certainly won't be censored. One can argue for censorhip over personal abuse or general abusive language etc - but the idea that someone should be censored for just pointing out some irrefutable facts is ludicrous. As to the Jacobite or Hanovarian figureheads. I'm interested in history but the idea that you have to support one or the other side - or that it matters in the least what we think 300 years later - is silly.
@Gonzoidz Doesn't stand up to scrutiny though. When Sophia of Hanover was next in line over the Old Pretender she was by blood closer to being Scottish than he was. Her mother was Princess Elizabeth of Scotland born and initially raised in Scotland. The Pretender's closest Scottish born relative was his grand-father Charles I who was Elizabeth's younger brother. Only sexism in the laws of succession stopped Elizabeth's line being the monarchs anyway!
@Gonzoidz The point is the oft put assertion that somehow the jacobites were of Scottish extraction whilst the Hanovarians were foreigners. As I said the succession passed to Sophia who herself had a Scottish born parent - something the Old Pretender did not have. The other thing is people criticisng people being left out because of religion when they seem to not care about people being left out because of their sex! It is a bit hypocritical.
@Steely1888 Don't be daft. I'm not even a monarchist never mind pro-Hanovarian. What I have said above is the truth, Sophia's mother was a Scot whereas the Old Pretender has to go back to his grand-father to find a Scot - the people were in question were siblings and had the rules of succession not been sexist Sophia would have been monarch anyway as her mother was the eldest sibling.. That fact is ignored by people who take a preconceived one sided view on it. I'll debate all you look but I
Great deals, good video ,but a big mistake in your intro duction Should be jacobites v hanoverians or british, the Jacobite,s were actually British too The war was really a british civil war . It was never in a million years scotland v england Culloden was fought to decide who wld be king of GREAT BRITIAN Each side had lowlanders and highlanders protestants catholics and episcopalliansThe Jacobites had english scots irish , and the hanoverians (the government).. had Scots german English.
of support for the Jacobites was from the nonjuring Episcopalians who were much more numerous. The breakaway Episcopalian Church of scotland didn't officially accept the Hanovarian succession etc until Prince Charles died which seems to infer that though they were prepared to tolerate the catholicism of Charles and his father - supporting the claim of Henry Stuart, a Catholic cardinal, was a step too far. I suppose there were all kinds of reasons why some people came out for one side or the
oppression. The Union of 1707 further cemented the position of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as the established church in Scotland. Many of the Episcopalians, known as nonjurers, did not accept the dethroning of James. Yes he was a Catholic but despite that they still believed in his Divine Right etc - and it was not them who he had suppressed anyway - and the Pretenders weren't threatening the position of Episcopalianism. So yes many Catholics came out for the Pretenders but the bedrock
At first the Presbyterians were dominant then on the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II and then his brother James VII the Episcopalians were dominant and again Presbyterians were suppressed. When James lost his power base in England the Scottish Estates met and decided to strip James of the Scottish throne too. William and Mary were offered the throne on the proviso that they accepted the Presbyterianism of the Church of Scotland and again it was the Episcopalians who suffered the
Aberdeenshire area and a small minority in the Highlands and especially in the Hebrides. There was some further conversions to Catholicism in the 17thC but it wasn't big and they remained a small minority. The religious division within Scotland during the wars and struggles of the 17thC were primarily divisions within the Protestant Church of Scotland itself. Between the out and out Presbyterians and the Episcopalians who believed in bishops and the accepted the monarch as head of the church
It only doesn't make sense if you think on the stereotype that Jacobite equals Catholic. That may have been much more so in Ireland but not in Scotland. You have to take into account the history of Scotland since the Reformation. Scotland's Reformation was generally less violent than it tended to be elsewhere and it was also more thorough than most other places. There simply weren't many Catholics left in Scotland after the Reformation. There were various aristo families; small pockets in the
The rest of your various posts are made up of largely incorrect half baked assertions based on nothing but your own ideas of how Scotland was rather than how scotland actually was. I'm perfectly aware of the Scottish connections between Australia and Scotland. Capt Cook's father came from a small farm not a half dozen miles away from where I live and no doubt spoke that Scots language you dislike so much!
@gaconnochie why did th Catholic Highlanders not fight for the Jacobites? and why was there so many Episcopalian clans and Presbyterian clan in the Jacobite ranks? it doesn't make sense. If it wasn't a Catholic war what the hell motivated these clans to fight. for nothing!
He then lists the 18 clans who actually came out fully for the Jacobites in the 45. 4 were Catholic clans; 1 was mixed Cath&Episcopalian; 2 were mixed Cath&Episc&Presbyterian; 7 were Episcopalian clans; and the last 4 were mixed Epis%Presb. So 4 were totally Catholic whilst 11 were totally Protestant and 3 were a mixture of Catholic and Protestant. tell me who are we to believe? The body of prominent Scottish historians or some bloke in Australia with preconceived notions and prejudices?
I have already given the figures as stated by Alan Macinnes, Prof History at Aberdeen Uni in his "Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart" which is a detailed study on the Highalnds during the period 1603-1788. He lists 50 clans who he states could act independently and of those 50 only 6 are described as Catholic clans though another 6 had a Catholic element in them. 8 were Presbyterian with another 14 having a Presbyterian element, 13 were Episcopalian with another 23 having an element
Jacobites in his Scotland A New History. Talking about the 15 Rebellion in his The Scottish Nation, Prof Tom Devine, generally regarded as our most eminent historian states that 6 of the clans who came out were Catholic, 15 were Episcopalian, and the remaining 4 were mixed. He goes on to say "Catholic commitment to Jacobitism was important but because the church had few adherents, probably around 2% of the Scottish population, it was much less decisive than the contribution of Episcopalianism.
"The first part of the 18thC had seen the failure of two alternative religious options to shake the Presbyterian ascendancy in Scotland. Of these the less formidable option was the small residual Catholic community" Bruce Leman, Prof Mod History at St Andrews Uni in the "New Penguin Hisotory of Scotland. "Roman Catholics were no more likely to rise than Episcopalians who predominated at about a ratio of 7-3" Michael Lynch, Lecturer on Scottish History at Edinburgh Uni talking about hihgland
there are 1,501,204 people who live in Australia descended from Scottish people. We Australians can trace our past back to Captain Cook, the son of Scotsman, Lachlan McQuarie From the Isle of Mull, the first govenor of New South Wales and Father of Australia. So we are Australians, but we still associate ourselves with being Scottish. we were actually settled after the 45, in 1788. So we still come from Britian. but i only have a small root of history here.
They were a small force, but they still tried to conquer the whole of Scotland and to get the chiefs of the clans on their side. There were many Jacobite (Jacobite comes from the Latin word for James: Jacobus) supporters in Scotland and even some in England. Contrary to popular belief, the Scots greatly supported the Jacobites. Though 2,000 Scots served at Culloden, nearly 15,000 Jacobites served on the opposing side. However, they would not rebel until an invasion came.
there were Episcopalian Highlanders i'm not denying that, who were anti William II but not really staunch Stuartists either, but the bulk of the army was Catholic. Some Historians think Charles lied to his men about the English Jacobites supporting them, whether or not this is true or if they're were many Jacobites till in England i'm not too sure about.
Well i know the the Fifteen consisted of mostly English (who elected not to join the 45) and Scottish Jacobites, but the 45 was mostly made up of Highlanders, who believe it or not were mostly Catholic. Catholicism being the predominant religion in the Highlands. It was never about Scotland v England. it was a Restoration of the Stuarts who were Catholic, and their support of Highland Catholic Clansmen. from Scottish History Online.
