@toppguun "that's the only way to defeat highland warrior with cannons!!"
Not quite. The government artillery was rather ineffective do to the soft ground. The Jacobites real problem was that they had won the two previous battles. At Prestonpans and Falkirk they had charged and the enemy had fled. Reasonably enough, they expected the same thing to happen at Culloden.
But it didn't. In most cases Cumberland's men stood their ground and mowed the Jacobites down.
don't suppose you've got the 2 parts about the irish brigade lads who saved the highlanders by covering the rear? the only unit to suffer 100% killed wounded or captured that day.
theres an interview with one, and a small part about their rearguard action.
So close to victory. Bear in mind the Jacobites went on a long night raid before the battle. They almost suceeded in finding the Government camp, could have been alot different.
The cannon are about the right size, I think, but even light cannon were not served by infantry in Cumberland's army. Colonel Belford, in charge of the guns, was Royal Artillery, as were his men. One gun was overrun by the Jacobites, and its commander mortally wounded.
The cannon fire is much too heavy to be realistic. Even in Cumberland's army, there were not that many guns, and they took an appreciable amount of time to load. The film gives the impression the Hanoverians had dozens, even hundreds of cannon.
If by appreciable you mean around thirty seconds (or less) for a decent crew...then, yes, appreciable. A half-dozen cannon could keep up that sort of barrage if fired ripple-fire.
Sixty or so years later, the Duke of Wellington referred to his ordinary soldiers as "the scum of the earth". 18th century soldiers were often drawn from the bottom of the social heap, and kept under brutal discipline. Interestingly, the artillerymen seem to have had more men literate enough to sign their names than the infantry, in Cumberland's army.
yes, indeed. artillerymen needed a touch more acumen to serve the pieces than did the average musketeer. apparently they did in fact tend to have a bit more schooling, certainly in wellington´s day. cumberland´s gunners would have been no exception, i assume, not that i´m an expert.
Then you must include the Lowland Scots then, because they were the most vindictive towards the Highlanders post Culloden. The Lowland Regts were more extreme than the English were with regard to the treatment of Highlanders. The Lowlanders had a score to settle, the average English 'Tom' was just doing a job of work. Read "Culloden," by John Prebble.
one explanation may be that they´re small regimental pieces, not necessarily manned by the royal artillery proper. just an idea - i´ve not found any evidence one way or the other. if anyone knows, i´d be happy to be enlightened.
There are errors in the documentation, "Fire over open sights" ,what else in 1746? But the clan system was so, not the family of todays romantic view. Just have a look in the original sources from 1746/47. Many prisoners claimed to have been forced and the judges accepted this! So they escaped deportation or worth. Nobody would accuse the Hannoverian judges of mildness. And not only Whig Chiefs later exchanged people for sheeps. The Duthchas was soon forgotten for making more money.
Ah! How positively predictable! Another intellectually bankrupt Yank, who has no knowledge of history, & things in the manner of a simpleton. Would you like to discuss the systematic enthnic cleasning of the native Indians in America per chance? YOUR nation stole the lands from the Indian, you confined them on state run reservations, destroyed their way of life & the fabric of their society & culture. The US army massacred many an Indian settlement. So-sod off, you stupid, ignorant Yank!
How little you know of the Scots to issue such a statement, "they could never fight back." The Highlanders gave the Red coats many a bloody nose. Have you never heard of the battle of Prestonpans, which occurred shortly before Culloden? The Highlanders annihilated an English army in 15 minutes flat. The Scots are second to none when it comes to fighting aggression & bravery & I readily acknowledge that as an Englishman who had the priviledge to serve in a Scottish Regt.
But Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales, so you are including the Scots and Welsh in your post.
Which shows how little you know about British history, which explains why your opinion is meaningless.
"They would never fight anyone that would fight back"
Ah yes, so that's why Britain (correct use this time) fought back against Hitler, years before the US did? And fought against Germany in WW1? And fought against Napoleon for years?
@6925319 It was no different than at Gettysburg- flat land and brothers on either side of the lines. Blunders all, and many brave men killed for nothing....
"The clan was like a family and from highest to lowest in the hierarchy all would die with pride and would see it as dishonour not to fight for their chief and people. "
Well, yes and no. They were no doubt proud to be members of the clan, but if they didn't support the Laird in his wars the Tacksman wouldn't hesitate to burn his house down.
