Talk:John O'Sullivan (soldier)

Highly questionable source

A lot of the information in this article is taken from the 1964 film Culloden. This is barely more than a fiction set in the Culloden timeframe and most of its contents are contradicted by reputable sources. It really needs thorough revision based on sources that can actually be relied upon.

This has now been completely re-written with all references to the 1964 film Culloden deleted and the text formatted around information gained from genuinely scholastic works.

Expansion or Balancing
There are many good points made here about O'Sullivan and having done extensive work elsewhere on the 45, I agree his reputation has suffered from the general welter of recrimination that always follows defeat. However, I think the author has gone too far the other way; there are a number of dubious statements but much of it is not currently written from a neutral POV eg

''He was not responsible for the notorious "night March" that resulted in the Jacobite Army entering Culloden Field in an exhausted and disorganized condition. This was entirely the work of Lord George Murray who had forced the plan through against O'Sullivan's advice.''

Murray was himself far from the 'parfait, gentle knight' many assume but this only shows one side; O'Sullivan chose the ground, failed to agree a rallying point should defeat occur (a standard practice) etc.

And without arguing the point, this statement caught my eye immediately ie 'O'Sullivan appears to bear little or no responsibility for the disaster.' He was one of the top three Jacobite commanders; you can argue (and I have elsewhere) defeat was pretty much sealed once the Jacobites raised the siege of Stirling in February but he can't escape any liability for the factors leading to defeat.

Plus many of Charles' other decisions were from him, rebadged; Charles' unwillingness to concede his absolute authority over the Scots which drove a fatal split between was reinforced by O'Sullivan and other Irish exiles. The decision to invade England was not simply a function of Charles' desire to sit on the British throne but also driven by the Irish contingent. They make complete from an Irish persecutive but should not be excluded.

I'm happy to provide more detail on specifics.

Robinvp11 (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately too many writers have seen this as a binary 'Murray or O'Sullivan' choice. A situation set up by contemporary commentators, and then floridly elaborated by Victorian historians reaching its eventual conclusion in Prebble (and therefore 'Culloden', which was based on Prebble). Then you have the inevitable reaction: people like Reid, who amongst other accusations charges Murray with acting more like a 'batallion commander' than a general. The legacy of all this is that it's now impossible to talk about O'Sullivan without bringing Murray into it!


 * Several poor decisions feed into Culloden and both men are culpable to a degree. O'Sullivan chose a different field originally, but then let events make the final choice for him: Murray's "changement" can also be criticised. Either way as you point out the campaign was really finished by the failure to take Stirling: a unexciting way to lose, but that's history :)


 * It would be great to include more detail on O'Sullivan's other input into 1745; there was more to the man's career than Culloden after all.Svejk74 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments for consideration
Suggestions....


 * I'm not sure 'catastrophe' is the right word for Culloden; chaotic maybe;


 * '...due in a great measure to his energy and tact;' I redid the Flora MacDonald article a while back and I think this statement needs fleshing out or a reference, as its not the impression I got.

and a query; if he was knighted by James, can he be referred to as Sir? That's just my curiosity.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 'A great measure to his energy and tact' is a hold over from an earlier version of the article. The phrase seems to have been taken direct from Webb's Compendium of Irish Biography (1878).


 * It seems to be convention to refer to him in many sources as "Sir" along with other members of the Jacobite peerage (e.g. Macdonnell the inspector of cavalry) though others are rarely given their Jacobite titles, e.g. Keppoch. Referring to him as "Colonel" is also done inconsistently. I found myself wondering if the pointed reference to him in Watkin's Culloden by Murray as "Mr O'Sullivan" might be some kind of reference to this ambiguous status.Svejk74 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Holding a French officer's commission didn't save Francis Towneley...but it might be a reference to the concern expressed by some of the Scots that people like Sullivan weren't risking very much (we get hanged, they get exchanged).


 * Re the 45, I put a note on your Talk page :). Honestly, I wish I hadn't bothered with the A list thing - it was largely curiosity but having started, I need to respect the efforts put in.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Charles's old mate Strickland presented himself as a French officer too, though he died of dropsy about a day after doing so.


 * I think part of the problem was that being an 'officer' ran the whole range of interpretations from someone who might have served in a foreign army at some unspecified earlier point (e.g. Strickland) to active professionals such as Stapleton. In Sullivan's case it seems unclear as to exactly how active he was immediately prior to 1745, as no-one is explicit on when or exactly where he served, although it does seem clear he was a staff officer and hence very much on the admin side of things. Of course the Jacobite court and particularly Charles's retinue was a bit of a magnet for rootless adventurers of all kinds, much to James's evident frustration.Svejk74 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

name
If he used the name Sullivan, and this name appears in the one contemporary quote, shouldn't the article use this name? PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is nearly every secondary source uses O'Sullivan, so most people will know him as O'Sullivan. Would be interested to hear other opinions though! Svejk74 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)