Talk:Battle of Culloden/Archive 1

Bayonet tactics
new bayonet tactics added to Battle section, based on a BBC TV programme about Culloden by military historian Richard Holmes. "Battlefield Britain" os to cover Culloden on BBC2, 9pm 17 sept '04 - will see if this also mentions bayonets. -- dave souza 22:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The programme did indeed cover the bayonet training (using the new "socket" bayonet replacing the old "plug" bayonets which had failed earlier), also emphasised training in rate of fire of the muskets, tired and hungry Highlanders, problems with the ground etc. There were some statements which conflicted with history books, and the highlanders were shown charging with their plaids on at the Battle of Prestonpans when the evidence is they took them off first - any evidence of what happened at Culloden? When time and energy permit will try to revise this article. - dave souza 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The plug bayonet was used at Killiekrankie, but had long been replaced by the socket bayonet by 1746. The new bayonet drill involved not new kit, but a new technique of thrusting obliquely, stabbing at the exposed side of the highlander to the right rather than directly at the highlander in front, who might well have the protection of a targe.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence re whether or not the redcoats actually did this at Culloden & it may be that the training was superfluous or only worked as as confidence builder.80.229.9.98 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the Battlefield Britain episode is the source for this statement "and for the first time a battle was decided by a direct clash between charging highlanders and formed redcoats equipped with muskets and socket bayonets"?--Celtus (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - I've watched the (pretty awful) 'BB' episode a couple of times and don't remember that point being made. It's a pretty basic statement of fact based on comparison with what happened at other battles, so it probably comes from one of the sources that's about more than just Culloden.Thoskit (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated pictures of battlefield
i have just recently visited Culloden this week and have newer pictures of the battle field. i have ones from the Jacobite and government lines as well as ones of the central monument and graves of the clansman.The graves look quite a bit differnet from the pictures already there. I am happy for them to be used here if anyone wants them please feel free to email me bonnie.blue.flag@hotmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.129.80 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems to have been written to demonstrate that the Duke of Cumberland's army was nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries protecting the private interests of the Hanoverian dynasty, and by inference that it had no base of support in England. This is not true. CalJW 22:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not true: the article doesn't seem to suggest anything of the sort. Maury 00:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It most certainly did when the notice was posted, but it has improved since and I have tweaked it again. Oliver Chettle 05:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Government Clans
It should be noted that many Scotts clans higland and lowland supported the British Government during the Jacobite uprisings. Including MacKays, Rosses, Munros, Gunns, Campbells, Grants, Agnew and many more. Most fought at Culloden but not under their clan names. The Battalions were named after their commanders, most of the Battalions made from the Scotts clans actually had English commanders, who the battalion was named after. With the exeption of Munro and Cambell whos commanders were their clan chiefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainland Britain and Britain
If Culloden was 'the last military clash in mainland Britain' this would imply that there was another part of Britain which was not on the, em, "mainland" where such a clash took place at a later date. Where was that part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, 1940 - 45, if not the battle of Britain (certainly military and certainly a clash). OtherDave 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Im not sure if the Channel Islands really count as, while they are geographically 'British', they are not a part of the British polity and ( to my knowledge) never have been. An Siarach
 * Not really arguing; I thought that Culloden as "last military clash" neglected that bit of unpleasantness with the Luftwaffe. My Channel Islands comment addressed the "not on the mainland" question.  (The Channel Islands may not strictly be part of the British polity, but Islanders are full British citizens.) OtherDave 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed the "mainland" part was superfluous, and that "Britain" was used to distinguish Culloden from the Battle of Sedgefield (which was either 1685 or 1686, I think): we learnt this as the last battle on *English* soil. 86.143.59.14 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Tony).


 * Well, it isn't. The Battle of Bossenden Wood took place in 1838 in Kent.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Culloden is not even the last battle on Scottish soil. This is yet another lie put around by establishment historians. The Battle of Bonnymuir took place in 1820.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a "lie", just a difference of opinion about what constitutes a battle. By calling it a lie you overstate your your case. Maproom (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Language
The Gaelic language may have been discouraged, but it was never outlawed, hardly a pratical arrangement! Rcpaterson 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(Query only) Cites for etymology leave the correct pronunciation uncertain both as to placement of the stress and the pronunciation of the "o". Could this be indicated somewhere? [Please delete]206.180.136.14 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only line between deletable and retained talk is the line between what is vandalistic, &/or off-topic everywhere in the project, and what isn't. Don't delete any appropriate portion of a discussion (tho archiving does eventually reduce the visibility of most old discussions). --Jerzy•t 21:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The 9th Lord Cathcart
Does anyone know which British regiment Charles Cathcart, 9th Lord Cathcart was attached to ? He was wounded in the battle.195.137.109.177 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He was Cumberland's ADC and not, I think, attached to any specific regiment. Rcpaterson 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the Campaign
The statement that the campaign was intended to place Charles Edward Stuart on the throne is dubious. His father James Francis Edward Stuart was still alive in 1745 and the aim was probably to win the campaign for his cause. I believe that Charles Edward Stuart became the young pretender when his father died in 1766.User:indigofoxbat 16.49 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He was allowed to take the banner of his father to Scotland, then to act in the interest of his father. To me it seems he became the actual pretender (to the throne) once his father died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article?
I'm considering nominating this article as a featured article candidate (See WP:FAC). It seems to be reasonably comprehensive, referenced and neutral. Comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a nice article, but might struggle at WP:FAC without inline citations (I know they're not supposed to be compulsory - but the defacto situation is that very few are promoted these days without them). --Mcginnly | Natter 12:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Has it been peer reviewed yet? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be the first step. Inline citations are a cosmetic matter, a mere frippery. The first thing to do, I should say, is to overhaul the quality of writing.  Without that, FA or no FA, it's not likely to be worth reading. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternative interpretation that may warrant inclusion
I've read an alternative interpretation of the battle of culloden - rather than an essentially english/scottish fight - it was much more divided along catholic/protestant religious lines and highland/lowland rivalry - with many lowland scots fighting for cumberland, and various other nations pitching in for respective sides. "Captain Cunningham’s Company of Artillery – composed of ten short Saxon six pounders and six coehorn mortars.

