Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 26th November 2009

Culloden and the great 'what if?'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2009
EXPERTS see it as one of the great "what ifs" of Scottish history.
On the eve of the battle of Culloden a few thousand men drawn from Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite army planned a night raid on the government troops led by the Duke of Cumberland stationed ten miles away.

The idea was to surprise the larger and
better prepared enemy. But the mission – carried out in pitch dark and driving rain – was aborted and the men returned exhausted.

A few hours later they were massacred in less than an hour, in the last land battle fought on British soil.

Now, 263 years on, historian Dr Tony Pollard is to re-enact the Jacobite night march for the first time.

Dr Pollard, director of the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology at Glasgow University and a presenter on the television show Two Men in a Trench, will undertake the march with a group of volunteers to raise money for the Erskine charity which looks after ex-servicemen.

He told The Scotsman: "The idea of the night march has always intrigued me. It's a forgotten element of the battle.

"Reading the accounts, what astounded me was these guys went to all this effort, ten miles there and ten miles back and then had to fight a battle the next day."

Having trudged across moor and rough roads, the Jacobites turned back in the early hours of 16 April, the day of the Battle of Culloden, with some reportedly just a mile from the enemy camp.

Dr Pollard said: "It was a good tactic, but it was a straggling column which must have been stretched back over more than a mile. Basically it all fell apart, some got lost, some were too far behind and they lost the initiative by the time dawn was rising. The government troops under Cumberland were very well supplied, were well rested and well fed. By contrast the Jacobites for weeks and weeks had been on the edge of subsistence and were in very poor shape.

"But it's one of the great what ifs – what if they had persevered and been a little more together?"

Dr Pollard and about 20 others will follow as much of the original route as possible. "It will give us an idea how long the march took and how exhausted the men would have been," he said. "It was pouring rain and freezing cold, so it must have been absolutely horrific.

"At the end of it we can look forward to a hot cup of tea. The best that some of those guys could look forward to was a very violent death."

Duncan Cook, a learning officer at the Culloden visitor centre, said: "If they had surprised the government army at Nairn that night there may not have been the famous battle here.

"But while that may have kept Jacobite hopes alive a little longer, it would have just been a stay of execution."

Capital assault would change history

THE real "what if" about the Jacobite Rebellion was not what would have happened if they had pressed on at Nairn, but what would have happened a few months earlier if they had pressed on to London from Derby. (The Jacobites advanced to Derby in 1745 before retreating.)

Bonnie Prince Charlie wanted to press on and the chances are the Jacobites would have been annihilated.

But there was at least a chance of them walking into London, and if they had attacked the whole government structure, I think it would have collapsed like a pack of cards.

By the time of the march to Nairn the Jacobite Rebellion was so far gone, and the Hanoverian state was so effectively mobilised against it, that even if they had been successful against Cumberland's army then it would only have staved off the evil hour.

There would rapidly have been another army sent from the south to deal with it.

It was an imaginative piece of tactics by the Jacobite army.

But the Jacobites were half starved and not fit to fight and the whole thing had become a bit of a shambles by that point.

The astonishing thing about the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 was not that it failed, but how close it came to success. Here was an essentially Scottish army far further south in England than any Scottish army had ever been before.

The government in London was in a state of abject terror and alarm in the closing weeks of 1745.

It was really remarkable what they achieved. The consequence of that was the government had become so terror-struck there was no way they were going to let the Jacobites off the hook and were mobilising the whole resources of the British state to dispose of the Jacobites.

So even if they scored a tactical victory over Cumberland, either at Culloden or the night before in Nairn, I don't think the eventual outcome would have been all that different.

• Professor James Hunter is director of the Centre for History at the UHI Millennium Institute.







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 March 2009 10:22 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Fiona Duigan-McKay,

Dunedin, New Zealand 21/03/2009 02:57:18
It was not a rebellion but an uprising aginst English dictatorship. I wish people would get the wording right as the good professor should know better.

In fact Jane Austen's family were Jacobite symapathisers as were many Mancunians.
2

donald anderson it's me,

glasgow 21/03/2009 05:22:49
The MacGregors, MacPersons, etc, missed the battle, as they were further North harrying the Loyalist clans. When they reassembled later at Ruthven they were in good heart and even blew the redcoat commander's heid aff. But, Cherlie told them to disband, a grave mistake, leaving the Highlands unprotected from the fury of the frightened British State. The Highlands and indeed the whole of Scotland, including the loyalist natives, have not yet recovered from the fear, reaction and neglect of the Brutish State.
3

Peripatetic Pensioner,

wherever 21/03/2009 06:52:15
no mention of a catholic attempt to usurp a protestant crown then.
4

Conan the Librarian™,

21/03/2009 07:18:08
A Scots army under Alexander II got to Dover.

