a clear advantage was to be had. The cannon fired 3lb balls of iron and lead, plus grape shot and case shot. The highlanders had swords, dirks and probably a small number of pistols and muskets.

In contrast, in the later colonial wars in the US, the redcoats were up against men who were at least as well armed - though not as well drilled - as themselves.

[Green_not_greed]

It looks like the Jacobites may have had a few cannon too but never used them.

A fair account of the battle can be found at http://www.harris-academy.com/departments/history/culloden/culloden.kendra.htm

[Kodiak]

It looks like the Jacobites may have had a few cannon too but never used them.

A fair account of the battle can be found at http://www.harris-academy.com/departments/history/culloden/culloden.kendra.htm

I would not put too much stock in that as it was written by a 2nd year Pupil, a 12 year old, from the Harris Academy, Dundee.

I have just looked it up, my above post was written from memory, and the link below is a much better description of what happened. :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden

[northener]

It looks like the Jacobites may have had a few cannon too but never used them.

A fair account of the battle can be found at http://www.harris-academy.com/departments/history/culloden/culloden.kendra.htm

Yup, their artillery was ineffective.

Once the cause had been broken on the field of Culloden, the Highlanders social and military infrastructure was broken. It was a relatively straightforward task to work through the Highlands stripping out any possible resistance before it became organised.

It may seem odd that this crushing of any resistance and its associated Acts were not repealed until 1822. But what you have to bear in mind is that Britain was going through a period of great upheaval in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. As late as 1815 there were suspicions of 'Jacobite' sympathisers agitating in the manufacturing districts of northern England. So the threat from the Highlands was still regarded as a very real one.

As a side note, the repression of the Highlanders was not something unique. During the Napoleonic wars there were more British troops deployed in Yorkshire and Lancashire to quell any violent uprisings than Wellington had at the same time in the Peninsular War......
Had these people risen up en masse, I have no doubt that they would have been dealt with as ruthlessly as their Highland neighbours. In fact you only have to look at how demonstrations were dealt with in places like Peterloo to get an idea of just what lengths the Government were prepared to go to to secure 'stability'. But that's for another day, maybe.

[sandyr1]

Thank you all for the informative replies.. An excellent thread! I shall continue reading.......

[The Drunken Duck]

Did the Highland Charge not come a cropper because the Redcoats worked out that instead of attacking the man in front of them they should attack the man to the right ??, with the Highlanders holding a shield in the left arm and brandishing a sword with the right this left their right side exposed when raising the sword to strike.

I used to live beside Culloden battlefield, I always found it a sad and melancholy place. Could be bright sunshine or rainy and overcast and it always felt the same. Still if you look back at the aftermath, as brutal as the treatment of the Highland way of life was, it undoubtedly enabled Highland Scots to make a great influence on the world. Look at Canada, Australia and New Zealand whose history is full of Scottish influence. I once met a US Air Force Colonel who had the same Clan surname as me and treated me like I was his best mate and not a mere Corporal. And once the British Army wised up and recruited the Highlanders they soon saw and recognised the qualities and fighting abilities of the men they had once brutalised.

[pegasus]

Among those clans who fought with the Prince at Culloden were: Cameron, Chisholm, Drummond, Farquharson, Ferguson, Fraser, Gordon, Grant, Innes, MacDonald, MacDonell, MacGillvray, MacGregor, MacInnes, MacIntyre, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, MacKintosh, MacLachlan, MacLeod or Raasay, MacPherson, Menzies, Murray, Ogilvy, Robertson, and Stewart of Appin.

