"Culloden: Anatomy of a Battle." Topic

"So far we've seen how it happened, we've seen why it happened, and we've seen what lead up to it. But what were the keys to victory and indeed the reasons for the defeat at Culloden?

Although his description of Culloden leaves much to be desired, Allan Mallinson does observe with his customary eye for soldierly conduct the key aspects that won Cumberland the day.

"The Forty-Five was yet another demonstration of the superiority of well-trained regulars, the devastating effect of volley fire, the winning factor of logistics, and the ‘force multiplier'… of the Royal Navy's close support" [1]
Mallinson also noted the effectiveness of the Royal Artillery in provoking the disorganised charge that began the battle. And I think a separate post is required to deal with the role of the navy in fighting the Jacobites. Yet, despite this admirable summation he credits Cumberland with the abilities of an "Able General" [2] which given his record would seem to be at odds with fact. What is true is that Cumberland was an able General when confronting an opponent that relied almost entirely on his enemy making a mistake. Though we may grant his preparations were superb, Culloden was the Duke's only battlefield victory.
From this we are presented with the basic elements of the victory, well directed artillery fire supported by disciplined infantry volleys fired by regular troops steady enough to use their bayonets…"
Main page

Amicalement
Armand

I can't imagine this compares in comprehensiveness or insight to the thorough scholarship of Stuart Reid in his recent books. Anyway, the link is broken for me.

Battle of Culloden: 1746.