A lot of the lads at Culloden were no doubt happy to fight for their clan and religion, but a lot didn't have a choice.
I think a lot of the Clan Chiefs followed Bonnie Prince Charles with reluctance. They followed him because he was the Stuart Heir, but he didn't excite them the way that William Wallace or Montrose did. Unfortunately Charlie was no kind of leader, and the clansmen died in their droves.
Just wish the author of the documentary did a more detailed study of the clan system.
If you had told the lowest of these clansmen they were seen as no more than human rent they'd be much offended.
The clan was like a family and from highest to lowest in the hierarchy all would die with pride and would see it as dishonour not to fight for their chief and people.
watkins concentrates almost exclusively on the backgrounds of the highlanders; there´s little said about where the redcoats come from.
the peasant´s role in history has always been more or less the same, regardless of which side of the border he was born on. a man´s outrage at being termed merely a source of income doesn´t alter the sad fact that that´s what he was: charles´ was very much a feudal army, and many were "obliged" to be on the moor that day.
Yes, thanks to Stonehaven Fan for posting this bit. I must've seen this on TV around 1966, and was immediately struck by the novelty of filming a historical event as a bit of photojournalism. Brilliantly done. Thought I'd never see it again.
It wasnt orange at this point it was Hanover. And it was a rebellion so technically the Jacobites are treacherous ones for fighting against their country.And why would you send them packin south?
this is a masterpiece of filming, it is so basic but truely gives a spinechilling account of what it might have been like.. i have the dvd of this and the making of. i must look it out..
that's the only way to defeat highland warrior with cannons!!
toppguun 1 year ago
@toppguun "that's the only way to defeat highland warrior with cannons!!"
Not quite. The government artillery was rather ineffective do to the soft ground. The Jacobites real problem was that they had won the two previous battles. At Prestonpans and Falkirk they had charged and the enemy had fled. Reasonably enough, they expected the same thing to happen at Culloden.
But it didn't. In most cases Cumberland's men stood their ground and mowed the Jacobites down.
oarfrost 9 months ago
it is available on play.com on dvd for about 50 pounds,quite expensive but,top documentry
MrJekyllandhyde1 1 year ago
Does anyone know if footage from this film was used in Robert MacNeil's documentary series on the English language?
mrleedra 1 year ago
@mrleedra yes it was
McAndy89 10 months ago
A masterpiece that was viewed as politically dangerous at the time hence how little it has been seen. This subject is still delicate to this day.
MrMattbassman 1 year ago
don't suppose you've got the 2 parts about the irish brigade lads who saved the highlanders by covering the rear? the only unit to suffer 100% killed wounded or captured that day.
theres an interview with one, and a small part about their rearguard action.
thanks for uploading!
hibeesFTQ 2 years ago
the british chisolm was later hanged for treason by the british. He had latter realized he betrayed his family.
hessianbob 2 years ago
Interesting, but could you please name the source of the information about that James Chisolm? James was a very common Chisolm name.
crematio 2 years ago
"Culloden", written by john prebble.
hessianbob 2 years ago
you want the page number too. the director of this film used john prebble's book as information for this flick. suck it smarty pants...
hessianbob 1 year ago
@crematio - Hope this helps..."The History of the Chisholms" by Alexander Mackenzie; pg. 65
There were actually two brothers of Roderick Og on Cumberland's side at Culloden and they had the rank of Captain.
ThaBarbarian82 1 year ago
So close to victory. Bear in mind the Jacobites went on a long night raid before the battle. They almost suceeded in finding the Government camp, could have been alot different.
RagnarOneEye 2 years ago
Wow, the intro remind me a lot of the American Civil war.
Dawn59er 2 years ago
Watched it again last night nothing has changed with me after over 40 years still a masterpiece considering what watkins had to work with.
gratefultiger 2 years ago 9
The cannon are about the right size, I think, but even light cannon were not served by infantry in Cumberland's army. Colonel Belford, in charge of the guns, was Royal Artillery, as were his men. One gun was overrun by the Jacobites, and its commander mortally wounded.