In total it was an army that mustered 9,000 effective fighting men. It may be worth noting that approximately one third of the 16 battalions present were made up of Lowland Scots together with over 600 highland levies." --Mcginnly | Natter 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Far from being an "alternative interpretation", this is accepted as fact - no historian would claim it was an England v Scotland match, even if that is the popular romanticised shortbread-tin view. As far as I can see, the article makes this pretty clear: see especially the section Armies, which looks like an accurate summary of the nationalities involved. However, the article could benefit from an extra paragraph or two on the background to the battle, viz. a very brief summary of Jacobitism and its demographics (with special reference to Scotland), and a mention of the failed 1715 rising. Of course the article Jacobite rising already does this, but many misinformed readers will come to this article and not bother to read up on the wider background, so it ought to be to touched upon. --Blisco 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Harry Munro
I will explain about the Munro invlovement. Heres a little history lesson.

Chief Robert Munro (1684 - 1746) led men of the Clan Munro in an independant Black Watch company against the French, in support of the British government. This included action at the Battle of Fontenoy in 1745. As a reward for his exellent service when he returned to the UK he was appointed the commander of the English 37th regiment of foot.

The English 37th regiment of foot was made from Englsih soldiers and not Scotts from the Clan Munro. He commanded the English 37th at the Battle of Falkirk (1746) where they ran off and left him. He was surrounded by Jacobites and killed.

Robert's son Harry Munro would not just be able to just assume the right to command the 37th regiment. It is well documented that Harry had a military carreer in Loudan's regiment at the time of the Jacobite rising. However he had nothing to do with the 37th. Harry was taken prisoner at the Battle of Prestonpans in 1745 as part of Loudan's regiment but was later released. He rejoined Loudan's regiment but after the Battle of Falkirk (1746), Sir Harry was listed as absent "by HRH leave" to deal with the problems at Foulis Castle which was said to have been rendered "a compleat desolation" by the Jacobites. The Munro company under Harry was disbanded in 1748.

The 37th regiment of foot at Culloden is often mistakenly referred to as "Munro's" regiment of foot. Colonel Dejean took over command but the regiment was never renamed Probably because its previous commander Robert Munro (1684 - 1746) had not long died just a few months before. Even today at the Culloden battle site a plaque calls it Munro's regiment. Perhaps in honour of Robert Munro. 195.137.109.177 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fractions of factions
The current version states: I'm unclear about what these two points, taken together, mean. They seem to imply that half the total Jacobite force was Episcopalian (one-third of the Highlanders plus all of the Lowlanders). If that's the case, maybe it would be better to have one bullet for region of origin and another for religion, along these lines: Just a general idea, not an actual rewrite, since I don't know the details. —OtherDave 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly three quarters of the Jacobite army was composed of Scottish Highland clansmen, the majority of them being Roman Catholic, but more than a third being Scottish Episcopalians.
 * Around a quarter of the force were Episcopalians from the north-east Scottish Lowlands, north of the River Tay, so that more than half the total was Episcopalian
 * Roughly three-quarters of the Jacobite army were Scottish Highland clansmen; the remaining quarter were from the northeast Scottish Lowlands. [Not sure if the Tay is significant here]
 * More than half the Jacobite army were Scottish Episcopalians: all of the Lowlanders, and over a third of the Highlanders. Two-thirds of the Highlanders were Roman Catholics.

British Victory?
The article lists the result as being a decisive British vicotry. Don't both sides class as British? Would something like "Decisive Hannoverian Victory" be better? KingStrato 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prestonpans mentions Hanoverians so I'll change it to this to that.--86.154.195.222 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Appin Regiment
It is incorrect to refer to the Appin Regiment as the Clan Stewart of Appin Regiment. The Regiment was out against the orders of the chief and comprised volunteers from the Appin District. The Appin Regiment is treated on page 11 of the book “No Quarter Given: The Muster Roll of Prince Charles Edward Stuart's Army, 1745-46,” edited by Livingstone of Bachuil, Aikman, and Hart, 2001. Of the approximately 300 men who served in the Regiment, the editors compiled a list of about 92 men killed and about 65 seriously wounded. Of that number, the largest clearly is the Stewarts themselves, numbering about 22 dead and 25 wounded. However, there are others who also made very important sacrifices in this Regiment. To wit:

Clan Dead Wounded MacColl 18 15 MacLarens 13 4 Carmichael 6 2 MacCombich 5 3 Macintyre 5 5 MacInnish or MacInnis 4 2 MacIldeu or Black 1 0 MacKenzie 2 3 MacCorquodale 1 0 M'Uchader 1 0 Henderson 1 1 MacRankin 1 0 MacCormack (Buchanan) 5 1 Cameron 0 1 MacDonald 0 1 MacLachlan 2 0 MacLea or Livingstone 4 1

It was a Donald Livingston who saved the banner of the regiment - one of the very few that survives to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.59.25 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References?
Is it worth adding that German metal band Grave Digger produced a song called Culloden Muir, on their Tunes of War album? I have already made a contribution to Jacobite rising about another song on the same album, but that article already had an existing 'Cultural References' section. Cheers, Bluebear89 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

