VICTIMS OF HISTORY Although Royle’s suggestion is tentative,
well-argued and comes over 250 years after the battle, it seems that numerous critics are unwill- ing to consider any alternatives to the popular notion that the troops of Bonnie Prince Charlie were entirely Scottish and morally upstanding, whereas the soldiers of the ‘Butcher’ of Cumber- land were wholly English, utterly evil and deserve to spend eternity lying unnoticed under the desolate moor.
Against That Royle’s suggestions have been met with a withering hail of abuse surprises few people, including the historian himself. After all, the battle is one of the most memorable dates in Scottish history, and the conflict between Jaco- bites and Hanoverians – in the minds of many a showdown between the imperial English and the Highland Scots – is one that is etched into the national psyche. For almost every Scot is aware that not only were the Jacobites routed in the field, but the aftermath of the conflict saw the indiscriminate butchery of hundreds of soldiers and civilians in the surrounding area as Cumberland sought to stamp out further rebel- lion by entirely cruel and murderous means. Another crucial objection to the thought of
raising some form of memorial to the Redcoats relates to the well-known belief that the dramatic defeat marked a turning point in the history of the Highlands. After all, the result of the battle led to the prohibition of wearing tartan, the demise of the clan system, and – arguably – a series of tragic events right down to the Clear- ances can be traced back to the events on that cold April day. As Dr Alex Murdoch, from the University of Edinburgh, argues, thanks in no small part to the success of Walter Scott’s novels, Culloden has since cemented itself in the public consciousness as a romantic defeat of the Scots as a nation and the beginning of the end for an earlier and nobler Highland way of life. A more subtle objection to any memorial
might be raised by the Havoverian support- ers themselves, for the Government regiments neither sought nor claimed that there was any great glory attached to their victory – as was reflected in the fact that Culloden was never added to their battle honours. Indeed, in many ways it is an episode even the supporters of the Hanoverians have been happy to forget.
For
However, while these factors should indeed be taken into consideration, and Cumberland himself might be rightly reviled north of the Border, Royle is right to challenge some of the arguments in defending his belief that we should not forget the fallen Government troops.
‘Closer inspection appears to point to the fact that many objections he raises are based on romantic misconceptions rather than strict historical truth’
Undoubtedly the most important idea that
needs to be re-examined is the idea that the battle was a clear-cut conflict between English and Scots. As Royle is quick to point out, there were in fact more Scots on the side of the victors, while the Jacobite army included French and Irish mercenaries as well as the ginger Highland- ers of popular lore. As Alex Murdoch reflects, as ‘a very romantic
story of a charismatic young prince who raised an army in his homeland and almost succeeded in defeating the might of the English, the story has a certain international appeal. But the fact that Prince Charlie was soundly defeated, fled to France and became an alcoholic who left his supporters at the mercy of the British military machine, is often overlooked.’ Royle hastens to add that those Redcoats who
perished on the battlefield were not involved in the later atrocities, and were thus exonerated from their occurrence. What’s more, he points out that a number of equally bloody battles have since seen much greater levels of reconciliation between erstwhile enemies or at least increased levels of respect shown for fallen opponents, as is shown by the vicinity of German and British cemeteries on the banks of the Somme. Indeed, Royle himself recently
attended
an Anzac Day memorial service in Edin- burgh Castle, at which representatives of the British, New Zealand and Australian armies all attended, as well as the Turkish consul, despite the fact it was only 90 years after this horrific battle between these two sides. ‘I’d like to think that the Scots were mature enough to deal with an event that happened over 250 years ago in an equally sensible way,’ he observes.
Conclusions While Royle’s argument may at first seem some- what contentious, closer inspection appears to point to the fact that many objections are based on romantic misconceptions rather than strict historical
truth. And, although many Scots
might be justified in feeling aggrieved by any ideas that actively celebrate the outcome or the aftermath of the battle, the suggestion of merely erecting a memorial for dead opponents should not be beyond the bounds of consideration in the 21st century. While such a monument might commem-
orate the valour of the Redcoats, it would not necessarily glorify their cause.
FIELD FORUM
Above: One of the Culloden gravestones. Left: Culloden’s moor
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE OPINIONS IN THIS FEATURE? LET US KNOW BY LOGGING ON TO WWW. SCOTTISHFIELD. CO.UK
WWW.SCOTTISHFIELD.CO.UK 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164