SteveKaczynski 2 years ago
right you are, SK.
greymalkinfilms 2 years ago
The cannon fire is much too heavy to be realistic. Even in Cumberland's army, there were not that many guns, and they took an appreciable amount of time to load. The film gives the impression the Hanoverians had dozens, even hundreds of cannon.
SteveKaczynski 2 years ago
If by appreciable you mean around thirty seconds (or less) for a decent crew...then, yes, appreciable. A half-dozen cannon could keep up that sort of barrage if fired ripple-fire.
MsHyaline 2 years ago
Sixty or so years later, the Duke of Wellington referred to his ordinary soldiers as "the scum of the earth". 18th century soldiers were often drawn from the bottom of the social heap, and kept under brutal discipline. Interestingly, the artillerymen seem to have had more men literate enough to sign their names than the infantry, in Cumberland's army.
SteveKaczynski 2 years ago 2
yes, indeed. artillerymen needed a touch more acumen to serve the pieces than did the average musketeer. apparently they did in fact tend to have a bit more schooling, certainly in wellington´s day. cumberland´s gunners would have been no exception, i assume, not that i´m an expert.
fatmaccam 2 years ago
Judging by the inhumane way they behaved post Culloden they had to be "scum" of the lowest order.
nacho1560 2 years ago
Then you must include the Lowland Scots then, because they were the most vindictive towards the Highlanders post Culloden. The Lowland Regts were more extreme than the English were with regard to the treatment of Highlanders. The Lowlanders had a score to settle, the average English 'Tom' was just doing a job of work. Read "Culloden," by John Prebble.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 2 years ago 5
and christopher duffy´s "the 45" - same story.
greymalkinfilms 2 years ago
Comment removed
SteveKaczynski 2 years ago
Pathetically small number of extras - the clever camera work doesn't quite manage to conceal it.
The Hanoverian artillery seem to be wearing red uniforms - it should have been dark blue.
SteveKaczynski 2 years ago
one explanation may be that they´re small regimental pieces, not necessarily manned by the royal artillery proper. just an idea - i´ve not found any evidence one way or the other. if anyone knows, i´d be happy to be enlightened.
fatmaccam 2 years ago
There are errors in the documentation, "Fire over open sights" ,what else in 1746? But the clan system was so, not the family of todays romantic view. Just have a look in the original sources from 1746/47. Many prisoners claimed to have been forced and the judges accepted this! So they escaped deportation or worth. Nobody would accuse the Hannoverian judges of mildness. And not only Whig Chiefs later exchanged people for sheeps. The Duthchas was soon forgotten for making more money.
crematio 3 years ago 3
Vive l' Ecosse !
haxocnc 3 years ago 3
british bastards have no pride. they fucked up the scottish/irish name, they could never fight anyone that would fight back.
soldierme36 3 years ago
British bastards have no pride ???
Are you retarded by any chance ?
paulandshark1882 3 years ago 3
Ah! How positively predictable! Another intellectually bankrupt Yank, who has no knowledge of history, & things in the manner of a simpleton. Would you like to discuss the systematic enthnic cleasning of the native Indians in America per chance? YOUR nation stole the lands from the Indian, you confined them on state run reservations, destroyed their way of life & the fabric of their society & culture. The US army massacred many an Indian settlement. So-sod off, you stupid, ignorant Yank!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 2 years ago 4
How little you know of the Scots to issue such a statement, "they could never fight back." The Highlanders gave the Red coats many a bloody nose. Have you never heard of the battle of Prestonpans, which occurred shortly before Culloden? The Highlanders annihilated an English army in 15 minutes flat. The Scots are second to none when it comes to fighting aggression & bravery & I readily acknowledge that as an Englishman who had the priviledge to serve in a Scottish Regt.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 2 years ago 4
I would say "routed" the English army in 15 minutes flat, rather than say "annihilated." Big difference between the two.
mvonwahlde 2 years ago 3
1 hr not 15 mins
collinchris 2 years ago
"British"?
But Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales, so you are including the Scots and Welsh in your post.
Which shows how little you know about British history, which explains why your opinion is meaningless.
"They would never fight anyone that would fight back"
Ah yes, so that's why Britain (correct use this time) fought back against Hitler, years before the US did? And fought against Germany in WW1? And fought against Napoleon for years?
