MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 5/25/2019 7:52:39 PM
 (???? - 1799 AD) Pre-19th Century Battles
AuthorMessage
anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/11/2019 6:50:46 AM
War: The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745

Prince Charles Edward Stuart: Battle of Culloden 16th April 1746 in the Jacobite Rebellion
Prince Charles Edward Stuart: Battle of Culloden 16th April 1746 in the Jacobite Rebellion

Date of the Battle of Culloden: 16th April 1746 (Old Style) (27th April 1746 New Style). The dates in this page are given in the Old Style.

Place of the Battle of Culloden: South east of Inverness and a few miles south west of Nairn in Scotland

Combatants at the Battle of Culloden: The Jacobite Army of Prince Charles and the Royal Troops of King George II

Generals at the Battle of Culloden: Prince Charles and Lord George Murray against the Duke of Cumberland.

Size of the Armies at the Battle of Culloden: 7,000 in the Jacobite Army and 8,000 in the Royal Army.

Winner of the Battle of Culloden: The Royal Army under the Duke of Cumberland.

British Regiments at the Battle of Culloden: Culloden is not a battle honour for British Regiments despite being a victory.


[Read More]


Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/12/2019 7:27:53 AM
Did this rebellion have any chance of success? The Jacobite Army had early victories and actually marched deep into England threatening London. Then halted and retreated, a decision that is/was debated as correct even today.
I have always felt that the 1715 uprising was the Stuarts' best chance to keep the throne

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/12/2019 8:33:10 AM
Hi Johnthank for your interest--Yes the he English had been caught at ill opportune times previously; but not this time--this time itwas a "coup de gras"


The two ides were arrayed against each other the Jacobite general Lord George had his men- cold and starving-to stand while Cumberland 's guns fired rape shot at them until they broke; and charged the English line-the English received them with fixed baonets--- but it was not a straight one on one fight because the English tactic was not to engage the man in fron of him but the clansman to his right;the clour sergean at the exreme left of the column shot the clansnsman to his left.The clansme fought with all their might; but it was all really hopeless

NBThe two forces eventually met at Culloden, on terrain that made the highland charge difficult and gave the larger and well-armed British forces the advantage. The battle lasted only an hour, with the Jacobites suffering a bloody defeat. Between 1,500 and 2,000 Jacobites were killed or wounded in the brief battle.I have to say thatthe wounded whi did not get awat were killed afterthe batle hence Butcher Cumberland.Bonnne Prine Charlie dese he Young Pretenderrted his follwers by running away!!!!Terrible things were tofollow this defeat.

In striking contrast to the Jacobite losses, the government losses were 50 dead and 259 wounded. However, a large proportion of those recorded as wounded are likely to have died of their wounds. (For example, only 29 out of 104 wounded from Barrell's 4th Foot survived to claim pensions. All 6 of the artillerymen recorded as wounded died).

The only government casualty of high rank was Lord Robert Kerr, the son of William Kerr, 3rd Marquess of Lothian.


Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/12/2019 10:33:30 AM
Don't think the Bonnie Prince had too many options left after Culloden. Was given conflicting advise throughout the campaign that was long shot at best. Charlie acted resigned to his fate by the time of Culloden plus the seemingly misplacing a clan in the battle line didn't help

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/12/2019 11:09:03 AM

Quote:
Don't think the Bonnie Prince had too many options left after Culloden. Was given conflicting advise throughout the campaign that was long shot at best. Charlie acted resigned to his fate by the time of Culloden plus the seemingly misplacing a clan in the battle line didn't help
--john hayward


1.The Stuart Dynasty died with Culloden -I can assure you John.

2.The 45 made one or two forays including attacking General Wade's road making gang and their sally into England was hair brained.King George I of the Royal House House of Hanover saw to that

3. As you say the clansmen were ordinarily up agajnst each other as a matter of age old grudges and misgivings--the misain of a lan in the line emphasises my point

4.If you ever read John Prebble's "Culloden" and "The Highland Clearances" -the experiene wold bring "a ear to a glass eye" and his masterpiece "The lion n the Noth"

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/12/2019 9:23:34 PM
The MacDonalds were upset they were placed on the left instead of the right, the place of honor. They failed to advance when Murray did, either through miscommunication or on purpose

The failure of the planned night attack left the Scots disorganized and exhausted the next morning

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 5:23:40 AM
Thank you for the Addendum John; but the English had come for vengeance agaunst the inurrection and after Culloden they banned the use of th kilt-an accoutrement signalling clan.It was a bloody watch on the Highlands and ithe inhabitants therefter--much murder and rapine.