Many of these clans were virtually wiped out at Culloden including their chiefs, this brought the old established clan system into a state of chaos. The passing of the Act of Proscription in 1747, made the life of living in the old Clan way impossible, No wearing of your clan colours (Tartan) No carrying of Arms and No Ownership of a Gaelic Bible, anyone of these "Crimes" were punishable by imprisonment or death or transportation.
35 thousand Highlnders were either killed or transported between 1747 and 1822 when the act was repealed.
No one can fight back against organised troops if you have no weapons.
And many of the Red Coats were Lowland Scots, they treated the Highlanders worse than the English.
golach is right - Many of these clans were virtually wiped out at Culloden including their chiefs, this brought the old established clan system into a state of chaos.

the scots were amassed and ordered to stand there ground by the idiot "bonnie" prince charlie who the scots held in such high esteem whilkst the "english" army consisting of many foreign mercenaries blew them apargt with canon fire.

the english then were tol dto go on the rampage, raping and killing anyhting they came across.

a disgusting episoide

[John Little]

Excellent replies all so far.

It's the aftermath of the battle I am particularly interested in because I have always found it odd that 18th century redcoats could quell the entire Highlands. I've done some walking in Scotland and I would think that determined resistance could have annihilated the redcoats in those deep glens and wildernesses. I try to imagine Redcoats yomping up the side of Glencoe or over the Grampians and it ain't easy.

Golach indicates that the clan system was fragmented - which is a pointer. But what was the immediate aftermath - and in actual fact, how much resistance was there?

Also interesting on the lowland Scots. Was this a Whig army against Jacobites?

[The Drunken Duck]

Good questions John.

Embarrassed to admit that I need to go read up on that bit of History a bit more before I dare to answer .. :(

[Duncansby]

I think we need to be careful not to generalise (or romanticise) the battle as being one between Highlanders and English. It wasn’t; it was a conflict with political and religious origins. Highlanders could be found in the government forces, whilst Englishmen could be found on the Jacobite lines. Althought the '45 rebellion had a more Highland focus than the 'Old Pretender's' 1715 rebellion which saw a sizeable revolt break out in England.

Yes Little John, the government of the time where Whig and were opposed to the Stuart claim of absolute monarchy. As a protestant nation the Stuart’s catholic faith also failed to win them support. This began when James II converted to Catholicism in the late seventeenth century leading to his eventual exile to France; allowing his son-in-law to ascend to the throne.

[squidge]

This isnt my time period im afraid so i might be a bit out of date or wrong - There has always been i beleive a history of professional soldiering in the English Army. Whilst scottish clan chiefs gathered their men from their clans - they might be farmers, or woodsmen or others less likely to be professional soldiers or mercenaries and therefore less well versed int he finer arts of war. Also seems like BonniePrince Charlie struggled with his tactics and therefore they were always likely to struggle.

The march the night before indeed took place and last year some of my re enactment buddies walked in their footsteps and found it really really difficult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8001480.stm

Also well worth a visit to the visitors centre at the battlefield. Its a bit pricey but if you are interested the information is first class. Not great for the bairns though unless they are a bit older.

In addition Battlescar were up at Noss head last year doing a jacobite
re enactment/history thing - if they come north again then definitely try to see them - Ian Devenney is a great source of information as well as being a great lad!!!! Catch the pics here http://www.caithness.org/fpb/2009/august/gallery.php?gallery=1&start=0

[The Drunken Duck]

The Army that stood at Culloden was the British Army. Had been since 1707 and the Act of Union. And the very Highlanders that were persecuted after the '45 were later incorporated into the British Army and were widely acknowledged to be exceptional soldiers who gained nicknames like "Petticoated Devils" such as in the Indian rebellion or the famous "Ladies from Hell" bestowed on them by the Germans in World War I.

Rory Bremner did a great Documentary which is worth a look as it gives a good insight into how the Highlanders became part of, and eventually admired and respected, by the very army that they fought against at Culloden, it also covers the 45 Rebellion and the Battle of Culloden itself .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktrCbEyM8DM .. that's part 1, the other five link into it.

The Highlanders must have done something right to get as far as Derby despite their formal lack of military training though. But then .. how much training does it take to wield a sword or dirk ??

[squidge]

The Army that stood at Culloden was the British Army. Had been since 1707 and the Act of Union. And the very Highlanders that were persecuted after the '45 were later incorporated into the British Army and were widely acknowledged to be exceptional soldiers who gained nicknames like "Petticoated Devils" such as in the Indian rebellion or the famous "Ladies from Hell" bestowed on them by the Germans in World War I.




