Scotland has a long history of conflict. Or maybe a better word here is resistance. For as long as history about people and events in what is now Scotland has been written down, it seems like outsiders have been constantly trying to conquer the land in the north of Britain and bring the people who lived there to heel. And the people there have been fighting back. Hard.
The Romans tried it a few times before just giving up and building a country-wide wall to keep the people in the north out of Roman-held territory. Then the Vikings took a turn and were largely successful. And after the Norman invasion of England, the object of conflict and resistance for the Scots (not always called this; just simplifying a bit here) became the English. And this conflict lasted for centuries.
But all that resistance came to an end at the Battle of Culloden. And in brutal fashion. We don't spend a lot of time on vacation at battlefields, although we did visit two on this trip and we have spent time on past trips walking sites where huge battles took place. Generally, I find these places to be confusing to understand what really happened hundreds of years ago on what is now usually a field of grass and brush. But Culloden was a must-see for us on our recent tour of Scotland for one reason and one reason alone: last year, we watched the first two seasons of Outlander, the time-travel, adventure-romance series set against the historical background of the Jacobite uprising in Scotland that ends its second season at the Battle of Culloden.
Strange reason to want to visit a battlefield? Maybe. But this is essential Scottish history, even if it didn't turn out well at all for the Scots.
 |
| Monument to the Highlanders, Culloden. |
The origins of the Battle of Culloden are complicated and are deeply rooted in power and politics and seemingly religion (although I believe the historical conflict that seems to revolve around religion in Britain and Ireland has really way more to do with power than religion). Let's see if I can make this explanation relatively short. Although I probably won't succeed there.
When Elizabeth I of England died in 1603, the line of succession to the English throne passed to James VI of Scotland, who was the son of the great-niece (Mary, Queen of Scots, if you must know...) of Henry VIII (Elizabeth's father). Henry VIII, of course, famously separated the church in England from the Catholic church based in Rome. When James became king of England, he became James I and effectively had joint support to rule both England and Scotland.
When James died, the crown passed to his son, Charles I, who was especially unpopular in Scotland because of his actions to promote the Church of England despite his wife (French princess Henrietta Maria) being Catholic. Charles became a victim of the English Civil War which abolished the monarchy (temporarily) and was beheaded in 1649. It would take until 1660 for his son, Charles II (who was generally endorsed by the Scots), to be restored to the throne.
When Charles II died in 1685, his son James II of England (and VII of Scotland) became king but didn't last long, being deposed in 1689 in favor of William of Orange (who was James' nephew) and his queen, Mary, with heavy assistance from English Parliament. It is here that real conflict between England and Scotland re-ignited. Most Scots supported James, and not William.
When William died childless in 1702, the throne passed to James' daughter, Anne, and when she died 12 years later (also childless), George I (Anne's second cousin) ascended to the throne. George wasn't English at all. He was German. He was also 53rd in line for the English throne. Why pick Anne (over restoring James II) and then a German to sit on the English throne? Simple...they were Protestant, and Parliament had passed an act in 1701 requiring all future English monarchs to be Protestant (this followed a similar act in 1673 banning Catholics from serving in either House of Parliament). Now we are ready to talk about Culloden. Almost.
 |
| The brush, Culloden Moor, 2022. Very difficult to really understand the conditions in 1746. |
The Battle of Culloden is often thought of as a battle between the English and Scottish. That perception is wrong. Culloden pitted the Jacobites, a group of people interested in seeing James II (or his heirs) restored to the throne of England and Scotland, against the English government, whether that be the government of William and Mary or Anne or George I or George II. There were Scots fighting for the English government and there were English backing the campaign of the Jacobites, along with other nationalities in the mix, particularly French and Spanish fighters. Jacobites vs. English government; not Scottish vs. English.
The conflict that was ended with Culloden was actually the fourth Jacobite uprising. The first started way back in 1689 when William and Mary were installed on the throne. That uprising, along with the second and third versions, was defeated but not crushed. Despite the first, second and third defeats, the Jacobites kept coming back for more.
The fourth uprising was led (at least from a figurehead point of view) by Charles Edward Stuart, grandson of James II, who was better known as Bonnie Prince Charlie (we'll call him Charles or BPC from this point forward in this post). Charles arrived for the first time in his life in Scotland in July of 1945 and started raising an army, with some overseas help and financing most notably provided by France.