@ThePoorhillbilly Wiki is wrong! The Jacobite Rebellions may have been largely Catholic affairs in England and Ireland - but Scotland is a different place with a different history and with different demographics. Highlanders were not mostly Catholic. there were a minority of the Highland population and a tiny minority of the general Scottish population. Only a minority of the Jacobites were Catholic and even a minority of Highland Jacobites were Catholic. I have already given sources but..
versus Episcopalian. If you don't know that then you know very little about Scottish history. Visiting Scotland 4 times hardly makes you an expert. Not knowing much about the history of someone else's country does not necessarily make you stupid! I don't know much about Australian or American history either. It just means that I don't know the facts. As I said read some proper histories before you pontificate.
@gaconnochie Contrary to popular belief, the Scots greatly supported the Jacobite Cause. though 2,000 Scots served at Culluden, nearly 15,000 Jacobties served on the opposing side, but would rebel until and invasion came.
so even the size of Jacobite army varied in the various battle and progression around Scotland and England, they had a large MASS of support, so even after Culloden, they had skirmishes at Fort Augustus, and naval battles with the French and English.
Lived there for 6 months in Dornoch, visited lost of places including Fort George, Loch Ness, Urquhart Castle, Donrobin Castle where Jacobitism had an impact. just finished watching the entire series of History of Scotland. i'm not a stupid foreigner you are a mad old codger!
@ThePoorhillbilly I can argue points without falling out in any major way- but I am deeply interested in Scottish history and even if I say it myself I am well read on the said subject (can't say so much for other histories) so if someone says something that needs contradicting then I am happy to do it. But I can give references for the points made from proper history volumes! The Stuarts did claim to be monarchs of France but I rather 'think' James VII would be the last to do so.
Just the fact that you made about the Jacobites mostly being made up Non Catholics just doesn't sit with well with me. kinda makes me want to be sick. Charles would be turning in his grave. that would Shortbread Tins i think you meant to say. and Yes the Picts did excist, the were called the Pcits by the Romans, being the painted men of the North. they used woad. The Normon Nobility that ruled England from 1066 spoke Normon French, and it left its mark long past then on England today.
@ThePoorhillbilly Most of the Jacobites in Scotland were not Catholic. That is fact and nothing to do with my opinions. Read some proper Scottish histories. I have already given references earlier in this thread. No-one said that the Picts didn't exist. They didn't however exist as a distinct people in the time of Boudicca. That was much too early. Again I have given references already. The Norman nobility spoke French at first only. we did not disagree on that only on the timescale involved
@gaconnochie This is just from the Wikipedia page of Culloden. "Nearly three-quarters of the Jacobite army was composed of highland clansmen, who were either Roman Catholic or Episcopalian.[citation needed] The Highlanders served in the clan regiments which were recruited largely from the western highlands of Scotland. ''thats the truth and shove your pre-dated textbooks in the bin. Of course Pictland was a kingdom of the collectivised Pictish tribes. Basically been to Scotland 4 times, l
@ThePoorhillbilly As I said read some proper Scottish history. Even the wiki quote that you cite doesn't contradict what I said about the religion. I never said that there were no Catholics in the Jacobite army. In all the Jacobite Rebellions the bulk the forces were Episcopalian. I have already given the sources and even listed the amount of Catholic clans and who they were a few days ago. The history of the religious wars in Scotland post 16thC reformation is the history of Presbyterian
I suggest that you keep away from the tourist tat and the biscuit tin histories and read some proper history - leaving your prejudices on modern Scotland which seem to be based on half baked ideas behind
they were speaking French in England way up to the 17th century for god sake. it would have been Old English anyway which is even more bizzarre than Scots.
I can tell you are a Lowlander because you just write off Any Highland facts without a care in the world. My family is from the Highlands. My Grandmother has been descended from thousands of years of Picts and Gaelic Speaking peoples of Northern Scotland. they both still support Charles Edward Stuart. Edward is an Angle Saxon name, but Henry V negotiated after Agincourt in English, which was the first time it was used diplomatically that way.
well its good to know that you speak Scots thats great. its a horrible Language i think. The Angle Saxons by the end of the first mil. had conquored all their land and they were pushed to Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, Eastern Galloway, Britanny. They remained Second rate Citizens everywhere else in Britian. There was no new Scottish Kingdom. its was the Pictish Kingdom of Kenneth MacAlpin and its new name was Alba. Lowland Scots, and Language was more Angle Saxon than the Gaelic Pict north
@ThePoorhillbilly So some foreigner on the other side of the world thinks Scots is a horrible language! I'm hardly going to lose sleep over that. Like most people in Scotland I am of both Highland and Lowland stock and challenge you to show me anywhere where I write off Highland 'facts'! No I am a Celtic supporter though what relevance that has is beyond me. Basically as far as Scottish history goes you have posted for the most part complete nonsense. That is what I've been commenting on.
Re- English kings speaking English! As far as I can see English became the language of govt during the reign of Henry IV. It was the language of the Courts after 1362 though. See "Statute of Pleading" on google. Prior to that french was already losing out in the 13thC and Edward I generally spoke English though of course they could speak French too. As I said I'm no expert on English history of that period but just a brief google search throws some doubt on your claim that he spoke no english
in fact it is schoolboy standard history! Do a google search on the Kingdom of Stratchlyde. the Britonnic kingdom lasted until the end of the first millenium when it then came under control of the expanding new Scottish kingdom. There was no mass ethnic cleansing. People's langauges change. It is getting frustrating continually trying to explain basic Scottish history to someone who, to put it politely, hasn't got a scooby!
It is absolute rubbish to come up with a statement like "the Normans" only stayed in England for 400 years. The Normans never left they simply became English themsleves as just as the Normans in Scotland (ie Bruces, Stewarts etc) became Scots.
@gaconnochie The Normons stayed in England and indentified themselves as Normons, they spoke French, just as the Romans did, who spoke Latin. And when they lost power they left to be replaced by someone else. English Monarchy is just a game of Musical Chairs
Most of the rest of your posts is stuff and nonsene but glad to hear that you are related to Macbeth. I've just met a relative of Marion Braidfute on another thread and several weeks ago was chatting to a descendent of William Wallace! It is amazing that no foreigner seems to be descended from just ordinary Scots. Personally I am descended from Julius Ceasar on my dad's side and Robin Hood on my mums
@oarfrost Well at least we know that Adam and Eve reportedly had children and we can actually name them! I can't think of any of Macbeth's off hand :-)
@gaconnochie "Well at least we know that Adam and Eve reportedly had children and we can actually name them! I can't think of any of Macbeth's off hand :-)"
Good point. It is a long time since my English teacher flogged Shakespeare's MacBeth into me, but I seem to recall Mrs MacBeth pointing out that her husband hadn't done anything useful in that line.
@oarfrost Yes from memory Gruoch (Macbeths) wife had at least one child (possibly more) from her first marriage - and one of these Lulach was king for a short period after Macbeth's death. I don't know of Macbeth himself having children though and if he did they are so obscure that the idea that someone can trace family back to them is quite daft.
@gaconnochie Shakespears Macbeth is fictional. The MacBeth clan came from Islay, it means Man of Life.. After Gille Coemgáin's death, Macbeth married his widow and took Lulach as his stepson
@ThePoorhillbilly Who mentioned Shakespeare? I said that Macbeth had no children. Lulach was Gruoch's son not his. As far as I know Macbeth had no descendents. Macbeth by the way was not a clan patrynomic like MacBeth is. It was a personal first name. He was Macbeth MacFindlay (spelling) but even if it had been, and even if he had started Clan MacBeth (which is stuff and nonsense) the idea that everyone who later had that name is related is fairy tale nonsense also people assumed names
@ThePoorhillbilly Who mentioned Shakespeare? I said that Macbeth had no children. Lulach was Gruoch's son not his. As far as I know Macbeth had no descendents. Macbeth by the way was not a clan patrynomic like MacBeth is. It was a personal first name. He was Macbeth MacFindlay (spelling) but even if it had been, and even if he had started Clan MacBeth (which is stuff and nonsense) the idea that everyone who later had that name is related is fairy tale nonsense also people assumed names
great grand mother on same paternal side was Maud Countess of Huntingdom the daughter of Waltheof of Northumbria. She married King David I of Scotland who himself was son of Margaret of Wessex. So Alexander was descended from the old Anglo-Saxon line of England as well as the many connections of the Anglo-Norman variety. During the Barons war he took the opportunity to reclaim the earldom of Northumbria which had been his father's and swore fealty for that to Louis who had already been declared
and Restoration. Scotland Invading England, they just didn't see the point and never had the funding to scale such a large endeavour. They just enjoyed living in peace, and they had alot of years of extreme cultural growth by themselves instead of fighting wars.