British casualties?
In what sense were the Hannoverian casualties more "British" than the Jacobite casualties? More than a whiff of POV here, whether "British=English" or something else. Cantiorix (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical context of government policy post-Culloden
I have suggested that readers interested in the government's treatment of the defeated Jacobites would find it worth their while to compare the post-'45 policy with the post-'15 policy, & highlighted another series of persecutions in Scotland from this period, but some editors object to this. This is the place to make any relevant comments...80.229.9.98 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits seem to be nothing but unsourced opinions and troublesome. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The information in my edits is all sourced from serious works in the bibliography, some of which have been my additions, which carry far more weight scholastically than the work you cite. Please be careful about making accusations of bias - I'm an academic historian and my only bias is towards truth.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'troublesome' - if those aspects of the historical record that I contribute upset you because you have some romantic or sentimental attachment to the Jacobites then I have no sympathy - you'll just have to face the fact that, by modern, liberal, democratic standards, they were a thoroughly nasty bunch who were given every chance to mend their ways.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are extremely biased as you can see from your derogatory edits to the likes of Bobby Sands, etc. As for calling Jacobites a 'nasty bunch' it just proves your prejudice, as most knowledgeable scholars can account far more British/Hanoverian atrocities in both brutality and number. If you use a reference it should be from a reliable/credible source. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that, eventually, a ruling will be made by the appropriate authorities to the effect that it is perfectly valid to record the fact that Bobby Sands was despised & reviled by a very large proportion of those who had heard of him. It is a fact about his place in history.  My opinion that the Stuarts & their followers were a nasty bunch is quite the opposite of prejudice - it results from serious historical study, such as my discoveries that Jacobite clergy preached against innoculation against smallpox on the grounds that to try & prevent disease was to oppose divine providence & that the Stuart kings' lackeys routinely put unconvicted Covenanters to torture with the boot & the thumbscrews.  Your claim about what "most knowledgable scholars" know demonstrates very clearly that you neither read respectable academic books nor move in the same circles as serious historians of early modern Britain.  All the references I've added to articles have been from sources that have far more academic credibility than the 'coffee table book' you've cited.80.229.9.98 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It still seems you are trying to justify the massacre, there were many more atrocities committed by the British side; and using one to justify the other will lead to nowhere. Although my source is not as specific as yours it's definitely not a coffee table book, and your sources are mostly written by a "Covenanter" point of view; which would explain the defense of their faith and its advocates reputations by producing an excuse for such a massacre. -RiverHockey (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to justify anything in the main article - I'm too serious & professional an historian. If you honestly believe that there were many more atrocities committed by Whigs, then I'd suggest that you make sure they're described in WP where appropriate & link to the descriptions from this page.  As for books, you clearly haven't even read the back cover of any of those that I've cited - not a single one of them is written from a Covenanter POV.  Also, of the 6 books that I've referenced in this article, four were written by academic historians employed by history departments in respectable universities, while Magnus Magnusson was a journalist who became famous as a TV quiz presenter.  The weight you give to his book is not in line with the aims of WP in terms of representing serious academic work that has been subject to peer review.  I challenge you to find a single university reading list anywhere in the world that includes the book you cite.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Retribution for the Killing Times?
I am starting a new section for this as a 'clean sheet' that may avoid perpetuating mutual bitterness.

I've removed the following text:

"The suppression of the highlands after Culloden was also retribution for the savage persecution of Scottish Whigs, including the notorious 'Killing Times' that had taken place when the Stuart dynasty had actually been on the throne."

This suggestion, unsupported by citation, seems to me to be unrealistic speculation. If it is from a source considered 'reliable' by WP standards then I think it needs qualification such as 'Prof So-&-so of the University of Poppleton has suggested that...'.

The reason I don't think it's a realistic suggestion is that, while there were a few Covenanting types in the establishment & army in 1746, neither HMG, which approved the suppression, nor the British Army, which carried it out, harboured serious resentment over the Killing Times. We know all about policy towards the Highlands over the period 1688-1746 & it seems reasonable to assume that any 'retribution' would've come much earlier, when the Killing Times were easily within living memory, such as after the end of the Williamite wars or after the 'Fifteen, when in fact a much softer line was taken towards the Jacobite Communities (with the sole exception of the MacDonalds of Glencoe).80.229.9.98 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for citations
The whole of this article is always going to be controversial, because of the subject matter. Until a couple of days ago, there were no inline citations whatsoever & there are still no page numbers given for ANY of the claims made. I trust that concern over an absence of page number references will apply to the entire article & not be used selectively, as an excuse for historically inaccurate editing that reflects an unscholarly bias in favour of the pro-Jacobite POV...80.229.9.98 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I placed two wholly appropriate article improvement templates on this article (as well as some other related articles). If you feel the need to interpret them as being directed at you, well I suppose that's your problem. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given your record of interpreting WP policy in a highly selective manner, it's the possibility of an attack on the objectivity of the article that concerns me...80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the most part the article is neutral, but such a tone can be picked up inadvertently when reading about the rape, slaughter, evictions, etc. committed by the Hanoverians following battle. Your edits, by trying to justify and provide 'reasons' for the slaughter serve as a strictly Williamite view. There were atrocities committed by both parties, but the English/Hanoverians were responsible for the majority, and that is a fact. Of course you will not find this in much early English literature, as history is usually written by the victors. -RiverHockey (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I came to this article it was thoroughly Jacobite in its POV, & it remains somewhat Jacobite. My edits help achieve NPOV by providing balance.  Your mention of 'the English' demonstrates your gross ignorance of the period & I challenge you to find a single example of an atrocity that can reasonably be described as having been committed by 'the English' rather than by, e.g., the British Army.  As for the proportion of atrocities committed by pro-Stuart forces, I suggest you read up on the Killing Time, the Highland Host &c.  Your claim about history being written by the victors also demonstrates your gross ignorance of the historiography - far more ink has been spilled by pro-Jacobite authors whining & bleating about Whigs eventually getting round to using the sort of tactics that the Stuarts had used when in power.  As Linda Colley (another reputable historian) has observed, it tends to be the same sort of people who were Jacobites that write about Jacobitism.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Malarkey. That's all I have to say, we will never agree. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there in history anything known as a republican jacobite. Surely mr. Stewart had no wish to disestablish a Monarchy, just the dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"English prisoners"
"Immediately after the battle, Cumberland rode into Inverness, his drawn sword still covered in blood, a symbolic and menacing gesture. The following day, the slaughter continued, when patrols were sent back to the battlefield to kill any survivors. Cumberland emptied the jails of English prisoners, and replaced them with Jacobite sympathisers." So the jails in Inverness had been full of English prisoners? This seems most improbable. I don't mind the pro-Jacobite stance of this passage, but I would prefer the statements to be credible. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the bit about the prisoners is correct. It should probably say British though, that is what i have read. Murray wrote how an officer in the Jacobite Army was stripping prisoners to clothe his troops, and tried to get Charles Edward Stuart to put a stop to this officer's abuse of prisoners. Stuart Reid says that the officer was probably Lord Kilmarnock. The condition of British prisoners found in Inverness hardened some units of Government troops against suspected Jacobite sympathisers: "Our Men have really been pretty severe, and gave little Quarter, being exasperated at the Treatment our Prisoners met with, they being found in dark Dungeons at Inverness, almost naked and eat up with Vermin", Stuart Reid says that this quote was from an officer in Cobham's Regiment and also fought at Culloden.--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct now. I just couldn't swallow the claim that the Inverness jails were full of prisoners from south of the border. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