Ooooooooooooh I wasnt implying they weren't fierce or passionate or committed - crikey I daren't suggest that. I was just pondering whether they may have been less organised and less well advised. Thats all - honest!!!!!:eek:

I'll just slink back to concentrating on the siege of Caerlaverock for this weekend. History through the ages for those within reach of this triangular castle http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertyoverview.htm?PropID=PL_047&PropName=Caerlaverock%20Castle

[Bazeye]

Did the Highland Charge not come a cropper because the Redcoats worked out that instead of attacking the man in front of them they should attack the man to the right ??, with the Highlanders holding a shield in the left arm and brandishing a sword with the right this left their right side exposed when raising the sword to strike.


Hardly new at the time as the Romans used that method.

[The Drunken Duck]

Ooooooooooooh I wasnt implying they weren't fierce or passionate or committed - crikey I daren't suggest that. I was just pondering whether they may have been less organised and less well advised. Thats all - honest!!!!!:eek:

I'll just slink back to concentrating on the siege of Caerlaverock for this weekend. History through the ages for those within reach of this triangular castle http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertyoverview.htm?PropID=PL_047&PropName=Caerlaverock%20Castle

Wrong end of the stick mate !! .. that bit was just me waffling .. ;)

I was just pointing out that the Government Army was British and not English as you had described it.

[John Little]

There were a lot of highlanders who were not at Culloden and who had not taken up arms against the government.

Did they resist the quelling of the highlands and the proscription?

I would think that to take on some of what had been some of the finest fighters in the world on their own ground you would need some of their ilk.

Campbell involvement??

[northener]

Support for the Stuart cause certainly wasn't a Scotland-wide thing as you rightly observe, John.

There was a notable lack of support from clans in this neck of the woods and in the Lowlands. Something that certain misty-eyed romanticists forget when they talk about Scotlands' history.

[rich]

Has anyone mentioned General Wade's excellent roads, ideal for military traffic?

As a footnote, Flora MacDonald - rescuer of Bonnie Prince Charlie (BPC) - fled with her husband to the Carolinas. When the American Revolution began they returned home to Skye because they preferred to live under a monarch.

Dr. Johnson and Bosweff met her on Skye in 1777 in the course of their epic hike through Scotland.

The only reason I mention this because it says something about real-life politics in the 18th century as opposed to the nationalist mumbo-jumbo.

(By the way, I am continuing with my studies of great, historical psychopaths. SO far nobody matches the diagnostic requirements. Can you help me out Fred?)

[rich]

Bosweff????
Whoops!
Sorry....
For Bosweff substitute Boswell. Thank you all!

[rich]

The Black Watch was raised in 1725 from clans loyal to the Church of Sctland and the Hanoverian succession.

They wore a dark coloured tartan and were armed with musket, bayonet, broadsword, a dirk and a pistol.

They were not present at the Battle of Culloden. Had they been there is little doubt for whom they would have fought - the government side.

[davie]

Has anyone mentioned General Wade's excellent roads, ideal for military traffic?


As I understand it Wade's roads were built especially to get Govt military traffic to the more remote areas of Highland "dissent".
Nothing at all to do with Tesco delivering to Thurso or Ullapool [lol]

[northener]

Bosweff????
Whoops!
Sorry....
For Bosweff substitute Boswell. Thank you all!

I'm disappointed and confused now.

I thought you meant Beowulf. Am I now to believe that Grendel was not fighting on the Hanoverian side?:confused

[rich]

Northerner, Leave Grendel alone or I'll tell his mother on you!

[rich]

Here is an excellent web site on Wade's road as taken by the Highland army.

http://cycling.visitscotland.com/find_route/highlands/corrieyairack_pass

[rich]

And here's the famous painting by David Morier.