So the English got themselves into deep shit when they thought they could for \ go against Gods will, in the view of some of the Scots because religion was quite important to them. they held God, themselves higher than their Monarch and thats saved Scotland. The English tried to Bargain with the Scots on mulitple occasions, but it was allways on the Scots terms, they never fully destroyed any Clan or defeated any of them. The three major Conflicts between have been for Independence
just because 25,000 men didn't fight for Stuart doesn't mean there were no Catholics left in the Highlands. No the Scottish Kings were not of the English Nobility. i myself am related to one and he was definitly not anything to do with English, the Last Celtic King MacBeth. It was more like The English Kings thought they could control Scotland. they can't though because theré were many different Clans, all with their own views and power. they were all religious!
@ThePoorhillbilly Again look up some basic history as this incoherent waffling half truths and misconceptions is silly. You claim that the Scottish kings, and it was Alexander II we were discussing, were not of the English nobility. Well Alexander's mother was Emengarde a descendent of Henry I. On his paternal side his father, and the generations before were Earls of Northumbria and Earls of Huntingdon. His paternal grand-mother was Ada de Warenne daughter of the Earl of Surrey.
@gaconnochie Well what i'm saying is they wern't from Renegade Normon English Nobility. England was just a Rengade Normon Provence ruling over Millions of Angle-Saxons, Scotland on the other Hand was much more Scottish, be that a hybrid of Different cultures but they thought of themselves as Scots. and the Stuarts helped change Scotland into a European Respected Country where England was losing respect. The Normons in England therefore only stayed for 400 years.
Ongoing conflict and Regime that would pit both France and England together in stupid massive battles. Religon is a massive part of why wars are destructive. they aid and sometimes are the target of dictatorships you can't deny that. thats just madness. go away
and quite a bit of the rest of the country but got held up in sieging Dover Castle. When King John died of natural causes the bulk of the English nobility changed their allegiance to the young prince instead of Louis and within a year he was driven out of the country. There may have been a pemanent change had John not died but it would have been a Frenchman on the throne and not Alexander of Scotland.
with Catholic France ended. That is fact that no amount of arguing will change. Yes as I've said the civil wars of the mid 1600s were brought about by the Stuarts trying to force their religion on Scotland but they were just that civil wars - within Scotland as well as within england.
England's 'different' religions was a significant factor in their conflicts. It wasn't! For almost all the time when Scotland fought England as rival national kingdoms they were of the same Catholic religion and for the short couple of decades when they weren't of the same religion the main reason they were at war was for other reasons. When Scotland and England seperated into Anglican and Presbyterian they actually became closer than they have ever been before and scotland's age old alliance
@ThePoorhillbilly No one suggested she was a Pict? Picts didn't exist as a nation at that time. There rest of your posts is inocherent waffling which I think is based on just a few wiki searches rather than any knowledge of history. Of course England is made up of disparate people but so what - so is Scotland? Alexander II didn't invade England as a Scottish army of conquest. He intervened on one of the sides in an english civil conflict just as the Covenanters did. You said that scotland and
@gaconnochie Yes but Picts excisted as a People. She was a Native Briton, the People who were treated as sub humans by the Angle Saxons. From say 1066 to the middle of the that millenium you have a Normon Aritocracy and a Angle Saxon masses. In Scotland theyré were Scots who had become that from the Gaels and Picts much earlier. they wern't bought as mercenaries. They were shaped as a Nation much earlier than England was. Ah no Many Catholics still lived in the Highlands
@ThePoorhillbillyThe Picts did not exist as a people in the time of Boudicca. Learn some basic history as this is getting tedious. Boudicca was a Briton of the Iceni tribe in southern England. There were many tribes in Britain including in my area of southern Scotland the Votadini and Selgovae. Further north there were more tribes of Britons like the Venicones, Epiddii and Caledonii. No-one at that time was called Picts and there was no single people who could be called that. A later concept
@ThePoorhillbilly "In Scotland theyré were Scots who had become that from the Gaels and Picts much earlier. they wern't bought as mercenaries"
Well yes and no. The nature of medieval warefare meant that kings were loathe to rely upon their feudal levies, who had an annoying habit of disappearing around harvest time. So the Scots employed Gaelic/Viking gallowglasses as mercenaries and the English such Anglo/French squaddies who were available and out of jail.
@oarfrost For the most part you are absolutely right! Canmore's descendents were all partly Anglo-Norman, the Balliols, the Bruces and later the Stewarts were all families of Norman stock. Many of the notable Scottish families of the nobility- even some considered Highland clans - were of Norman stock too. The only difference with the Norman intrusion into Scotland was that on the whole they were invited in by the Scottish monarchy. And not just the post - Canmore Scoto-Anglo-Norman monarchy.
@oarfrost The Lowland Scots were of Angle Saxon origin. their dialect Scots, was completly new a different to english. there is nothing like this anywhere in Europe, and then you have a Irish Gaelic Tongue in the North who had interbred with the Picts inhabiting a large part of Scotland, then you have a Norse influence on Orkney and on the Hebrides. So Scotland is a diverse place, not a place where you had second rate citizens shoved aside by 8,000 Normon Settlers.
I thought you said it was an ordered society with a tightly organised Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages that could easily provide the menu for the wedding breakfast at the marriage of Mr and Mrs MacBeth.
@oarfrost well sadly, that was all destroyed by the English. But MacBeth came from the same line i came from. the MacBeths of Islay. He just sadly didn't have any children of his own
@ThePoorhillbilly I think I am going to knock this thread on the head. I have met many a plastic Scot and hav a bit of a laugh and a joke with most of them, but I have a terrible feeling that you believe the stuff you keep coming out with.
@oarfrost Best one ever was a guy called Steven Akins on soc.culture.scottish! He ended up being found out trying to smuggle grave stones into Scotland to try and back up his wafflings. Ended up on the front page of the Daily Retard. It was a great laugh at the time. If you google alabampot then it should bring up Ian Stewart's page about it.
@ThePoorhillbilly Absolute rubbish. You don't even know where the Lowlands are do you? Lowlanders were of diverse stock and not just Anglo-Saxon. In fact saxon wouldn't come into it much at all. The base population would be Britons in the south with an admix of Anglian in the east though they almost certainly never replaced the original - but in the north-east of course it was Pictish. In Galloway etc there was also a significant element of Gael even before Alba moved south. Add Flemings etc
@gaconnochie all you need to do is listen to the Scots language. its just a different dialect of English (Angle-Saxon). its remarkbly similar, nothing like Welsh which would be similar the Britons native tongue. The Britons themselves stayed in Wales. thats a far way away from Scotland. If the Britons did stay in Lowland Scotland, what impact on the culture there have they had?
@ThePoorhillbilly This getting surreal. I was born and brought in Scotland speaking a dialect of Scots and still speak a dialect of Scots in the midst of a Scots speaking community. I have also an active member of the Scots Language Society. I don't need some foreigner pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that Scots is nothing like Welsh. Who on earth suggested it was? The Britons and Picts who lived in Scotland simply ended up through time speaking Scots and Gaelic. This is not new stuff
@ThePoorhillbilly Anglo-Danish etc who moved into the burghs. The Lowland Scots 'dialects' were not actually totally different from 'anything else'. It was pretty similar to the dialects spoken in the north of England. In fact you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell one from the other in the written form. Read some corresponding Border ballads for comparison between Scots and northern English. It was totally different, and remains so, from the standard English developing in the south of England.