British losses
I just removed an edit to the Government Army's casualty section, which someone had either edited or vandalised to 200-400 killed without citing a reliable, linked source. I have made the appropriate adjustments, and cited a reliable, online internet source. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * New comments go at the bottom of the page, and please use an edit summary. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

British or Hanoverian?
This has been a matter of some debate, but since British is technically wrong, as the Jacobites had not declared independence as a different nation, nor were they foreign. However, Hanoverian is technically troops from Hanover, a German state. British troops fighting there were not from Hanover, only the government was. It wont make sense to a battle that involves British and Hanoverian soldiers. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to declare it either a "Decisive British Government Victory", a "Decisive Royalist Victory" or a "Decisive Loyalist Victory" to distinguish between the rebels. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * A nameless editor has recently changed the page to describe the result as a "British" victory. As both sides were British, this is distinctly unhelpful. One side supported a king of the house of Hanover, the other, a king of the house of Stuart. Describing the battle as a "Hanoverian" victory is not ideal, but it is much better than calling it a "British" victory. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have reverted those changes as unhelpful, but we need to reach a consensus here so that this does not keep happening.  "Hanoverian," as you say, is not ideal, but it is better than saying "British" or "English." ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed the infobox says "Great Britain", shouldn't it be Kingdom of Great Britain? I also believe the Result section should say "Decisive British Government victory" rather than "Hanoverian". Using two very different descriptions of the 'British' side could be confusing for some.--Celtus (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Both sides considered themselves as supporting the legitimate British king. So describing it as a "British" victory is unhelpful, with or without words such as "royalist", "loyalist", and "government". I accept that "Hanoverian" is not ideal, but it is better than "British" as a designation of the winning side. Maproom (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes just using just "British" alone is too vague for this article. The thing is only one side sided with the British Government, and only one side consisted of the British Army. These aren't used as descriptive terms, but as names of real things. Either something is the British Army or it isn't. So, i think we could easily use either "British Government" or "British Army", without causing any confusion. Maybe, "Decisive victory by the British Army"? That shouldn't be confusing.
 * I'm going to change "Great Britain" to "Kingdom of Great Britain", i don't think this is anything controversial. (see: The Kingdom of Great Britain, also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain,[1] was a state in Western Europe, in existence from 1707 to 1800).--Celtus (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you guys polled the participants in this battle I'm sure you would find that forces fighting for King George would have called themselves "English" and the Jacobites would have called themselves "Scotch." I think that the goal of all this hair-splitting is to avoid drawing this obvious conclusion. The divide between England and Scotland is one that has always been (even to this day) recognized in Scotland; an Englishman might call himself British but a Scotsman never would. And viewed in the proper historical context the Jacobite struggle was not to install a Scotch king on the English throne but to depose a false English king from the Scotch throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.32.113 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, a Scotsman would call himself British: King James, a Scot, was one of the first pioneers of being British. Millions of Scots have called themself British and millions continue to do so. You forget also that plenty of Scots during WW2 as an example referred to themselves as English. Your ignorance is telling: the whole point of the Stewart campaign was to install a Stewart on the throne of Great Britain. Ridiculous to claim that this was an English v Scottish fight. Methinks you are another American with a tenuous grasp of history. unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt King George would have considered himself English, he didn't even speak English... Jacobitism isn't a straight English vs Scottish subject, even if the ethnically soldiers in some of the battles were largely grouped to one side or the other; to say that it is oversimplifies the situation. The "proper historical context" was a dynastic conflict: the House of Stuart versus the House of Hanover. James Francis Edward Stuart and Charles Edward Stuart were not motivated by any patriotic Scottish, anti-English sentiment, but were spurred by their legitimate claim to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland as the heirs of the deposed James VII/II. Their focus was never Scottish independence from English rule as you say, but to undo the Glorious Revolution and restore their family's position. -- Sabre (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing George I with George II. George II spoke a heavily accented English and considered himself to be more English than the English, but, more importantly, he was the monarch at the time of the Battle of Culloden not George I. Of course I am aware that the Stewarts were not Scottish patriots. The question at issue is how the Scots perceived the conflict: were they fighting to restore the arguably legitimate claims of the Stewarts to the crown of England or were they fighting to restore a Catholic monarch to crown of Scotland?154.5.45.119 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The number of Scots in the Hanovarian army was very large. They included the Campbells of Argyll, Mackays, Munros, Sutherlands and some Grants. Many more clan chiefs decided not to participate at all.  Of the Scottish regiments, they were Sempill's Regiment - later 'The King's Own Scottish Borderers', Campbell's Regiment - later 'The Royal Scots Fusiliers', the Cameronians - later 26th Foot, the Royal Scots - later 1st Foot, the Greys, a regiment of Dragoons.  The Royal Highlanders - later the Black Watch - were held in reserve in England.  --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were also English Jacobites serving with Stuart.I also disagree with the idea of using Loyalist/Rebel as a description. I think the description should probably read Decisive Government Victory, and they should be referred to as Government or Jacobite forces. That seems to be the most accurate. Because "loyalist?" Loyal to whom? The Jacobites were loyal to the Stuarts, while the Government forces were loyal to parliament and their decision to invest Orange and later the Hannoverians.Ollie Garkey (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Flag
I created an image of the Jacobite Standard for the infobox. Its based on a replica which can be seen at these two websites:. There seem to be varying accounts of the standard, with some calling for a blue border, but others not mentioning the border at all. If you google Jacobite Standard you can find many different variations of clip art of the standard. But they mostly seem to have a much smaller white centre, and don't contain the motto. According to those two weblinks, it is not certain whether the standard, which was raised at Glenfinnian, contained the motto. But it was certainly upon it 16 days later, "... in the afternoon the young Chevalier entered the town where the main body soon rendezvoused, having set up a standard with the motto 'Tandem Triumphans'". This according to the second link. Any objections to placing this flag in the infoboxes for battles in the second rising?--Celtus (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Jacobite_Standard_(1745).svg|thumb]]
 * Why does the image in the article (at right) not look like the one you proposed? The one in the article uses a font that looks much too modern for the mid-18th century. The one above looks much better, and vaguely Celtic as well, and a lot closer to the supposed replica shown on the site you gave as a reference. I'm no expert on the history of fonts, but as soon as I saw the one in the article, I thought: Surely not. That's what brought me here, wondering if there was some explanation for the selection of that font, and I discovered the one above that looks a lot more appropriate. Since this is a made-up image anyway, it seems reasonable that it should at least look sort of like it could have come from that period, and the Arial-like block font looks much more 20th than 18th century.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Purple tartan
I am sceptical about the lurid purple tartan added by Celtus. It does not look like anything that would have existed at that date, 120 years before the invention of magenta dye. See for evidence. I suggest deleting it, or replacing it by the more plausible-looking blue-and-green image from that page. Maproom (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact is it has long been regarded as a tartan worn at the battle (pretty much all the caption claims). Do you dispute that? An editors personal taste as to the colour purple, means little it terms of the tartan's authenticity. So its a personal website compared to numerous books on tartan. I'm not saying the guy is wrong, just saying that the established tartan should go in the article not one someone creates on his webpage.--Celtus (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concede it has long been accepted by some as a tartan worn at the battle. I dispute that it was in fact worn, because I do not believe that a dye of that shade of purple existed at the time (my personal dislike for the shade is irrelevant). The page I cited gives a plausible explanation for how the evidence might have been misinterpreted, by D.W.Stewart, in 1893. I concede that people have subsequently accepted Stewart's claim, particularly sites like Tartans of Scotland, which have a commercial interest in supplying whatever their customers ask for.