Strange how you never hear about that.
5

It's me!,

21/03/2009 07:34:32
Conon - tell us more.
6

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 21/03/2009 07:39:14
Picts chased retreating Romans as far as London to let them scuttle away.
7

Radge from the West,

glasgow 21/03/2009 08:20:31
We should examine the Battle of Culloden from all angles.The outcome brought domestic peace to Scotland,an end to 1000 years of murder and mayhem just to get that Crown on somebody's head.Let's not forget that Robert the Bruce committed murder in a Church.Unwillingly we were brought to heel by the English and we have been faithful to them ever since.Culloden brought us to our senses but it has possibly diverted the nation to another path..anger,apathy and violence.
8

Conan the Librarian™,

21/03/2009 09:23:22
5
The English call it the Baron's War.
7
Should it be changed to "Robers and Brigands"?
9

Mcsnagpile,

21/03/2009 09:35:46

The highlanders were misled. They were to defend their country, eject foreign powers, establish the king of Scotland and entrench as an independent sovereignty.
Instead they became an invading force into England fighting for a new English king. There never was any hope of winning this invasion without a substantial English force and resources in place.
10

Scotty F,

The Borders 21/03/2009 09:46:00
Here is a fact, more Scotsman fought against Charlie than were in his own army. It was a clash of cultures Highland culture against Lowland Scottish culture (who were beggining to feel the benefits of Union). Independance for Scotland would have been a pipedream as France and Spain sponsored the Jacobite Catholic attempt and would have treated Scotland as a vassel like the French did under Mary of Guise!! Once Again Nationalists changing Scottish History to suit their own agenda!! It makes me sick!!
11

bill-alba,

fife 21/03/2009 10:35:22
#11 once again the british distorting facts and using misinformation to change scottish history to suit their treachourous british agenda..I know it makes me sick.
12

BorderLineScottish,

21/03/2009 12:15:56
#12 "once again the british(sic) distorting facts and using misinformation to change scottish(sic) history to suit their treachourous(sic) british(sic) agenda..I know it makes me sick."

Pity you can't spell correctly. Ever heard of capitalisation?

No. 11 is quite correct in the facts he has stated. Go and read the history books if you believe them to be different. Oh, and by the way - You ARE British!

I'm afraid no amount of so called "Independence" will take that away from you. Sad, isn't it?
13

greenhill,

21/03/2009 16:43:03
These were distant,terrible times.We must realise that human beings are more or less the same biologically.
We have so much more in common than we are different.We should focus on our similarities and not exaggerate divisions.

Let us not think with tiny Balkan minds.We should forget past hatred and move on with hope.
14

Scotty F,

The Borders 21/03/2009 17:56:06
I have read my history books as iam a graduate in Scottish Historical studies. There is no distortion in the facts to suit any agenda here, as they are FACTS. If Scotland wants to be independant then so be it, however if history must be used to argue the case then FACTS must be used. The Jacobite rebellion was between Protestants and Catholics not like most Nationalists want us to believe Scotland v England. Iam British so what? Iam just as Scottish (and just as proud) as anyone else, just iam a little more informed as to our proud history both pre 1707 and post!!!
15

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 21/03/2009 22:03:30
What if?

What if the British state had introduced a Bank of Britain and acknowledged the British language?

What if Britain had recognised that a strong, populous Scotland made for a strong Britain?

Aye, what if. What is, is what counts. Not what if.
16

,

21/03/2009 22:17:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Ursus arctos horribilis,

22/03/2009 10:44:39
#1 No it wasn't.

The Jacobite Rebellion-was NOT Scotland v England or indeed Protestant v Roman Catholic. In the geo-politics of the time it was was more to do with French -true to type-scheming and capitalising on the discontent of various Highland Chiefs to force the Hanoverians and their Dutch allies to withdraw troops from the war (The War of the Austrian Succession) with France on the continent.

They were mere pawns in the game and unfortunately doomed to (heroic) failure from the start.
18

Ursus arctos horribilis,

22/03/2009 11:05:16
#11 another person with a misguided and simplistic view of the conflict-not doubt shaped by contemporary views of modern sectarian Scotland. The 45 was not a "biggish" Celtic v Rangers match or Protestant v RC conflict; indeed approximately half the Jacobite army were Episcopalians and many Presbyterians ie proddies. There was a religious element to all politics at that time but that was not the main driver.

However you are right in other respects - and undoubtedly the majority of Scots at the time were undoubtedly pro-Hanoverian as were the overwhelming majority of English. Consequently- with such little support it is amazing that they managed to achieve as much success as they did.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.