You still havn't learnt that England the concept the country, only excists through the Monarch. the people who live there arn't the local populace. they have come in through waves of migration. From Germany, Denmark, France, originally, and everywhere else since then. alliegences do not actually matter to them they have been bought and sold for like,....2000 years? its there numbers that made them strong and powerful. through greed and oppression they became what they are.
so you are telling me that Religion is not an major issue, but at the time of Alexander II's massive trek to Dover, The closest any Scot has come to conquoring England, He had a full army, Rations everything, he could have taken London, he had support more than he imgaine in the English Rebel armies of the North and the French, but the reason he didn't go forth was because the Pope had told him to return home. he would have become King of Britian in 1216 and England would have collapsed!
a largely hostile Scotland. However again this was all later on when Scotland and England had the same monarchs. As completely seperate rival kingdoms religion was not a major issue. The stuff about wallace conquering England is complete nonsense. The Scottish raids into northern England were for various reasons. To be such a nuisance that England would give up its possessions in southern Scotland and would conceed Scottish independence etc. There was no serious possibility - or even attempt
@gaconnochie I don't think they ever wanted to conquor England. It was mostly regaining Control of the Country for a start, then raids, marching an army into England and see what happens just for the Hell of it. Why would you want England anyway? No Scot Would. Though because England had a feudal system there was a possibility that if you could invade, defeat the throne claiments like the Normons did, take over and let the peasents seetle peacefully in their same kingdom under a different ruler
@ThePoorhillbilly Of course Alexander II wasn't attempting to conquer England. He initially invaded northern England in support of the Baron's rebellion against King John. The Scottish kings were themselves of the English nobility and held large tracts of land in England. The later incursion further south was in support of Prince Louis of France who the rebels had proclaimed King of England. Alexander swore fealty to him as many of the other English nobility had. Louis already controlled London
@gaconnochie it didn't matter, England by then was a Normon Provence. They had been getting worse and worse relations with their homeland in France as the years progressed. It was to do with a wreckless Nobility that owned %95 of the Land in England and the Angle Saxons hated it. thats why you had the French backing that Rebelllion. Scotland could have taken it, the Northumbrian Rebels could have. It was Normon Nobility who were the Problem. the Pope's order was gigantic, thus ensuing a 400
With the Alliances of the The Dutch Republic, Austria, Russia, French Empire at the time of the French Revolution, the Expansion into America, Britian the United Kingdom as a concept! thats how Britian became the biggest Empire ever seen. England was only at war with France for a long time, Religious differences and Uneasy relations with Scotland, and a massive Naval force. They fought hard for a long time before they actually became a giant military might. they were a Normon provence for 400 y.
So When the Normons arrived in England in 1066, they only had 8,000 setlers. they had to rely on recruiting from the local peasent populace for a long time in the armies, and it was hard. the only reason the Scots didn't defeat them forever with the invasion of Wallace and his campiagn, Alex II was because they were not fully backed by ALL the clan cheifs and magnates of Scotland. Its allways been a case of they have the manpower but the organistion and care for the shared goal didn't excist.
as the Scottish Covenanting army did not invade England as part of a national struggle. It invaded northern England at the bequest of the English Parliament in London. The Scottish army was at that time allied to the Parliamentarians in their war with the royalist forces of Charles Staurt - ie Charles I. Charles had already twice tried to invade Scotland but could not gain enough suppport to do so within England hence both attempts faltered in the Borders.
England has been ruled by greedy ruthless bastards for thousands of years. they have never acheived anything. they are brutish. The masses were just blind being guided by those monarchs
The kings of Scotland were sometimes not given 100 per cent dedication by all their citizens in the case of Lord of the Isles! Those McDonalds were powerful they once owned half of Scotland. It didn't happen like this in England. the Conventers actually beat the English sometimes.
@ThePoorhillbilly The MacDonalds were even seen as a fifth column for England. That is true. As I already said the Scottish nobility - not just the Lords of the Isles were in a stronger position and the monarch was weaker within Scotland than his English counterpart. I've also several days ago already mentioned the Covenanters when comparing what size of armies they could put out compared with the small Jacobite force that could be raised to cross the border. Different times too though
and Alexander II was killed when his own canon exploded. James IV died in the midst of battle aginst the English but it was a disaster both in terms if the unnecessary conflict and the disastrous tactics. Nothing to crow about certainly. Scotland tended to lose most of the big battles though Edward II was lucky not to be killed or at least captured at Bannockburn. Closest to the Scots killing an English king would probably be the Black Douglas's attack on young Edward III's invasion forces when
@gaconnochie Mmm i'n not sure. the Conflicts between Scotland and Englad were mostly breif small encounters with English being victorious. but there are exceptions like Bannockburn and Stirling Bridge where the Scots massacred them. considering the different hierachy and religions of both Countries and the oppressive nature of the greedy nobles of England, you see how they won so many. they had more money, more people forced into fighting for them, more influence, less European Respect
@ThePoorhillbilly To tell you the truth I'm not sure what you are getting at. At the time of Bannockburn etc there was no difference in the religion of the said countries. They were both Catholic. The nobility in Scotland was if anything more powerful and oppressive than it was in England. England normally won the large encounters because it was richer and had more resources including trained more professional trained fighting forces. Scotland's remained a feudal army for much longer.
@gaconnochie No you are stupid. England became its own religion. that affected the Coveneters of Scotland wars arose from religious differences there. The invasion of Alexander II was halted because the Pope told him to stop. The Clan system in Scotland menat that they had trained Soldiers who were unpayed but lived on the land of the cheifs, England they recruited peasents mostly for Archers and relied on nobility for the Knights usually, and paid soldiers for the fighting.
@ThePoorhillbilly Henry VIII didn't break with Rome until the 1530s or so. You'd had many hundreds of years of intermitent (arguably about 500 or so) warfare up until then and both kingdoms were of the same Catholic religion. James V then went to war with England because of the Auld Alliance etc. Then later there was Henry VIII's war of The Rough Wooing. That war was fought over who the infant Scottish queen would marry - not of religion. The last pitched battles between Scotland and England
@gaconnochie I'm not saying Religon was the sole reason for the conflict between Scotland and England, but it did play its part in certain events. The first few hundred years of Battle between the two was over places like Northumbria. it was the act, of the seek for a claiment around Edward Longshank's era that it became more about opression, and these crazy schemes by England of trying to pay off the Scots, seperate them, to bring what they ere together , Scotland, crumbling.
@ThePoorhillbilly as completely seperate national rivals happened in the mid 1500s so this change in religion only happened at the very end. When Scotland then Reformed its religion too this actually brought the countries closer together and Scotland's traditional alliance with Catholic France was broken. James VI of Scotland then succeeded to the English throne in 1601. After that there was the major civil wars in the mid-1600s. Yes about religion as Charles I tried to force Anglicanism on
I'm not sure what is relevant one way or the other about how many English kings died in battle. I'd have thought it was a positive thing that not that many did. More Scots did bu tthat is mostly because they argued amongst themselves and the Scottish kings were weaker in their kingdom than English kings were in theirs. Kenneth III, Duncan, Macbeth and James III all died in battle but they were all killed in civil conflicts within Scotland. Malcolm Canmore was killed in an ambush by Northumbrians
be Kings of Great Britain and France (as well Ireland). They weren't though! They were monarchs of seperate English and Scottish kingdoms until 1707 and the claim to be King of France was a hollow illusion.
