Posted on 07/31/2005 3:03:10 PM PDT by nickcarraway
HISTORY is set to be re-written after archeologists revealed the Jacobite army were far closer to winning the battle of Culloden than previously thought.
The battle, which went down in history as a decisive victory for the notorious Duke of Cumberland, marked the end of the '45 rebellion and left lasting scars on the Scottish psyche.
And for centuries it has been believed that the red-coated government soldiers had utterly destroyed the indisciplined, untrained Jacobite forces of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
But new excavations of the 1746 battleground which has since become part of Scottish folklore have discovered the Jacobites came close to breaking the government line and re-writing history.
Researchers have found evidence that the almost suicidal attack of the Young Pretender's 7000 strong army, armed with dirks and broadswords, forced Cumberland and troops loyal to George II to turn to heavy mortars previously held in reserve to prevent a rout of his troops.
Dr Tony Pollard, of the Two Men in a Trench programme, and a team from Glasgow University archaeological research division, uncovered hundreds of musket balls and evidence of grape canister shot on the English area of the battle.
Dr Pollard said: "It was clear that a huge amount of material was hurled at the Jacobites as they moved forwards. We also managed to find, for the first time, a point at which the Jacobites hit home on the west of the government line. The evidence shows they came a lot closer to breaking through the lines than the histories of the battle suggest."
It would appear then, that the lessons of that battle went unheeded by the Brits on that road between Lexington and Concord.
Totally different.
It is likely to take a generation or two before they alter the "history" since the winners write it.
So they mowed them down with grapeshot.
Still doesn't sound very close.
pray tell?
Almost doesn't count for much when considering battle results. Something like almost nearly but not quite hardly.
If the Scots had possessed equal weapons, the English would have been annihilated. There is nothing fiercer than a bunch of riled-up Scots (unles it be a bunch of riled-up Kentuckians or Tennesseans of Scottish descent.......)
I've been to Culloden, stood in the Well of the Dead. The Scots had broadswoards and targes. The English had muskets with bayonets, and a new technique for employing them....instead of stabbing at the targe of the man in front of him, the English soldier stabbed under the arm of the man to his right, under the sword-arm...severed an artery and left him to die.
For a century after Culloden, the Duke of Cumberland was the Devil incarnate to highland Scots.
The tactics used by the Jacobites didn't bear the slightest resemblance to the tactics of the revolutionaries at Lexington and Concord; in fact, they're as opposite as they could be.
And in any event, the Revolutionary War was primarily fought by American Continentals in uniforms and disciplined lines fighting the British in open fields, just as the British fought.
Actually most of the successful ambushes in the woods in the War were British and Indians ambushing American troops.
One good thing about Culloden was that it resulted in some of my ancestors being transported to the colonies. In the New World they had upward mobility, and they didn't have to spend their lives farming the land for an absentee English landowner or a Scottish laird who collaborated with the English.
Thanks for the post.
ping
Actually the Brits fired their artillery on the Highlanders to provoke them to attack. It worked. No doubt they maintained that fire as the Scots advanced. What is exactly new here?
Accounts written by the Redcoats who were there make it clear that a part the Jacobite charge did strike home, and wrecked a great slaughter. That part of the line was very close to breaking, which would have broken the rest of the army. The Highlanders broke first, that's all.
Ancient history, now, of course. It may be better for the western world that the Stewarts never regained the throne, because they made lousy kings. IMHO, the best that can be said for them is that the UK did not go to war outside the UK while a Stewart was on the throne, and there was an uneasy peace between Protestant and Catholic.
A clinical geneticist has traced the gene for Poriphria (gosh I wish I could spell that) King George III's "Royal malady" back to the Stuarts. Geo. III just had it worse than the predecessors. So neither were very good candidates for meaningful monarchy.
The Hanoverians got it through their descent from the Stuarts, just as they inherited their claim to the Throne.
One wonders what genetic flaws will manifest themselves in Charles IV if he eventually becomes king.
I put Cowpens as a credit to Nat. Greene.
He knew that the British were used to seeing militia break and run, so he assigned the first line to fire 2 or 3 volleys, and then they withdrew.
The militia withdrawal triggered the assault by the Tory Cavalry under Tarleton.
Well, you can't defend as you assault. His counterattack against the exposed British flanks was timely and decisive.
Sorry, Morgan, not Nat. Green. guess oldtimers disease is catching up to me.
I will take your word for it. I am ignorant of military tactics, and especially those of the Revolutionary War. I was only repeating Mr. Webb's opinion (he was a Marine officer and Reagan's Secreatary of the Navy), and I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
Spooky place aint it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.