Pleased to have had ou along John

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

Lightning
Glasgow, UK
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 571

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 6:07:02 AM
Terms like “English” and “Scottish” have no place in a discussion about the Jacobite rebellions. Plenty of Scots fought on the Government side, and some Englishmen fought for the Jacobites. It was about who controlled the Crown, not national identity. Although some Jacobites harboured hopes of ending the Act of Union, most were fighting for their man to be head of the British state. It was far, far more complicated than Scotland v England.

Regards,

Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 6:32:02 AM
I understand Charlie visited secretly London later in life and made it clear he would switch his religion if it would help him get the throne.
Also during the 7 years war, the french gov't interviewed him with the possible idea of an invasion and the possible goal of setting him there. They were not impressed with him as it seemed he had turned to drinking quite heavily. The French fleet defeat by Hawke at Quiberon Bay put and end to that.

Colin
Understand there are deeper issues in this rebellion but it is easier (lazier?) to use Scots and English. Jacobite vs Gov't?

Lightning
Glasgow, UK
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 571

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 7:55:28 AM
John,

Scots v English would be completely wrong, so whilst it may or may not be easier, it’s wholly inaccurate. For example, Charles Stuart had little to no support in the cities of lowland Scotland and had to threaten to sack Glasgow to get supplies from it. The urbanised Scots were more likely to take up arms for the Government and several of the major Highland clans sat out of the conflict altogether. Painting it as a clash of nations does all sides a great disservice. Jacobite v Govt/Hanoverians is the usually accepted terminology.

Cheers,

Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 8:19:39 AM
The Rebellion was the highlight of their careers for both leaders; Cumberland resigned from the Army in 1757 and died of a stroke in 1765.

Charles was treated as a hero on his return to Paris but the Stuarts were once again barred from France by the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Henry Stuart's entry into the Catholic Church in June 1747 was seen as a pure tacit--butthe acceptance the Jacobite cause was finished and Charles never forgave him.

He did continue attempts to reignite the cause, including a secret visit to London in 1750--right there John-- and met with French Chief Minister Choiseul in 1759 to discuss another invasion but Choiseul dismissed him as incapable through drink.

Despite Henry's urgings, Pope Clement XIII refused to recognise him as Charles III after their father died in 1766. He died of a stroke in Rome in January 1788, a disappointed and embittered man. Source--Wikipedia's Aftermath and Legacy

As I originally said the the hopes of the Jacoites ended with Culloden fought by a pro Crown Army against those clansmen who wanted a Stuart back on th throne.I do howeve admire orthright argument.AS for me I am happy with history as it dtands

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 9:28:06 AM
I find all the Stuarts interesting and this time period of your history my favorite.(1603-1789)
I always feel that the Stuarts when confronted with two choices will most likely take the wrong one. It makes them very human.

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 10:16:31 AM
A big ask John

Meanwhile in England Elizabeth had a number of notable affairs with men but never married. When she died with heirs of either sex in 1603, it was this son of Mary Queen of Scots, James VI--"the wiset fool in CHristendom," who became James I, first of the Stuart Kings in England. The Scottish line continued, but unofficially! Though the arrival of James VI and I--did unite Scotland and England for the third time creating the United Kingdom, the Stuart inheritance passed on through James VII & II’s second marriage with Mary of Modena whose son became James Edward ‘The Old Pretender’.

If you are still with me, we will return to England, where James I (and VI) had a son who became the unfortunate Charles I,he believed in the Divine Right of Kings- the second Stuart king. He fought against his own Parliament and lost both the crown and his head, dying bravely on the scaffold outside the great palace at Whitehall. A brief Republic under Oliver Cromwell existed, the only time such a thing has happened in English history, and then Charles’ son was recalled from the exile forced on him by the English Civil War (q.v.), to become Charles II (‘The Merry Monarch’) at The Restoration in 1660.