You said the "English monarchy" had been part of strange disputes for a good 2000 years and when challenged on that held Boudicca up an an example! That is what I disputed. The idea that she was a 'central figure' in the shaping of England is nonsense. Offa may have staked a claim to be King of the English but no succ kingdom existed and no such kingdom existed for a long while after his death. there were many Kings of Mercia and Kings of wessex etc after his time! The 17th Stuarts claimed to
There is a memorial to William Wallace in London but he wasn't English! There are 50 odd million English people nowadays but hardly any of them are part of the monarchy! Let's be sensible. Boudicca was a leader of the Iceni tribe of Britons and the tribal land is a small part of what in now England. That under no stretch of the imagination makes her part of "the English monarchy".
@gaconnochie Yes but they actually posted his on a spike and sent his quarters to various parts of Britian. Boudicca is a bit more respected than William Wallace in England i would imagine. Offa was the first Monarch of England, thats 774. Angle Saxon, it was less than 200 years before the Danish raids and Dane Law, multiple restorations, then Hastings. 400 years of Normon rule. then years of Restorations. the Tudors, Stuarts. Its Ridiculous. the monarchs are just any old sods. the poor masses
@ThePoorhillbilly My point was that Boudicca wasn't part of the English Monarchy! Of course English history was turbulant and Scottish was no less so. I'm no expert on English history but don't think Offa is generally considered the first monarch of England. He was King of Mercia and was dominant over some of the other Heptachery kingdoms. The sons of Alfred the Great of Wessex (Edgar and Athelstane) made themselves dominant over the Heptachery and Danelaw area and united England in about 900AD
@gaconnochie No i'm not saying she was monachy, but she was certainly English had a central figure for the shaping of England. Offa of Mercia was the first to claim *Rex Anglorum *(King of the English) Heres a fact for you, only Harold Goodswin, Richard the Lionheart and Richard III are the only Kings of England to die in battle. House of Wessex had ridiculous titiles thats all i'm saying. the Unready, the Peaceable, Ironside. who the hell are English nowadays anyway the? GLOBALISATION!
@ThePoorhillbilly She wouldn't even have thought about it because Scottish didn't exist as a concept then either. As Oarfrost said she was a Briton - though we don't know if that would be a major identity for her or not. She was Queen of the Iceni tribe who imhabited a small part of what is now known as England. A country names after Germanic tribes who came to this island centuries after Boudicca lived.
not enter England until the start of November. The two main armies in England were lead by Wade and Ligonier. Hawley later replaced Wade and Cumberland replaced Ligonier. After Hawley's defeat at falkirk - Cumberland replaced him - but the bulk of Cumberland's army remained south in case of a French invasion. This is not rocket science try and get your head round it.
@gaconnochie Its remakrable that the French having defeated the British combined forces, would not follow them straight away and bring the war the British soil. its just bizarre.
@ThePoorhillbilly Wider picture. France had achieved its main aim which was not to put the Stuarts on the British throne, but rather was to reduce the land forces on the continent against them. Britain was only part of the alliance against France and Prussia. The bulk of the British troops were withdrawn from the immediate theatre of war. Secondly France was always going to struggle with an invasion because Britain enjoyed overwhelming naval superiority on its own.plus it had Durch help
@gaconnochie The Spanish helped with the Jacobites aswell. still, if there was an overthrowing of power to the Stuarts how long would it have lasted? with the allies of Britian being Austria, Hanover, Dutch, Nassau, you would imagine that there would be a backlash invasion probably. its would have turned into Battle for Britain. I hate the English Monarchy, still now in 2011 they forget to invite my own Tasmanian Princess Mary of Denmark to their Royal wedding. they are just rude.
@ThePoorhillbilly A good what-if to play with. It would revert to the 1600s and that was a dreadful century for Scotland and the island of Britain as a whole. You may even have seen a French style revolution here. The Stuarts held the same divine right dogma that the French monarchy had. That could never survive for long in a modernising western European country like Britain was at that time. In my opinion anyway.There is really no 'English monarchy' as such. Hasn't existed since 1707
@gaconnochie as i said it was a different time. Some of Highlanders were still hanging on to Centuries old traditions. alot of Scottish influence was expanding into places like Canada, America. they recognised the Highland plight, but didn't think it was worth it, and happy to do as they pleased, to save themselves. The French Revolution would change the Royalty face and laws etc for Europe. If you look at the English monarchy, its been part of strange disputes for a good 2,000 years
@ThePoorhillbilly The strange thing is one thinks of the tradition of the Stuart monarchy and its highland particularly MacDonald support but that was not particulary traditional. That didn't emerge until the mid 17thC during the civil war period. Prior to that the Stuart monarchy had basically permanent backing from the Campbells in the Highlands and the MacDonalds in the guise of former Lords Of The Isles saw themselves as rivals to royal authority and on several occassions sided with England
@ThePoorhillbilly It was only when Charles I twice attempted English invasions of Scotland (ie the Bishop Wars) that the Campbells, who supported the Scottish govt, came into dispute with the Stuart monarchy.
@gaconnochie well yeah its like Mafia or something. they had their own loyalties. if what you are saying is true, 30,000 Highlanders being able to fight, it shows the independent spirit they only fought for themselves thus the Stuarts struggling to find ALOT of troops to take Britian. Many lowlanders stated accounts of Highlanders coming to the cities and being scared of them, as they were often fully decked out and had their own ways of doing things, affiliations, pride.
@ThePoorhillbilly Its not what I say that is the official govt estimates at the time of the total manpower available to the clans - or at least the estimates ranged from 25,000 to 30,000. Charles only managed to raise a small fraction of them. Of course people in the cities which were basically undefended would be panicking when an army of 3,000 or so turned up. especially considering the atrocities of the 17thC. Though to be fair to Charles and the army they behaved well overall
@ThePoorhillbilly Mind I'd be interested in what disputes you think the "English monarchy" had with the Romans. The said royalty doesn't go back that far - nor does England as a concept.
@gaconnochie Well.... theres only a fucking statue in London of her, Boudicca. I know that Romans met mixed resistance in England, they had to resort to hiring Anglo Saxon mercenaries to hold their land, who eventually took control and turned the local britons into a sub-race.
@ThePoorhillbilly Boudicca wasn't an ancestor of the 'English monarchy' nor was she part of anything called the 'English monarchy' in her day. She was Queen of a tribe of Britons called the Iceni who lived in the Norfolk area or thereabouts. The 'English' and 'England' and an 'English monarchy' were much later concepts.
@gaconnochie If she isn't English, why the hell do they have statue of her in London. shes definitly nobility. Of course. Angle-land (England) came along with the Anglo Saxons.
Most recruits in England were from the manchester Regiment which amounted to about 250 so we are looking at a maximum of about 5,100 plus a few other English recruits. This ties in with other figures I've read including Elwand's biography of Charles Stuart. There were still Jacobite forces in Scotland and recruiting still went on in Scotland whilst the army was in England - hence the higher figures at Culloden etc. it isn't difficult to understand
They had 8,000 Jacobites at Falkirk muir, ! so this army had just been in England! they lost 1,000 troops in between Falkirk and Culloden from deserting.
@ThePoorhillbilly No some of this army had been in England. In his book on the "The 45" Duffy lists the army which invaded England and estimates the numbers. The Lowland Division (which wasn't all Lowlanders) consisted of 2,640 and went via Peebles and Moffat. The Highland Division of 2,250 made its way via Kelso and Jedburgh. So that is 4,890. It is known there were hardly recruits in the Scottish or the English borders and any there were would be offset by desertions anyway.
he could have never have gotton England to rise up in arms. because they're just wasn't anybody. its not a warrior society. it never has been. its a farming society. there wasn't an armed man and his sons in every croft like there was in Scotland. Plus look if you look at most of the Battles Britian fought in this era it was with the assistance of the Dutch Republic, House of Hanover, Austria etc.