 * If all you are claiming is "here is a tartan that has long been regarded as one worn at the battle", wouldn't it be better to replace it by a better authenticated one and claim "here is a tartan that probably was worn at the battle"? Maproom (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess my point is one website doesn't doesn't trump something that that has been accepted, and very likely still accepted. Whose to say whether his idea is accepted or not? I also noticed the website makes no mention of existence of purple dye as an issue. Why would you think that it was impossible to dye wool purple around 1746? Unless we have a good ref that actually says the colour purple was not used at that time, then our personal opinion on the existence of the dye doesn't really add up to much. Look at this: "Tartan's not dyed-in-the-wool Scots", the vivid dyes used in Jacobite era tartans were imported. Dunno what else to say. Also, don't confuse the Scottish Tartans Word Register as a shop. The register is only a means of documenting and recording tartan. If you look at online shops you'll notice they often list tartans with the Word Register number because tartans can have several names.--Celtus (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that one web site which provides evidence does trump a list run on behalf of commercial interests, giving no evidence, and known to include plenty of non-authentic tartans. And yes, my claim about the non-availability of magenta dye in 1745 (it was not synthesised until 1859) is not mentioned on that page, it is additional evidence.


 * I don't doubt that dyes were imported to Scotland in the 18th century. But the page you cite makes no mention of a purple dye (it mentions quercitron, without stating its colour: it is yellow). Tyrian purple, or Murex, was known then, but it was a redder, darker, colour than the one shown in your image. The purple obtained by mixing a red dye with indigo would also be much less bright than the purple in your image.


 * If your claim is "lots of people have believed that tartan like this was worn in the battle", I accept it, but don't regard it as relevant enough to put in the entry. If you believe that a bright light purple cloth was actually available in 1745, I remain very sceptical. Maproom (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your disbelief that Jacobite era wool could be dyed purple is nothing more than your opinion. And would be original research. It would be surprising, that something could ever be accepted as dating from an era when a particular dye used in it was not yet invented or simply impossible. But so far the only place where this 'purple dye' argument has been used is here and by you. By itself thats not really good enough for the inclusion or exclusion of any material in an article. The tartan register is a valuable resource: its free and easy to use on the net, and documents most(?) of all known tartans (even the lurid purple ones) . It was formed because there was, and still isn't a national register of tartan. It wasn't formed, and doesn't exist to sell tartans. Though, there may soon be a national register (see this from June, "Holyrood supports tartan register").


 * So we have a long accepted tartan, which is derived from a sample said to have been worn at the battle. And we also have a website that gives a alternate colours and proportions for the same sample. And yes, his webpage does provide evidence, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to distrust it. But it is one website, his website. You need to prove that his take on the tartan is accepted and (or) that the 'lurid' tartan in question is now not accepted as not being properly derived from the original sample. Note the 'lurid' tartan is actually illustrated as being worn in a colour plate of Major James Stewart in Reid, Stuart (2006). The Scottish Jacobite Army 1745–46, Elite series #149. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84603 073 0, so its seems to be still accepted. See Wikipedia policy: "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them", and also, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". I'm not claiming anything. Pending someone coming up with something published discrediting it, the burden of evidence lies with the lurid tartan.--Celtus (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Check this, the website's author has written one book on tartan . I think i have found his version of the Culloden tartan on the Scottish Tartans Authority website. The tartan authority is very much like the tartan register, documenting all known tartans. However the site requires a membership fee to view information on specific tartans. Click this link, search under 'tartan name' for Culloden. DW Stewart's (Culloden 1893 - O&R) and P MacDonald's (Culloden 1746 - Original) both appear. Unfortunately we can't see what they have to say about them without paying $$$. Though by the way the site names these two tartans its seems like they conclude MacDonald is correct in his view on DW Stewart's version of the supposed Culloden sample.--Celtus (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I would like to hear the opinion of another authority on this field besides MacDonald. I do not regard the Scottish Tartans Authority, nor the Scottish Tartans Society, as authorities on what were authentic tartans - both are run in the interests of those who sell tartan items, and are unlikely ever to spoil business by saying "this is not an authentic old tartan". And judging from the article you cite, the official register will be similar.