And raise one he did. There was a time in 1745 that things were actually going really well for the Jacobites. They recorded victory after victory after victory as they marched through Scotland, over the border to England and all the way to Derby, about 125 miles from London (and the throne). They might have kept going except for the onset of winter and a report that the King was sending an army out from the city to meet the Jacobites. Instead of continuing to London, they retreated back to Scotland, marching their army (which at this point was low on provisions and basically half-starved) fiercely all the way.
Apparently, there was no army sent out to meet the Jacobites. That information had been passed on to deceive and make them retreat. If they had kept going, they might have marched into a city utterly unprotected and taken the throne. Instead, their retreat give George II a chance to raise the army that BPC and his advisors had feared, with George's youngest son, the Duke of Cumberland, in command.
 |
| The locations of the battle lines today: blue for the Jacobites; red for the government. |
We are getting close to Culloden, I promise.
Despite all of the retreating and the lack of food, the Jacobites managed to make it back to Scotland and got camped out at the perfect spot to meet the government's army. Then they got impatient. And impulsive. They found out that the army they were waiting on was having a party on April 15 to celebrate the Duke of Cumberland's birthday and figured it might be a great opportunity to sneak up on a bunch of drunk Englishmen and slaughter them in their sleep. Charlie was a go. Good plan, yes?
Yes, is the answer. But good plans require good execution. And here the Jacobites didn't quite do it right. We got two accounts of what happened. In one. the guides they hired to lead them on the 12 mile march (that's one way, by the way) didn't quite get the whole Jacobite force to the party, and faced with too many Englishmen to handle, they turned around. In the second, the march started late and the terrain was way rougher than they anticipated and they had to turn back because they just wouldn't get there in time. Either way, they marched 24 miles or so (maybe a little less) in the dark on empty stomachs on the eve of battle. Not good.
The next day, April 16, 1746, the two armies would face off in battle.
 |
| A surviving farm building on Culloden Moor, likely used as a field hospital of some sort in 1746. |
So let's set the stage here a little. On one side, we have an exhausted, starving Jacobite army that has marched up and down most of the length of Britain. On the other, there is a mile long line of professional soldiers including the second best artillery unit in the world who could release a shot from a musket every 18 seconds. That musket speed is fast, but it was even faster when the 1/3 of the soldiers fired every 6 seconds. And that mile long line of men? Just the front line. There were two more behind it.
The government on paper had the advantage. Big time. The two sides had the same sort of weapons available to them but there were just far fewer Jacobites and they were nowhere near as well trained and they were exhausted. Oh, and in case you were wondering, apparently the Austrians were better trained artillerymen in the mid 1700s. Ready for battle? I guess both sides thought they were.
According to Andy (or it might have been Andi; not sure here), our guide on Culloden Moor, the Jacobites may have fired the first shot and possibly not on purpose. But once shots had been fired, it was on and the Jacobites did what they always did in battle: run towards the enemy; fire their muskets as much to create a cloud of smoke as to try to wound those they were firing towards; toss their muskets aside; and engaged in hand-to-hand combat in what is known as the Highland Charge.
It didn't go well, primarily because it appears the right third of so of the Jacobite line engaged the government troops in combat while the other highlanders got stuck in a bog that they hadn't realized was between them and the Duke of Cumberland's army. So when a very small part of the government's soldiers were engaged in a skirmish, the rest of their fellow troops pitched in and massacred the 1/3 of the Jacobites who made it to the fight. The estimate here is 700 men killed in 2-3 minutes and a little more than twice that number in 45 minutes. The Battle of Culloden was over almost as soon as it started.
 |
| Starting point for 400 Jacobites, looking over the former bog. |
I can't help thinking, after walking through the on-site museum and taking a guided tour of a portion of the Battlefield and then walking the rest by ourselves, that Culloden was an entirely stupid endeavor from the Jacobites' standpoint. Pretty much every significant decision BPC and his band of generals made was wrong. And not just slightly wrong; like way, way wrong. Turning back at Derby; marching their men to the point of exhaustion; abandoning a favorable position to go raid a birthday party; getting lost on the way to said birthday party; and then directing (or at least failing to prevent) 2/3 of their troops rushing into a bog that they couldn't get out of on battle day. I guess I can give them a pass on the turning back at Derby thing (they were deliberately misled, after all) but the rest look like bad decision after bad decision. Utter stupidity, even.