This was painted in 1746 and the Highland tartans seem to have nothing to do with clan loyalties.

http://www.britishbattles.com/battle_of_culloden.htm

[davie]

One of the (ever)lasting memorials to the post '45 era is of course Fort George.
It became home depot to the Seaforth Highlanders but I have no idea if it was manned by the Black Watch or English Gubmint troops originally.

I spent some time there is days gone by and its a kind of forbidding place. :eek:

[rob murray]

Excellent replies all so far.

It's the aftermath of the battle I am particularly interested in because I have always found it odd that 18th century redcoats could quell the entire Highlands. I've done some walking in Scotland and I would think that determined resistance could have annihilated the redcoats in those deep glens and wildernesses. I try to imagine Redcoats yomping up the side of Glencoe or over the Grampians and it ain't easy.

Golach indicates that the clan system was fragmented - which is a pointer. But what was the immediate aftermath - and in actual fact, how much resistance was there?

Also interesting on the lowland Scots. Was this a Whig army against Jacobites?

In the lead upto Culloden, due to totally inept provisioning, a large part of the Jacobite army had wandered off in search of food, and in many cases to nip home for a few days. This meant that an estimate of c4,000 clansmen were not actually involved at Culloden. The day after the battle, the remnants of the Culloden battle force plus these stragglers rallied at Ruthven barracks and awaited word on what was to happen next ( ie around 4,000 armed and vengeful men ). The only person who wanted to fight at Culloden was the prince and his handful of "advisers", Lord George Murray ( general of the army ) and his leading officers wanted to disperse the forces into the hills to fight a guerilla campaign over the spring and summer of 1746, basically a holding position until the future became clearer ( to see if the much promised French help would arrive ) At Ruthven, word arrived from the Prince that it was every man for himself...ie throwing the towel in and leaving the army to themselves. The army burnt down Ruthven barracks and then dispersed.

What happened to these men and were there acts of resistance in the immediate years ? Firstly, the cause was over, the prince had decided that he would now play a political game once he got back to europe, hence there was no rational in continuing fighting. Secondly, many men simply faded back into local localities and kept there heads down. However government troop musters / company records of the period 1747 - 1754, the period the highlands ( or key parts of the Highlands...mostly in the west...Lochaber / Argyle / Rannoch ) record many instances of open law breaking as regards wearing the kilt, carrying weapons, clan hostilities and cattle thieving. In other words the clansmen of the 45, those that got away went back to their old lives. If you take resistance to mean organised armed resistance against the invading army then there was none as the game was over. If you take resistance to mean openly disobeying government laws, thieving, noising up / attacking red coats, then of course there was resistance and a lot of it. If the highland army and its support was completly shattered at Culloden, why did the government go to the expense of having troops stationed in the key outlaw territories of the West for 7 years ? The real heart of the Jacobite army lies in the West, so the army occupied this territory and not the entire Highlands / Grampians. Or rather they attempted to occupy it as large parts of Rannoch were declared out of bounds / real rebel territory or criminal territory as the government termed it.

There is a very good book written on this subject matter which uses source evidence ie company records etc. Also check out this link

http://www.electricscotland.com/HISTORY/rannoch15.htm (http://www.electricscotland.com/HISTORY/rannoch15.htm)

[rob murray]

Has anyone mentioned General Wade's excellent roads, ideal for military traffic?

As a footnote, Flora MacDonald - rescuer of Bonnie Prince Charlie (BPC) - fled with her husband to the Carolinas. When the American Revolution began they returned home to Skye because they preferred to live under a monarch.

Dr. Johnson and Bosweff met her on Skye in 1777 in the course of their epic hike through Scotland.

The only reason I mention this because it says something about real-life politics in the 18th century as opposed to the nationalist mumbo-jumbo.

(By the way, I am continuing with my studies of great, historical psychopaths. SO far nobody matches the diagnostic requirements. Can you help me out Fred?)