 * By the way – to see images of several "Culloden" tartans, as listed by the Scottish Tartans Society (different from the Authority, but apparently similar in the way it operates), without paying money, visit . The one you have used in the article is close to the one listed there as "Culloden, Gold" (set 'repeat..image' to 2 and "Weave" to s0). Maproom (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen that site before, to compare thread counts on some tartans. You're right, it is the same tartan - same thread count. Actually the guy that runs that site copied the tartans and thread counts from our Vestiarium Scoticum article, even the mistakes. His Campbell, Farquaharson, & Mackenzie ones aren't right (they're suppose to have alternating coloured 'pin-stripes'). Anyways, i would like to have the purple tartan in the article, but at the same time i don't think we ought to knowingly put something in the article that seems to be 'iffy', or possibly not regarded as fact any more. The thing isn't crucial to the article anyways. So i will take it out. Maybe someone else will come up with more information or more references will turn up on Culloden tartans.--Celtus (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I recollect that the MacGregor family always believed that the clans which fought at Culloden had a fine white lateral and vertical line incorporated in the tartan. My grandmother, who made all the family kilts by hand, always maintained this.Miletus (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Who cares? Did the colour of tartan affect the outcome of the battle? Talk about angels on the head of a pin! Dmgerrard (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding note to archived discussion in case anyone wants to ever revive this discussion: Maproom's skepticism was well-founded. It has been known since 2007 that Stewart's rendering of this tartan was terribly wrong. The correct version, based on modern re-examination of the original Culloden-era coat, is here: File:Culloden 1746 tartan, tiling.png.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Concerning images
More image problems. I was looking for images of highlanders or british soldiers and came across a few period illustrations. A is from 18th Century Highlanders, and B and C are from King George's Army 1740-1793 (2), both books are referenced in the article. These are cited as being originally from the 1742 Cloathing Book. Image A is of the 43rd Foot, image B is of 21st Foot (Royal Scots Fusiliers); Image C is of the 37th Foot. Even though they are black and white the author describes the colours of the uniforms depicted (note: i can copy the captions for each image ABC if anyone would like that aswell). And a google search seems to confirm that the 1742 Cloathing Book was coloured.

I found some coloured images which seem to be from the 1742 Cloathing Book here and the New York Public Library Digital Gallery website. But they are different, they can't be from the same source (another edition? a later copy?). The lines in the drawings don't correspond, they don't match their mates. Also, see how image C is listed as 43rd and 3 listed as 42nd. And image B is listed as Royal Scots Fusiliers and image 2 is listed as Royal Scotch Fusiliers. Note the Black Watch was originally the 42nd Highland Regiment of Foot, then later named the 43rd in 1740. I don't know right now when they switch back to 42nd, but they did. So which images should/could be used in this article? The B&W ones are cited in the published works so they should be ok and are supported by an authority. But they aren't as attractive as the coloured ones. Any opinions?--Celtus (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. The Black Watch was called the 43rd during the time of Culloden, but did not take part. It was renamed 42nd in 1749. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtus (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Last Battle on British Soil?
Can we put this myth to bed please? I include details of two much later battles in Scotland and England. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Entertaining, but original research contradicting a common published claim. Presumably you regard the Radical War as the last war entirely on Scottish soil? In the annals of military history, Sixteen Hussars and sixteen Yeomanry troopers attacking under 30 exhausted Radicals doesn't really compare with Culloden, and is miniscule compared with the Peterloo Massacre a year earlier. The Battle of Bossenden Wood appears to be another minor instance of civil unrest, where 40 rioters were apprehended by a detachment of soldiers. With that sort of hyperbolic standard, there must surely have a more recent battle. Reminds me of spray painted slogans in Edinburgh about the Inch War. .. dave souza, talk 09:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the website of the 'Culloden Battlefield Project' claims that "Culloden was the last hand-to-hand battle fought on British soil".--Celtus (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They also tell teachers "Welcome to Culloden Battlefield - site of the last major pitched battle fought on British soil." Perhaps not altogether reliable: their background page says that in 1688 "the divisions were so deep that the king, James VII of Scotland and II of England, a Catholic and a Stuart, had to flee to France. The English and Scottish parliaments invited the Protestant William of Orange and his wife Mary to come from Europe to rule in his place." Strange – my understanding is that the "Immortal Seven" invited William and Mary to depose James. On 4 November 1688 William arrived at Torbay, England and, when he landed the next day, at Brixham, James fled to France. . . dave souza, talk 14:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacobite prisoners
Reid (2002) has it that the Jacobite prisoners consisted of: 154 taken after the battle, another 222 "French" taken after the battle. 172 more Jacobites were added to the total by Cumberland, but these had been taken after the skirmish at Dunrobin—not Culloden. Harrington (1991) is less specific, just saying that 336 Jacobites and 222 French were taken to Inverness and locked up. So anyways, in the infobox i excluded the 172 that didn't take part in the battle.--Celtus (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this must be the battle at Dunrobin Battle of Bonar Bridge.--Celtus (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue on Blue?
Why the NATO term for a battle that predates NATO by 300 years? Wouldn't "friendly fire" work just as well, without neccessitating quite so many people to go look it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.17.50 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I switched it to "friendly fire" per your comment. Just a note, "blue on blue" redirects there too.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Regiment
While the vast majority of the Jacobite Manchester Regiment was left in Carlisle a small detachment from the Manchester Regiment was present at Culloden and were responasable for the Jacobite Artillery. Quoting: Tony Pollard: "Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the last Clan Battle. Page 42. Published 2009. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Weapon statistics
The article says: "Cumberland reported that there were 2,320 firelocks recovered from the battlefield, but only 190 broadswords. From this, it can be determined that of the roughly 1,000 Jacobites killed at Culloden, only one in five carried a sword." I'm puzzled by the reasoning here. From the same figures, we could conclude that each Jacobite carried an average of 2.3 firelocks! Something else is being assumed here - is it that the swords were dropped by the dead, while the firelocks were dropped by Jacobites running away? If so, that's a complicated assumption, which needs to be spelled out and supported by some evidence. Peter Bell (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Go on GoogleBooks and search "2,320 firelocks", and the ref will pop up. Here's the statement: "Even if some allowance is made for units which are known not to have carried broadswords, such as the 'French' regulars, this suggests that no more than one in five of the 1,000-odd Highlanders killed at Culloden were armed with broadswords". So that makes sense, it's not complicated: 190 goes into 1,000 no more than five times, that's a fact. I think the 'something else' that is being assumed is that during a retreat there's a tendency for soldiers to ditch their heavy kit that only hinders their escape - in this case the firelock. The totally skewed firelock/dead ratio must have to do with battlefield-survivors throwing down their cumbersome firelocks during the retreat. A member of my family was at Dunkirk in 1940, and the story was that their 'ticket on the boat' was 'a rifle per man'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is the consequence of the "Highland Charge" - the Scots fired their guns then threw them aside and charged with their swords or whatever blades they had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.116 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Maps
In the Battle on Culloden Moor section, one of the two maps must be wrong. The map in the Opening Moves subsection shows the Jacobites situated between Culloden Parks to the NW and Culwhiniac enclosure to the SE. But the next map, in Jacobite Charge shows Culloden Park to the SE and forest to the NW. Which is correct? And what are Culloden Park and the Culwhiniac & Leanach enclosures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troymc (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Error in page
There's an error in the 2nd paragraph of Opening Moves where it states: "...and the Macdonalds on the far right simply ignored him." As the next sentence clearly states, the Macdonalds were on the far left, and the Atholl Brigade was on the right. Troymc (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just fixed it. It says "far left" now.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Handel's oratorio Judas Maccabaeus
I wouldn't presume to know where (or if) this information should be included in the article, but note that Handel wrote the oratorio Judas Maccabaeus as a compliment to the victorious Duke of Cumberland upon his return from the battle of Culloden. Perhaps in a "See also" section? GFHandel .  23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