Fotenoy. this was within 3 months of Prestonpans. a 50,000 a side fucking slog of a battle, Cumberland was there. so you are telling me they are capable of fighting this, and keeping at least 21,200 troops in England? thats just as mad a crack pot theory, even more mad than the ghost troops theory by goodness. and nits not like the Jacobites didn't know this was taking place, they just wanted to go home haha
when I say it wasn't a case of 6,000 men - I was talking about your two small armies opposing him of 3000 each. Like I said there was actually nearer 30,000 opposing him. You are using the 6,000 estimate of the Jacobite Army itself but the various histories I've been reading suggest smaller numbers.
Britain to take! Who would he do that with? He needed the english to rise for him but they didn't - that is fact. Alternatively he needed foreign intervention but it didn't materialise - that is fact. Anything else is just what-ifs and imaginations.
control. Places in the Scottish Lowlands were in general only Jacobite when the army of Charles was there to enforce it. When they were in England the govt forces (Hawley's arrival, the Argyl Militia, the Independent Highland Companies, both the edinburgh and Glasgow volunteer regiments) built up and vastly outnumbered the remaining Jacobite forces in Scotland. Had Charles made London; and had he been succesful over the defenses which can't be a given; then he would still have the rest
But they didn't. The Scots leaders then realised they were dangerously exposed in Derby. Only then did Murray's argument prevail over the Prince's and reluctantly he agreed to retreat. The Scots had no wish to even try conquer england. The anti-unionists in their camp wanted him to declare Scottish independence and assert control in Edinburgh. He refused as for him it was the English throne or nothing. You do know that as soon as he left, got as far as Dalkeith, the capital reverted to govt
Charles would have easily taken on two small armies of 3,000 men, and then march onto London to rendevous with the French, where they would have caviar and celebrate the second norman invasion of britian/conquoring of England by Scotland under the Stewarts, but no they get scared by ghost soldiers and march on home. UTTER MADDNESS!
@ThePoorhillbilly It wasn't a case of 6,000 men though. Charles had a small army of somewhere between 4,000 and 5,500 men. Against him were two armies of over 10,000 men each (ie Wades and Cumberlands) plus a small arly of about 1,200 in Chester; plus a force larger than his own in the London environs which included the Royal Scots and Black Watch. There was no French army outside London. The Scots leaders had never wanted to invade england but he assured them the English would rise in favour
@gaconnochie uhhhhhh no. there were 6,000 union troops left in England. they were actually fighting a battle overseas in Fotenoy. thats the whole reason Charles organised this whole grande scheme at that exact time. Charles probably had 8,000 if not more. So if an army marches from Scotland to England, picking up barely any drafts then back, fights another battle, with deserters going all the time, they come to Culloden with 7,000. its a pretty easy equation. union forces were make believe
@ThePoorhillbilly You really should try and read some proper history of the 45. Yes Britain was barely defended at that time because of the war on the continent. That is why there was a crisis over it. Otherwise the Jacobite Army would probably never have made it even into central Scotland. Because of an existing treaty the govt was able to call on 4,500 Dutch and Hessian troops who were quickly dispatched here to join with Wade's existing 4,950 British troops and 1,500 cavalry (ie 10,950 total)
@gaconnochie Those Hessan troops were only called in to hold the border as Cumberland moved through. 6,000 infantry, 700 horse and 33 artillery pieces were protecting London. Wade and Cumberland were not in England at the time, Cumberland only took control of Hawleys defeated army and marched north to Aberdeen and then onto Culloden. yeah they took on 2,000 Jacobites for the Falkik battle they still would have taken London.. Its the Lack of English Jacobites and French Help
@ThePoorhillbilly Simple time line. First troops come back from continent and disembark on 19th Sept - these are the Dutch and Hessians brought back to reinforce Wade who is in north east England protecting Newcastle and environs. 21st Sept the Jacobites defeat Cope's small army at Prestonpans. 23rd Sept first of the British army stationed in Flanders disembarks back in southern England. By 13th Oct all but one of the battallions in Flanders leaves for Britain along with Cumberland. Charles did
@ThePoorhillbilly Then there was Ligonier's (later Cumberland's) army which was brought back from Flanders with approx 8,500 infantry and 2,200 cavalry a total of 10,700. Then there was the force at Chester of approx 1,400. Then those stationed around London which totalled approx 6,000. This in itself amounts to almost 30,000 alone and does not count all the local militias etc which were in the process of being formed - and this doesn't count the considerable forces in Scotland
actually no.6,000 british troops left in England becuase of battle of Fotenoy, Prestonpans was 2,000 aside. 700 wounded killed Union, 1,500 captured. So we see charles pick up , oh 6,000 troops before he gets to Derby? retreats. Falkirk, 600 killed/captured/wounded troops. 1,000 leave Jacobites before Culloden, 5,000 Hessian troops arrive to hold border, Cumberlands newly drafted army of 8,000 march north to meet the starving tired army of Charles 7,000 strong..
for the Jacobites.its 2,000 wounded and killed. 370 captured inlcuding the French Irish. Union casualties are 300 dead or wounded. its was the late jacobite charge after cannon fire, the McDonald clan on the left stug in the bog, the complete lack of leadership on the right charge that led to a crossfire as the Jacobites broke the first line, only to get shot up by second line, whilst a flanking force shot down any fleeing troops to the side. If I was there. by god. Macdonalds should have ducked
@ThePoorhillbilly Right so it's went from 2,000 died at Culloden to 2,000 wounded and killed - which is the figure as given in wiki in my last post. Though how reliable that is I don't know
@gaconnochie well ok 2,000 dead and wounded, and 2,100 something flintlocks found on Jacobite Soldiers. i guess people just ran for their lives dropping their expensive french flintlocks. its striking though the figures for captures. they just hunted down them like animals, taking no prisoners. but i guess thats what happened at Prestonpans
gives 1000 dead and that ties in with other estimates I've seen. Wiki gives between 1,500 and 2,000 for all casualties - that is wounded as well as killed. I'm sure other sources will give other figures. However there is no doubting the personal bravery of the frontline clansmen who obviously because of the Highland Charge tactic took the brunt of the fighting, but that doesn't prove they were all volunteers. People are often brave in war even when they are conscripted. Note the likes of WW1
He only recived cannon, and a Artilliery master, and French Irish troops, Spanish French Flintlocks pretty late, like as they were retreated back into the Scotland. Its the Bloody French mate it allways has been.
the jacobite was a volunteer is plainly ludicrous. It is well known that many clansmen were pressured or even forced into joining. Mind the same would be for the British Army. Many in those ranks may well not have supported the Hanovarian cause.
but the Jacobite Clans had largely ignored the disarming act any way. On the other hand the clans loyal to the govt had largely disarmed - hence the reason the Jacobites were virtually unopposed at first. The majority of Britain at that time was no longer an 'armed society' as you out it. There was a massive war going on in mainland Europe involving hundreds of thousands of troops on either side. Some were diverted over here, mostly British but also european troops. The idea that everyone on
@gaconnochie No the Charles sent word out in the Highlands with a burning cross to raise an army. they assembled in the Highlands and were tracked for weeks by Copes army, giving them the Flick, then PrestonPans,. they were unnaposed because noone was stationed in the Highlands until the Blackwatch. yes people were forced to fight but a large core were pretty dedicated. enough for 2,000 for them to die at Culloden you goose.
