"7 myths about the battle of Culloden busted" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 06 Feb 2019 11:58 a.m. PST |
"The last ever battle to be fought on British soil, the 1746 battle of Culloden was the final confrontation of the 1745 Jacobite Rising – an attempt to reinstate a Stuart monarch on the throne of Britain – and is today considered one of the most significant clashes in British history. It saw a Hanoverian government army led by the Duke of Cumberland, son of King George II, go head-to-head with the forces of 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', in a battle that lasted less than an hour But, says expert Murray Pittock, in the centuries since it was fought, compelling but often misleading myths have come to surround the battle of Culloden. Here, the author of Great Battles: Culloden busts seven of the most notable…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
robert piepenbrink | 06 Feb 2019 12:49 p.m. PST |
I'd have said "most recent" battle rather than "last," unless the author has a really good crystal ball. But at least two of those myths were a long way from "busted." For one thing, a war fought almost entirely by Britons, in which one side is primarily Scots and the other primarily English is a British civil war by any definition. For another, it's very hard to understand how a battle in which one side was fighting for greater independence for Scotland--a separate parliament, taxes and possibly army--and this side is defeated by a side which intends no such thing can be anything other than a defeat for Scots nationalism. Anyone care to have a go at his "myths" about dynastic conflict and battlefield selection? |
Tango01 | 07 Feb 2019 12:29 p.m. PST |
Seems not… (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
42flanker | 07 Feb 2019 1:31 p.m. PST |
The United Irishmen rebellion in 1798 saw the last fighting on, and the last invasion of, British soil, even if much of that soil is Irish today. Speculation regarding the form of government that might have been established in the United Kingdom under King Charles III must remain just that. However, while Charles Edward's bid for power may have exploited Scottish nationalist sentiment, if we can truly say that underpinned his cause (given that families were forced to send sons to the Jacobite army under duress from lairds and tacksmen), it occurs to me that a malleable Stuart king in Westminster would simply leave the Scottish gentry free to resume their customary faction and misrule. I suspect that neither nationalism as we might understand it today, nor independence, would have had much more meaning to the common man north of the border than his cousin to the south. |
Sandinista | 15 Feb 2019 6:16 p.m. PST |
Sorry for being pedantic, but Ireland was never Britain. It was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Éirinn go Brách :) |
Maxshadow | 16 Feb 2019 2:29 a.m. PST |
The big picture of the British isle. Always o hard to find in school atlas's. Because some times it was under U for United Kingdom or G for Great Britain or B for Britain or even E for England. Make up your minds and just stick to one. |
|