I suppose that if BPC had made better decisions, the total death count from the battle might have been greater since it would theoretically have been a fairer fight and more men might have died on both sides (the government claimed just 50 deaths but that number seems suspiciously low according to historians). But the leaders of the Jacobites basically served their men up as slaughter victims before they fled the battlefield themselves.
Charlie, by the way (and, of course, right?) made it out alive. He fled the country disguised as a woman via the Isle of Skye.
 |
| Victorian-era marker at Culloden. Likely not entirely true. |
As much as the actual battle was a complete and utter disaster for the Highlanders, the aftermath may have been worse. Remember this was the fourth Jacobite uprising and after this one, the Duke of Cumberland had had enough. He was determined to stop this from ever happening again. So after he made sure no injured men escaped from the battlefield alive and maybe did a little burning and pillaging of villages in the area, he imposed some rules: no tartan, no bagpipes, no weapons, no Gaelic, no gatherings of men or boys in numbers greater than five. In all of Scotland. In short, no clans and no Highland culture ever again.
It stuck, mostly because the enforcement of the rules was left to local authorities, who tended to take a very strict approach to making sure the rules lasted. Some even classified farm implements as weapons and when they confiscated them, they took away the very livelihood of the Highlanders. Culloden's impact was instant and it extended far, far beyond the Battlefield.
We were aware of this last point (meaning the impact) before we set foot on Culloden Moor. I just didn't expect to find out that the battle lasted for so little time and feel that the effect of the aftermath through the stories we were told, both in person and by walking through the museum. This was the last battle in Britain fought hand-to-hand. It's incredible that it affected so many people living on the island so severely and so quickly. It almost completely wiped out Scottish culture. Fortunately, despite its immediate impact, it didn't eliminate everything. And that's a good thing, because I think there is a lot to be valued in Scottish culture.
 |
| The rolling mounds are mass graves from 1746; stones added later. |
A couple of other things we got out of our visit to Culloden Moor are probably worth mentioning.
First, there is a section of the Battlefield where there are mass graves from the actual conflict way back in 1746. It's a bit chilling - our guide told us each grave holds an estimated one to 200 men from that day - and they are right there in front of you to walk past and around. At the foot of some of these graves are stones with the carved names of clans that fought and died in the Battle, but the clan names don't necessarily match the actual people buried there for one good reason: in 1746, clan tartan wasn't a thing so the dead couldn't be identified by the clothing they wore. Highlanders wore whatever they could get weaved for them in whatever color was available.
Now, if you've ever walked the Royal Mile at Edinburgh, I'm sure you've seen souvenir shop after souvenir shop with tartans from each Scottish clan on mugs and plaques and glasses and anything else you can put tartan on including actual tartan clothing. It's all fake. The Victorians made it all up. There never was any clan tartan (although the Royal Stuart tartan may be an exception). The markers were placed on Culloden Battlefield during Victorian times by the way.
Second and last, if you were a Scotsman who really wanted to own weapons and wear tartan after 1746, there was a way to do it: join a Highland Regiment and serve in the armed forces overseas. Sound like a bad deal? It may have been. But faced with a choice between living at home with no way to make a living under constant watch from the authorities just waiting for you to violate some minor rule, maybe it was the least of two evils.
So a lot of Scottish men did it and when they arrived wherever they were stationed throughout the British Commonwealth, they found out things were better than they were at home and they stayed. There are a lot of Scottish people all over the world. The Highland Regiments were a big reason why. If you meet someone of Scottish ancestry not living in Scotland, there's a good chance they are where they are because their ancestors were part of this post-Culloden Scottish diaspora.
 |
| The Fraser Clan stone. With flowers, likely in appreciation of the fictional James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser. |
Culloden Moor is about a 15 minute (maximum) drive from Inverness. If you are looking to stay in a town or city with any size, Inverness is pretty much your only option.
No comments:
Post a Comment