Flora Macdonald and her husband went to the Carolinas because they could not make the living they required in the Highlands, they did not flee, they were free to go. Alike many scots in the US they sided with the government as they had lived through a rebellion and, through first hand knowledge, held the view that irregular forces were no match for the British Army, hence they sided with the Brits, with Mr Macdonald holding a commission with a government regiment of UK ex pats. Having backed the wrong horse, they were forced to flee the US to avoid the violent repercussions of the winning side who confiscated land property and not because they prefered to live in a monarchy.

[rob murray]

Below is interesting as its taken from documented events and clearly shows that in many minds Culloden was a set back that the Highland army could bounce back from as 9,000 men were still at the Princes disposal the day after Culloden.

"In the confusion after Culloden, the men of FitzJames’ Horse led Prince Charles across the River Nairn at the Ford of Faillie to relative safety. It was here that Lord Elcho was reunited with the Prince and ‘found him in a deplorable state.’ The Prince was in shock and could not believe that his beloved Highlanders had failed to put the enemy to flight in the same way as they had at Prestonpans and Falkirk.

Lord Elcho asked if his Prince had orders for him and was less than impressed by the reply.

He told me that I might go anywhere I liked; as for himself, he was about to leave for France. I told him that I was surprised at a resolution so little worthy of a Prince of his birth, that it was unworthy to have engaged all this people to sacrifice itself for him, and to abandon it because he had possibly lost a thousand men in battle; that he ought to remain and out himself at the head of the 9,000 men that remained to him, and live and die with them. But these reasons made no impression on him. He told me he was determined to seek safety in France: whereupon I left him, thoroughly resolved never to have any more to do with him.

[rich]

Two good postings, Rob. What is the name of the book re. the Highland army going back home and living as they always had lived?

[John Little]

Below is interesting as its taken from documented events and clearly shows that in many minds Culloden was a set back that the Highland army could bounce back from as 9,000 men were still at the Princes disposal the day after Culloden.

"In the confusion after Culloden, the men of FitzJames’ Horse led Prince Charles across the River Nairn at the Ford of Faillie to relative safety. It was here that Lord Elcho was reunited with the Prince and ‘found him in a deplorable state.’ The Prince was in shock and could not believe that his beloved Highlanders had failed to put the enemy to flight in the same way as they had at Prestonpans and Falkirk.

Lord Elcho asked if his Prince had orders for him and was less than impressed by the reply.

He told me that I might go anywhere I liked; as for himself, he was about to leave for France. I told him that I was surprised at a resolution so little worthy of a Prince of his birth, that it was unworthy to have engaged all this people to sacrifice itself for him, and to abandon it because he had possibly lost a thousand men in battle; that he ought to remain and out himself at the head of the 9,000 men that remained to him, and live and die with them. But these reasons made no impression on him. He told me he was determined to seek safety in France: whereupon I left him, thoroughly resolved never to have any more to do with him.


That is quite illuminating. His grandfather did more or less the same thing after the Boyne. So what happened with the 9000?

[rob murray]

Two good postings, Rob. What is the name of the book re. the Highland army going back home and living as they always had lived?

Rich ,sorry been busy, see link below

http://www.amazon.co.uk/School-Moon-Highland-Cattle-raiding-Tradition/dp/1841583006

[rich]

Thanks for the book. I'll put in an order for it.

[rob murray]

Thanks for the book. I'll put in an order for it.

No problems, the period 1745 - 1760 is a really interesting one with many common misconceptions. It basically suited people to keep clear of this period of Scottish history, as it is very murky. The acceptable story of the period ie , the total annilihation at Culloden the bloody aftermath, leading to the end of the clan system, leading to the clearances suits some people ie the victors write history. The truth is somewhat different.

Did you know that the government troops at Culloden were amazed at the physiques of the highland warriors who lay dead on the field. They were indeed warriors and far superior to the troops that stood against them.

Also at Culloden, one of the only times in the battle that the Highlanders had a direct clash against formed redcoats that day , was against two Government regiments, who suffered over 35% dead and wounded ( almost all the wounded died ) in no more than 5 minutes, such was the ferocity of the Highlanders.

[sids]

From medieval times, the Stewarts could be relied upon to defeat themselves.