@ThePoorhillbilly The Black Watch as such were on the continent and were brought back with the vast bulk remaining on the outskirts of London to protect that against the French. There was a small contingent back in Scotland. There was another 19 new Highland Independent Companies raised and commanded by Louden in Scotland as well as the Mamore's Argyl Militia. But these were in reaction to the uprising. I think the Jacobite losses at Culloden are pretty much unknown. The Britishbattles site
nothing in his writings which suggests he viewed himself as particularly Scottish. In fact he comes across from that as well as from his actions as being more English if anything. His stated prize was obviously the throne in London for his father. On a cultural level he was not Scottish and for the times he totally alienated many Scots because of his religious views along with his advocacy of Divine Right. Had the Stuarts given up their doctrines and dogma they may well succeeded without war
@gaconnochie I think you are missing a crucial point here. he's wasn't called ''BPC'', but actually Charles Edward Stewart. as in Stewarts who ruled Scotlands for generations! mmm 7,000 men is alot for an uprising. i'd be shitting my self if i was a unionist. money has nothing to do with it, they were volunteers. alot were forced onto the battlefield which was pretty bad, but they were forced the same clan cheifs who decided not to attack london.
certainly won't be censored. One can argue for censorhip over personal abuse or general abusive language etc - but the idea that someone should be censored for just pointing out some irrefutable facts is ludicrous. As to the Jacobite or Hanovarian figureheads. I'm interested in history but the idea that you have to support one or the other side - or that it matters in the least what we think 300 years later - is silly.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
The true King, not imported Germans! God bless Charles Edward Stuart and down with all huns.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz Doesn't stand up to scrutiny though. When Sophia of Hanover was next in line over the Old Pretender she was by blood closer to being Scottish than he was. Her mother was Princess Elizabeth of Scotland born and initially raised in Scotland. The Pretender's closest Scottish born relative was his grand-father Charles I who was Elizabeth's younger brother. Only sexism in the laws of succession stopped Elizabeth's line being the monarchs anyway!
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
There were 50 closer Catholic claimants to the throne than her son George, so your point is what exactly?
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz The point is the oft put assertion that somehow the jacobites were of Scottish extraction whilst the Hanovarians were foreigners. As I said the succession passed to Sophia who herself had a Scottish born parent - something the Old Pretender did not have. The other thing is people criticisng people being left out because of religion when they seem to not care about people being left out because of their sex! It is a bit hypocritical.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie - could you stop spamming jacobite videos with pro hannovarian theories......
Steely1888 5 months ago
@Steely1888 Don't be daft. I'm not even a monarchist never mind pro-Hanovarian. What I have said above is the truth, Sophia's mother was a Scot whereas the Old Pretender has to go back to his grand-father to find a Scot - the people were in question were siblings and had the rules of succession not been sexist Sophia would have been monarch anyway as her mother was the eldest sibling.. That fact is ignored by people who take a preconceived one sided view on it. I'll debate all you look but I
gaconnochie 5 months ago
Great deals, good video ,but a big mistake in your intro duction Should be jacobites v hanoverians or british, the Jacobite,s were actually British too The war was really a british civil war . It was never in a million years scotland v england Culloden was fought to decide who wld be king of GREAT BRITIAN Each side had lowlanders and highlanders protestants catholics and episcopalliansThe Jacobites had english scots irish , and the hanoverians (the government).. had Scots german English.
NOVATICANWARS 7 months ago 2
other. and very often it split families. religion was one of the factors but not the only one.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
of support for the Jacobites was from the nonjuring Episcopalians who were much more numerous. The breakaway Episcopalian Church of scotland didn't officially accept the Hanovarian succession etc until Prince Charles died which seems to infer that though they were prepared to tolerate the catholicism of Charles and his father - supporting the claim of Henry Stuart, a Catholic cardinal, was a step too far. I suppose there were all kinds of reasons why some people came out for one side or the
gaconnochie 9 months ago
oppression. The Union of 1707 further cemented the position of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as the established church in Scotland. Many of the Episcopalians, known as nonjurers, did not accept the dethroning of James. Yes he was a Catholic but despite that they still believed in his Divine Right etc - and it was not them who he had suppressed anyway - and the Pretenders weren't threatening the position of Episcopalianism. So yes many Catholics came out for the Pretenders but the bedrock
gaconnochie 9 months ago
At first the Presbyterians were dominant then on the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II and then his brother James VII the Episcopalians were dominant and again Presbyterians were suppressed. When James lost his power base in England the Scottish Estates met and decided to strip James of the Scottish throne too. William and Mary were offered the throne on the proviso that they accepted the Presbyterianism of the Church of Scotland and again it was the Episcopalians who suffered the
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Aberdeenshire area and a small minority in the Highlands and especially in the Hebrides. There was some further conversions to Catholicism in the 17thC but it wasn't big and they remained a small minority. The religious division within Scotland during the wars and struggles of the 17thC were primarily divisions within the Protestant Church of Scotland itself. Between the out and out Presbyterians and the Episcopalians who believed in bishops and the accepted the monarch as head of the church
gaconnochie 9 months ago
It only doesn't make sense if you think on the stereotype that Jacobite equals Catholic. That may have been much more so in Ireland but not in Scotland. You have to take into account the history of Scotland since the Reformation. Scotland's Reformation was generally less violent than it tended to be elsewhere and it was also more thorough than most other places. There simply weren't many Catholics left in Scotland after the Reformation. There were various aristo families; small pockets in the
gaconnochie 9 months ago
The rest of your various posts are made up of largely incorrect half baked assertions based on nothing but your own ideas of how Scotland was rather than how scotland actually was. I'm perfectly aware of the Scottish connections between Australia and Scotland. Capt Cook's father came from a small farm not a half dozen miles away from where I live and no doubt spoke that Scots language you dislike so much!
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie why did th Catholic Highlanders not fight for the Jacobites? and why was there so many Episcopalian clans and Presbyterian clan in the Jacobite ranks? it doesn't make sense. If it wasn't a Catholic war what the hell motivated these clans to fight. for nothing!
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
He then lists the 18 clans who actually came out fully for the Jacobites in the 45. 4 were Catholic clans; 1 was mixed Cath&Episcopalian; 2 were mixed Cath&Episc&Presbyterian; 7 were Episcopalian clans; and the last 4 were mixed Epis%Presb. So 4 were totally Catholic whilst 11 were totally Protestant and 3 were a mixture of Catholic and Protestant. tell me who are we to believe? The body of prominent Scottish historians or some bloke in Australia with preconceived notions and prejudices?
gaconnochie 9 months ago
I have already given the figures as stated by Alan Macinnes, Prof History at Aberdeen Uni in his "Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart" which is a detailed study on the Highalnds during the period 1603-1788. He lists 50 clans who he states could act independently and of those 50 only 6 are described as Catholic clans though another 6 had a Catholic element in them. 8 were Presbyterian with another 14 having a Presbyterian element, 13 were Episcopalian with another 23 having an element
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Jacobites in his Scotland A New History. Talking about the 15 Rebellion in his The Scottish Nation, Prof Tom Devine, generally regarded as our most eminent historian states that 6 of the clans who came out were Catholic, 15 were Episcopalian, and the remaining 4 were mixed. He goes on to say "Catholic commitment to Jacobitism was important but because the church had few adherents, probably around 2% of the Scottish population, it was much less decisive than the contribution of Episcopalianism.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
"The first part of the 18thC had seen the failure of two alternative religious options to shake the Presbyterian ascendancy in Scotland. Of these the less formidable option was the small residual Catholic community" Bruce Leman, Prof Mod History at St Andrews Uni in the "New Penguin Hisotory of Scotland. "Roman Catholics were no more likely to rise than Episcopalians who predominated at about a ratio of 7-3" Michael Lynch, Lecturer on Scottish History at Edinburgh Uni talking about hihgland
gaconnochie 9 months ago
So therefore i still associate myself with being Scottish and Australian. i could play for Scotland if i wanted to.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
there are 1,501,204 people who live in Australia descended from Scottish people. We Australians can trace our past back to Captain Cook, the son of Scotsman, Lachlan McQuarie From the Isle of Mull, the first govenor of New South Wales and Father of Australia. So we are Australians, but we still associate ourselves with being Scottish. we were actually settled after the 45, in 1788. So we still come from Britian. but i only have a small root of history here.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
type "Were the Jacobites Protestant?'' into Wiki answers.com and you'll get an answer saying "No they were Catholic"
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
Allempires
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
They were a small force, but they still tried to conquer the whole of Scotland and to get the chiefs of the clans on their side. There were many Jacobite (Jacobite comes from the Latin word for James: Jacobus) supporters in Scotland and even some in England. Contrary to popular belief, the Scots greatly supported the Jacobites. Though 2,000 Scots served at Culloden, nearly 15,000 Jacobites served on the opposing side. However, they would not rebel until an invasion came.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
there were Episcopalian Highlanders i'm not denying that, who were anti William II but not really staunch Stuartists either, but the bulk of the army was Catholic. Some Historians think Charles lied to his men about the English Jacobites supporting them, whether or not this is true or if they're were many Jacobites till in England i'm not too sure about.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
Well i know the the Fifteen consisted of mostly English (who elected not to join the 45) and Scottish Jacobites, but the 45 was mostly made up of Highlanders, who believe it or not were mostly Catholic. Catholicism being the predominant religion in the Highlands. It was never about Scotland v England. it was a Restoration of the Stuarts who were Catholic, and their support of Highland Catholic Clansmen. from Scottish History Online.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Wiki is wrong! The Jacobite Rebellions may have been largely Catholic affairs in England and Ireland - but Scotland is a different place with a different history and with different demographics. Highlanders were not mostly Catholic. there were a minority of the Highland population and a tiny minority of the general Scottish population. Only a minority of the Jacobites were Catholic and even a minority of Highland Jacobites were Catholic. I have already given sources but..