French involvement?
Check out the French translation of this article, and the German, and a few others. There seems to be no hint of French troops turning up at Culloden.--85.164.223.189 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those articles combined have one source and two footnotes. Look up the articles Irish Brigade (French) and Garde Écossaise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but I believe it was not the Garde Écossaise (1st company of the royal bodyguard) but the Régiment Royal-Ecossais who were present at Culloden.BNS-CLARKE (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Query About Neutrality of Entry
Entries in Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral. In general, I have found them to be so. But in the 2nd paragraph under "Background" in this entry, it is said that Charles Edward Stuart "petulantly" left command to [Lord George] Murray.

The word "petulantly" is not neutral, to say the least. Why is it used in this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupstid123 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of how clearly POV this wording was, I removed it. It needed to be removed. Ollie Garkey (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The British government wasn't Hanoverian
The monarchy was Hanoverian, but the government was British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.116.233 (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV, Factual Errors, Unreliable Sources.
There are a number of citations which are factually incorrect, but based on history which was believed to be true at the time. Most notably, these factual inaccuracies cite Barthorp

"Barthorp, Michael (1982). The Jacobite Rebellions 1689–1745. Men-at-arms series #118. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0 85045 432 8."

Multiple claims attributed to him within this article have been shown by more recent scholarship to based on propaganda rather than fact, with numerous primary sources (such as letters and correspondence) proving the claims wrong.

The specific claims in question:

"The bulk of these men were forced to join by their clan chiefs, landlords or feudal superiors... Because of recruiting in this manner, when the campaign began to fizzle out in the lead-up to the battle, desertion was a major problem in the Highland regiments within the Jacobite army."

"One of the fundamental problems with the Jacobite army was the lack of trained officers. The lack of professionalism and training was readily apparent; even the colonels of the Macdonald regiments of Clanranald and Keppoch considered their men to be uncontrollable."

While the claims of the brutality of the tacksmen under the clan system are accurate, the tacksmen were supported by the soldiers, who themselves aided in the brutalizing of farmers. The rank and file soldier was considered to be a gentleman in highland society, and would not engage in any agrarian work. One of Scotland's main exports during the period was soldiers. Some of these men held commissions from multiple European militarizes. They were professional soldiers who were outnumbered, poorly led, and charging across a bog towards superior firepower. They were not untrained, unruly savages. As for desertion, because highland troops were unpaid volunteers whose rewards were loot, they had the right to desert when they felt like it. This was a tradition in highland militaries.

I will provide citations in due course, but I would argue that Barthorp's work is dated, and his information has been proven false. Thus, information attributed to him should be removed.

Once I provide those citations, what is the appropriate method of removing false claims from the article?

NPOV is going to be difficult to achieve with this article because of the difficult subject matter as well as the propaganda that was accepted as fact for centuries. It is only recently that we're doing the necessary archival work to verify or disprove the claims which, in the mind of some, justify the actions taken during this conflict.

I also find it frustrating that people seem to be fighting on either side. Those who cannot put their personal feelings one way or the other aside should cease from editing this article. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm laughing here, because I just did a quick lookup of Barthorp's work. ''It is not a scholarly work. It is a picture book.'' http://www.amazon.com/Jacobite-Rebellions-1689-1745-Men-at-Arms/dp/0850454328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301243391&sr=1-1

This isn't a scholarly work. At best, it is a tertiary source, a brief summary based on the scholarship of others, and thus is not an appropriate substitution for rigorous scholarship. It makes spurious, dated, claims. But this is not the focus of the book. The book is not about the battle of culloden. It's a picture book depicting the arms and armor of the soldiers of the Jacobite era. I'll be back with actual scholarship based on information which isn't dated. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Requested
I haven't had time to do this, and don't know how. I've noticed that someone has removed one of the unreliable sources. Here's the issue: the following sources are unreliable:

Reid, Stuart (1996). British Redcoat 1740–1793. Warrior series #19. London: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 554 3.

Reid, Stuart (1996). 1745, A Military History of the Last Jacobite Rising. Sarpedon. ISBN 1-885119-28-3.

Reid, Stuart (1997). Highland Clansman 1689–1746. Warrior series #21. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 85532 660 4.

Reid, Stuart (2002). Culloden Moor 1746, The Death Of The Jacobite Cause. Campaign series #106. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84178 412 4.

Reid, Stuart (2006). The Scottish Jacobite Army 1745–46. Elite series #149. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1 84603 073 0.

They need to be removed for reasons stated previously. I have contradicting quotations from the anti-jacobite "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309454889&sr=1-1 as well as other sources, but I don't know how to just remove sources. I know how to source my own material. This is really frustrating.

