View previous topic | View next topic

Culloden

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

MatC
69273.  Thu May 11, 2006 5:08 am Reply with quote

Q: Who fought who at the battle of Culloden?
F: England vs Scotland.
A: It was a clear case of Scot-on-Scot violence.

Notes:
According to Prof Ted Cowan, professor of Scottish history at Glasgow University, Culloden is “mistakenly” described as a battle between England and Scotland. In fact, there were more Scots fighting for the Government than for the Jacobite rebellion.

“Culloden was not actually a battle between Scotland and England. There were Scots and English on both sides. But the authorities in London hijacked the victory and portrayed it as beating the rebellious Scots.”

Source: Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2006.

So in other words - there were more Scots fighting for “England” than for “Scotland.” This fits with other posts, on the nature of the allegiances in the American “War of Independence.”

 
Flash
69288.  Thu May 11, 2006 7:01 am Reply with quote

That's good stuff. Coincidentally, I've encountered a couple of unexpected participants in wars over the past week: Zouaves (a crack French light infantry unit who dressed like Moroccan tribesmen) fought in the American Civil War in their fezzes (though I haven't yet discovered for which side). And there was an England v Holland naval engagement at Dogger Bank which was somehow or other regarded as part of the American War of Independence.

 
Flash
69292.  Thu May 11, 2006 7:10 am Reply with quote

Posting that goaded me into finding out one of the answers, at least: seems these were American Zouaves, modelled on the French ones and wearing the uniform but not actually French:

Quote:
In peacetime, the American Zouaves were a brilliant spectacle in their North African-inspired attire. According to one account, the Zouave uniform consisted of "A short, collarless jacket; a sleeveless vest (gilet); voluminous trousers (serouel); 12-foot long woolen sash (ceinture); white canvas leggings (guetres); leather greaves (jambieres); and of course the tasseled fez (chechia) and turban (cheche)." No camouflage for these warriors!

At first, the American version of the Zouaves seemed just for show, suited to shine at a Fourth of July parade. But when the Civil War came, the Zouaves' exploits for the Union were as brave as their uniforms. They were said to act "as though warfare were merely a game and their lives simply the table stakes." General George B. McClellan, using an appropriately French phrase, called the Zouave the "beau-ideal" of a soldier.

 
MatC
69305.  Thu May 11, 2006 8:03 am Reply with quote

I love that. So a question along the lines of "Who wore fezzes into battle?" with the highly unexpected answer "The Yankees."

Did we ever use the fez stuff which began at post 1726?

 
MatC
69311.  Thu May 11, 2006 8:37 am Reply with quote

The Scottish tourist site confirms the Culloden myth:

“The powerful Clan Campbell was to the fore at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 as well. Their militia took the government side against the 5,000 rebel Jacobites and was part of the 9,000-strong British army which included three other regiments of Lowland Scots. Subsequent Jacobite mythology has obscured the fact that more Scots took up arms against Bonnie Prince Charlie than for him. The popular interpretation of Culloden as a Scotland-England conflict is simply a myth.”

- www.visitscotland.com/aboutscotland/history/Clans_at_culloden

 
Flash
69548.  Fri May 12, 2006 9:31 am Reply with quote

If you tried to make a film about the '45 which was accurate on this point, you wouldn't get to first base, would you? You wouldn't sell a single ticket.

Let's do it.

 
MatC
69572.  Fri May 12, 2006 11:02 am Reply with quote

Even better, let’s make an entire 30-part TV series, called “Great Moments in History,” cunningly pre-sell it to the US, and then fill it entirely with debunkings of cherished Hollywood-approved myths, most particularly those involving Ireland, Scotland, and WW2. It would be the first example in world history when an entire nation dies overnight of a sense of baffled betrayal.

 
gerontius grumpus
153620.  Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:43 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
If you tried to make a film about the '45 which was accurate on this point, you wouldn't get to first base, would you? You wouldn't sell a single ticket.

Let's do it.


Mel Gibson wouldn't have anything to do with it anyway.

 
sheenareid
252239.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:55 am Reply with quote

I would like to point out that Charles Edward Stuart was Roman Catholic.
The only reason that George I was chosen to sit on the throne was because he was Protestant. Charles was the rightful King.

 
dr.bob
252265.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:02 am Reply with quote

Depends what you mean by "rightful", really. There hasn't exactly been a good history of monarchy descending through strict familial lines in the past, and there have been a few dodgy claimants to the throne long before Charlie or George came on the scene *cough*Henry VII!*cough*

Also, as a result of the so-called "Glorious" revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights, and the Scottish Claim of Right Act, laid down some important rules which would form the basis of Britain's parliamentary democracy. Whilst some of the blatantly anti-Catholic tenets of the Bill of Rights are regretful, one of the core ideas of the Bill of Rights was that the monarch would no longer be able to wield absolute power which, I can't help thinking, was a bloody good idea.

It also established the right of parliament to appoint whoever they damn well liked as monarch. Given that precedence in law, it's hard to argue about "rightful" monarchs and, to be honest, I'm quite glad about that.

 
sheenareid
252277.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:35 am Reply with quote

Dear Dr Bob,
yes I'm inclined to agree with all you say.
The Stuarts were also inclined to get carried away with their position, goaded I think by Louis (whichever at the time) in France.

 
dr.bob
253511.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:53 am Reply with quote

While we're on the subject of "rightful" succession, does anyone know when the Scottish kings started inheriting the throne from their fathers? I was under the impression that early on, around the time of MacBeth, the throne tended to be passed to the next senior person within the clan, who may or may not have been related to the previous king. I wonder when that changed.

 
Flash
253548.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:21 am Reply with quote

I'll let someone else answer that (ie, I have no idea), and I hope they do because I think this is an interesting area of General Ignorance: we're all conditioned to assume that primogeniture is the natural order of things (fairy tales in general, The Return of the King, The Lion King, and our present constitutional arrangements being among the sources that tell us so). This assumption seems quite pervasive across cultures even when they are ostensibly republican and anti-aristocratic - how else do you explain Napoleon III, Bilawal Bhutto and George Bush jr, amongst others? There seems to be an underlying tendency for democracies to resolve themselves into dynasties (to a greater extent than can be explained by chance, anyway). So is that human nature?

 
Davini994
253714.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:25 am Reply with quote

I would say socialogical reasons Flash, without any evidence.

i.e. money, class, expectations of parents and general population, knowledge and culture passed on, all that sort of business.

The Gandhi dynasty always seems a funny one to me, with them being the family of Nehru not Gandhi.

 
Flash
253750.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:43 am Reply with quote

Yes, an expectation that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, I guess.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group