You are retarded,clearly
THthefirst 2 years ago 5
culloden was a military clusterfuck ,they march all night to nairne then return line up in a straight line to get killed.
6925319 3 years ago 10
@6925319 It was no different than at Gettysburg- flat land and brothers on either side of the lines. Blunders all, and many brave men killed for nothing....
suzanneetmoi 1 year ago 2
"The clan was like a family and from highest to lowest in the hierarchy all would die with pride and would see it as dishonour not to fight for their chief and people. "
Well, yes and no. They were no doubt proud to be members of the clan, but if they didn't support the Laird in his wars the Tacksman wouldn't hesitate to burn his house down.
A lot of the lads at Culloden were no doubt happy to fight for their clan and religion, but a lot didn't have a choice.
ratmaaan 3 years ago 6
I think a lot of the Clan Chiefs followed Bonnie Prince Charles with reluctance. They followed him because he was the Stuart Heir, but he didn't excite them the way that William Wallace or Montrose did. Unfortunately Charlie was no kind of leader, and the clansmen died in their droves.
BullRun1861 3 years ago 6
If men had our babies, do you think war would be obsolete by now? --Just another mom with sons.
Reynoldsphx 3 years ago 2
Just wish the author of the documentary did a more detailed study of the clan system.
If you had told the lowest of these clansmen they were seen as no more than human rent they'd be much offended.
The clan was like a family and from highest to lowest in the hierarchy all would die with pride and would see it as dishonour not to fight for their chief and people.
nacho1560 3 years ago
watkins concentrates almost exclusively on the backgrounds of the highlanders; there´s little said about where the redcoats come from.
the peasant´s role in history has always been more or less the same, regardless of which side of the border he was born on. a man´s outrage at being termed merely a source of income doesn´t alter the sad fact that that´s what he was: charles´ was very much a feudal army, and many were "obliged" to be on the moor that day.
fatmaccam 2 years ago 3
they got fukin owned, but they were brave
simmyuk 3 years ago 5
At last this doc finds its way here.
A hundred thanks for posting it.
A brilliant and original doc that set the benchmark
warwolf4215 3 years ago 3
Yes, thanks to Stonehaven Fan for posting this bit. I must've seen this on TV around 1966, and was immediately struck by the novelty of filming a historical event as a bit of photojournalism. Brilliantly done. Thought I'd never see it again.
guymaupessant 3 years ago 2
ha....dinni worry ya backstabbin dirty orange scum, we will retake old alba and send yous fuckin packin south fer yer treatchery! ALBA GU BRATH!
KHARN1488 3 years ago
It wasnt orange at this point it was Hanover. And it was a rebellion so technically the Jacobites are treacherous ones for fighting against their country.And why would you send them packin south?
veriasvincit 3 years ago
veriasvincit, don't spoil their heoric myth - we all know that anything that goes wrong in Alba is the fault of the sassenacs
anthonythirteen 3 years ago
BRILLIANT please upload more if poss!!
Sadistic12 3 years ago
Haven't seen this one in 15 years...college course "History of Modern Warfare."
sctanker 3 years ago
this is a masterpiece of filming, it is so basic but truely gives a spinechilling account of what it might have been like.. i have the dvd of this and the making of. i must look it out..
CHUNKYJACOBITE 3 years ago 3
The making of? Where would you get that?
drrude 3 years ago
Thank you so much for uploading this, i have been searching for years for even a snippet of this film.
I remember it was shown on TV in 1995, and i have searched ever since.
It's a pitty you can't upload more.
Thanks anyway, You have just made my day.
rockinbillyboy 3 years ago
You can buy this film from the museum gift shop at Culloden itself. I bought my copy three years ago. Hope you can get hold of it, it's a classic!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 2 years ago
now that´s news!
dvd or vhs? (maybe i can get it sent.)
fatmaccam 2 years ago
Any chance of uploading the whole feature?
thomchak 4 years ago
I think the BBC might object, although the British Film Institute have DVD rights. It seems to be out of stock - certainly it is at Amazon.
StonehavenFan 4 years ago
Okay. Thanks for this upload anyhow. A great film indeed.
thomchak 4 years ago
Its on Google video full!
saqibakascarface 3 years ago
can cost you up to £50 on ebay I am outbid frequently
warwolf4215 3 years ago