Charles II was in effect the first constitutional monarch in Britain, since he accepted that a Parliament was securely installed, and that the years of absolute monarchy were over. He was meant to be ‘merry’, as his nickname suggests, but he was more melancholic than merry, though he spent a great deal of energy in extra-marital affairs which produced at least eleven illegitimate children, almost all recognised by the King (q.v.).

With his wife Catharine of Braganza he had no issue, and when Charles died comparatively young the throne passed to James, who became II of England and VII of Scotland. This handsome fellow was weak however, and a Roman Catholic to boot, and it was not long before his treacherous generals and a few powerful magnates decided they wanted nothing to do with the fourth Stuart king.

In ‘The Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 James II was sent into exile and the magnates and Parliament invited his Proterstant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange to occupy the English throne. William III descended from Mary Queen of Scots, so the executed heroine could be said to have had her revenge at last.

This was not the last of the Stuarts, for when both William and Mary were dead the throne passed to James II’s other daughter Anne. With her death without heirs in 1714 resulted in the replacement of the Stuart house by the House of Hanover, whose Elector became George I of England. The Stuarts were exiled, but not forgotten, especially by the Scots.

Supporters of the Stuart exiles were called Jacobites and they proceeded to be a thorn in the flesh for many years, with two major rebellions occurring in 1715 and 1745 under ‘The Old Pretender’ James Edward Stuart, and ‘The Young Pretender’ Charles Edward Stuart. Both failed, and George III, the third Hanoverian King felt able to give a pension to Henry, Cardinal (and Duke) of York 1725 – 1807.

The Stuart cause and line faded with Henry, who had no interest in women, was a Catholic priest, and had no heirs.

My apologies if ths is ot good enough John bt I must say it is the best that I could dot,

Regards

Jim"

---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 12:35:35 PM
Perhaps if Charles II made his ill. son Duke of Monmouth. legit then James II The Glorious Revolution and the Hanover line never would have came to pass

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 12:44:30 PM
"With his wife Catharine of Braganza Charles II had no issue, and when Charles died comparatively young the throne passed to James, who became II of England and VII of Scotland."

Is this inorrect John ?????

How would the creation of a Duke of Monmouth have seured the Stuart line.????The line died with the death of Queen Anne
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/13/2019 4:35:51 PM
No but if Charles recognized Monmouth as his legit son he not James would have been king

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/14/2019 4:22:02 AM
How would the creation of a Duke of Monmouth have seured the Stuart line.????
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/14/2019 7:02:58 AM
James Fitzroy or the Duke of Monmouth was born April 9 1649 in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the eldest illegitimate son of Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland, and his mistress Lucy Walter.

He served in the Second Anglo-Dutch War and commanded English troops taking part in the Third Anglo-Dutch War before commanding the Anglo-Dutch brigade fighting in the Franco-Dutch War. He led the unsuccessful Monmouth Rebellion in 1685, an attempt to depose his uncle, King James II and VII. After one of his officers declared Monmouth the legitimate King in the town of Taunton in Somerset, Monmouth attempted to capitalize on his Protestantism and his position as the son of Charles II, in opposition to James, who was a Roman Catholic. The rebellion failed, and Monmouth was beheaded for treason on 15 July 1685.

Monmouth was a Protestant and well liked by many. His rebellion was considered to have occurred too early and if he waited it could have possibly been him not William III to succeeded to the throne in 1689. Monmouth was young enough to father children and it seems likely he may have. If so his children would have been in line for the throne as Protestants, not James II's daughters Mary and Anne. Both women were unsuccessful in that way.

This would have led to the Stuart line staying on the Throne pass 1714. Unfortunately for the Stuarts Charles II refused to make his son legit despite pressure from leading Protestant supporters

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: BATTLE OF CULLODEN
Posted on: 5/14/2019 7:18:54 AM
My thanks for the thoroughness of your reseach; and I now consuder your possible outcome, not only feasile, but quite lkely.

Unfortunately the proposition was not expedited by Charles II; and the Stuart Line died with te childlss Queen Anne.

PS. There wasan earlier Jacobean uprising n 1689 at Killiecrankie.
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

 Forum Ads from Google