This isn't a neutrality issue, as the book I listed here is staunchly anti-jacobite, it's a facts issue. The citations from these sources are so factually incorrect I don't know where to begin, and I don't have the wiki-know how to make such massive edits. Do I need to get together some kind of community consensus? How do I do this? Ollie Garkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

the battlefield in the 1950's
During the early-mid 1950's I spent my Summer vacations at Balvraid farm, which was then (and still) owned and farmed by the Rose (Clan Rose of Nairn) family who were and still are my kinsmen and Presbyterian god-parents. The ruins of the original Balvraid farm, from the period of the battle, were still visible about 50 yards from the present-day (1950's) farmhouse. The traditional story is that Gilles MacBean was pursued from the battlefield (about 400 yards away to the East) and British troops cornered him against the walls of the house (then a small and primitive croft). MacBean is then described as having taken up the 'tram' of a cart (the drawbar?) as a weapon and having held off the British soldiers for some time was eventually shot in the back by soldiers who had climbed up on the roof of the house behind him and was bayonetted by those soldiers to his front. The dwelling then burnt down following the discharge of the muskets close to the thatched roof. The actual truth of this local folk tradition is difficult to establish but, normally, such folk-memory accounts have to be taken seriously. I understand the Gilles MacBean has an important place in the history of the battle and the campaign, but I cannot tell you more than this.Miletus (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you have mentioned is a traditional story of the Clan MacBain. It could well be true but I doubt that there is any contemporary evidence to prove it. It's quite a good story though I have to admit. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

small points
The whole affair was a direct challenge to the established Honoverian throne and that same organisation simply hired reliable troops where they could get them to oppose that challenge. These would appear to be the last mercenaries to fight on British soil anyway.

The suggestion about purple dye seems valid. Synthetic purple/mauve wasn't discovered until some time in the 1880s and in Germany. After that the price fell dramaticaly and it is frequently possible to date 19th century womens clothing by the amount of purple dye used. Before this the only source of purple was Murex shellfish and highly expensive.

Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours?AT Kunene (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Culloden
Whether one's sympathies lie with the Jacobites or the Hanoverians, please remember that 16 April 2012 was the 266th anniversary of the battle.Maclennan123 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Praise for Editing and Revising This Article
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Praise for Editing and Revising This Article
This article has been greatly improved by editing and revising. Thanks to everyone who helped improve it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Query About Duplicate Posts
Can anyone tell me how to remove a remark that has been posted twice instead of once? I'll be grateful. macLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to query
The query: Is there any explanation as to why no British regiment carries a Culloden victory on its colours?

My answer: The indescribable atrocities at Culloden and the numerous items published about the battle horrified so many people, including people in the British military forces, that British regiments are supposedly prohibited from carrying anything about the battle on its colours.--Check Christopher Duffy's book, "The '45." It's a splendid treatment of a horrifying occasion: It may offer further information on this subject.

macLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

British regiments only receive battle honours for fighting foreign armies, not 'internal' rebels (as the great majority of the Jacobite force at Culloden were), which is why none of the numerous victories from the American War of Independence exist as British battle honours either. Things get a bit blurred when it comes to the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8: several regiments have battle honours from that conflict, and you could argue that as Hon. East India Company regiments, rather than crown regiments, the mutineers constituted a regular, external force, which would justify the award of battle honours, but I personally can't help but suspect that those sepoys who mutinied were regarded as more alien than Jacobites or American rebels because of their skin tones more than anything else... :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.208.0 (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Government or British ?
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether it should be the "Government Army" or "British Army". The argument that both sides were British may be true but at the end of the day the official name of the military force is the "British Army".QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think is is more important to make it clear which side won, than to use the winning force's correct official title. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the full title of British Army were being used I would say that British was appropriate, although it was probably called the royal army at this point. The opposite of Jacobites is Hanoverians, does that help?--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The British Army was not called the royal army, unlike the Royal Navy (and later the RAF), due to the Civil War when Parliament claimed the right to control the Army. Hanover was a completely independent state separate from Britain, Hanoverian means the forces of the state of Hanover, not Britain.--Britannicus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a legal fiction that the army was founded after the Restoration and Hanoverian has several meanings, which include a follower of the House of Hanover. If not not we need to edit the disamb page for Hanoverian.--  SabreBD  (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Hanoverian has several meanings it will be best not to use it. Let's call the British Army the British Army.--Britannicus (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been officially known as the British Army since 1707 and this battle was in 1746.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem in using British army to describe the army, but British is probably a bit confusing. We could of course do a survey and see what major books use, but the Hanoverian suggestion is a bit not worth arguing about unless it gets more support here than just my suggestion.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When both the participating armies were mostly British, saying that the "British Army" won is unhelpful. "Hanoverian" is not ideal, but is at least unambiguous in the context: one of the armies was fighting in support of the House of Hanover, the other, against it. Incidentally, this issue has been discussed before, here. Maproom (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you missed a bit of the link.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath - Geography
The section "Collapse of the Jacobite campaign" states that Scalpay is between Harris and Lewis. This is not correct. It also indicates (in the same sentence) that each of Harris and Lewis is an Island; that is also incorrect.

Harris and Lewis are two parts of one island, not two islands.

Scalpay is south of North Harris, which in turn is south of Lewis, and east of South Harris; the article would be less inaccurate if it claimed instead that Scalpay is between South Harris and North Harris, but even that is not correct. It would be better to say that Scalpay is off the the coast of Harris. In Gàidhlig, this Scalpay (there is anther Scalpaidh off the coast of Skye( is called "Sclapaidh na h-Earradh" (Scalpay Harris) and is never associated with Lewis other than through Harris.

I think these errors in the article arise because (a) the link between N and S Harris is a very narrow strip of land and can be confused as not joining the two parts together and (b) a lot of non-Hebridean people think that the boundary between Harris and Lewis is at Tarbert, on that strip, rather than signicicantly north of there (Scaladale and KinReasort are in Harris, not Lewis), so there is enough of Lewis north of Tarbert to fit the whole of Scalpay in about a dozen times - in fact even the areas of N Harris futher south than Tarbert is as big as the area of Scalpay. Michealt (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected the article. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List
There are following battles


 * 1) Battle of Drumclog - 1679
 * 2) Battle of Bothwell Bridge - 1679
 * 3) Battle of Sedgemoor - 1685
 * 4) Battle of Killiecrankie - 1689
 * 5) Battle of Sheriffmuir - 1715
 * 6) Battle of Prestonpans - 1745
 * 7) Battle of Falkirk II - 1746
 * 8) Battle of Culloden - 1746

according to. -- 88.78.251.59 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)