gaconnochie 9 months ago
versus Episcopalian. If you don't know that then you know very little about Scottish history. Visiting Scotland 4 times hardly makes you an expert. Not knowing much about the history of someone else's country does not necessarily make you stupid! I don't know much about Australian or American history either. It just means that I don't know the facts. As I said read some proper histories before you pontificate.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie Contrary to popular belief, the Scots greatly supported the Jacobite Cause. though 2,000 Scots served at Culluden, nearly 15,000 Jacobties served on the opposing side, but would rebel until and invasion came.
so even the size of Jacobite army varied in the various battle and progression around Scotland and England, they had a large MASS of support, so even after Culloden, they had skirmishes at Fort Augustus, and naval battles with the French and English.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
Lived there for 6 months in Dornoch, visited lost of places including Fort George, Loch Ness, Urquhart Castle, Donrobin Castle where Jacobitism had an impact. just finished watching the entire series of History of Scotland. i'm not a stupid foreigner you are a mad old codger!
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
If France was not a Republic, It would belong to Queen Elizabeth II. anyway Cmon Celtic! peace. good luck with your guitar playing and singing mate
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly I can argue points without falling out in any major way- but I am deeply interested in Scottish history and even if I say it myself I am well read on the said subject (can't say so much for other histories) so if someone says something that needs contradicting then I am happy to do it. But I can give references for the points made from proper history volumes! The Stuarts did claim to be monarchs of France but I rather 'think' James VII would be the last to do so.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Just the fact that you made about the Jacobites mostly being made up Non Catholics just doesn't sit with well with me. kinda makes me want to be sick. Charles would be turning in his grave. that would Shortbread Tins i think you meant to say. and Yes the Picts did excist, the were called the Pcits by the Romans, being the painted men of the North. they used woad. The Normon Nobility that ruled England from 1066 spoke Normon French, and it left its mark long past then on England today.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Most of the Jacobites in Scotland were not Catholic. That is fact and nothing to do with my opinions. Read some proper Scottish histories. I have already given references earlier in this thread. No-one said that the Picts didn't exist. They didn't however exist as a distinct people in the time of Boudicca. That was much too early. Again I have given references already. The Norman nobility spoke French at first only. we did not disagree on that only on the timescale involved
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie This is just from the Wikipedia page of Culloden. "Nearly three-quarters of the Jacobite army was composed of highland clansmen, who were either Roman Catholic or Episcopalian.[citation needed] The Highlanders served in the clan regiments which were recruited largely from the western highlands of Scotland. ''thats the truth and shove your pre-dated textbooks in the bin. Of course Pictland was a kingdom of the collectivised Pictish tribes. Basically been to Scotland 4 times, l
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly As I said read some proper Scottish history. Even the wiki quote that you cite doesn't contradict what I said about the religion. I never said that there were no Catholics in the Jacobite army. In all the Jacobite Rebellions the bulk the forces were Episcopalian. I have already given the sources and even listed the amount of Catholic clans and who they were a few days ago. The history of the religious wars in Scotland post 16thC reformation is the history of Presbyterian
gaconnochie 9 months ago
I suggest that you keep away from the tourist tat and the biscuit tin histories and read some proper history - leaving your prejudices on modern Scotland which seem to be based on half baked ideas behind
gaconnochie 9 months ago
they were speaking French in England way up to the 17th century for god sake. it would have been Old English anyway which is even more bizzarre than Scots.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
The lowland Scots spoke more English then the English did. thats saying something. i bet you go for Rangers dont you
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
I can tell you are a Lowlander because you just write off Any Highland facts without a care in the world. My family is from the Highlands. My Grandmother has been descended from thousands of years of Picts and Gaelic Speaking peoples of Northern Scotland. they both still support Charles Edward Stuart. Edward is an Angle Saxon name, but Henry V negotiated after Agincourt in English, which was the first time it was used diplomatically that way.
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
well its good to know that you speak Scots thats great. its a horrible Language i think. The Angle Saxons by the end of the first mil. had conquored all their land and they were pushed to Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, Eastern Galloway, Britanny. They remained Second rate Citizens everywhere else in Britian. There was no new Scottish Kingdom. its was the Pictish Kingdom of Kenneth MacAlpin and its new name was Alba. Lowland Scots, and Language was more Angle Saxon than the Gaelic Pict north
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly So some foreigner on the other side of the world thinks Scots is a horrible language! I'm hardly going to lose sleep over that. Like most people in Scotland I am of both Highland and Lowland stock and challenge you to show me anywhere where I write off Highland 'facts'! No I am a Celtic supporter though what relevance that has is beyond me. Basically as far as Scottish history goes you have posted for the most part complete nonsense. That is what I've been commenting on.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Re- English kings speaking English! As far as I can see English became the language of govt during the reign of Henry IV. It was the language of the Courts after 1362 though. See "Statute of Pleading" on google. Prior to that french was already losing out in the 13thC and Edward I generally spoke English though of course they could speak French too. As I said I'm no expert on English history of that period but just a brief google search throws some doubt on your claim that he spoke no english
gaconnochie 10 months ago
in fact it is schoolboy standard history! Do a google search on the Kingdom of Stratchlyde. the Britonnic kingdom lasted until the end of the first millenium when it then came under control of the expanding new Scottish kingdom. There was no mass ethnic cleansing. People's langauges change. It is getting frustrating continually trying to explain basic Scottish history to someone who, to put it politely, hasn't got a scooby!
gaconnochie 10 months ago
Ah it was Oarfrost who mentioned Shakespeare. You are right. As well as no kids in real life he has no kids in the play either.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
It is absolute rubbish to come up with a statement like "the Normans" only stayed in England for 400 years. The Normans never left they simply became English themsleves as just as the Normans in Scotland (ie Bruces, Stewarts etc) became Scots.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie The Normons stayed in England and indentified themselves as Normons, they spoke French, just as the Romans did, who spoke Latin. And when they lost power they left to be replaced by someone else. English Monarchy is just a game of Musical Chairs
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly The Normans never left. You are just inventing history on the hoof.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie I said they left power. i never said they evacuated the country
ThePoorhillbilly 9 months ago
Even if, and it is a big, if Lulach had two sons it makes no difference as Lulach was not the son of Macbeth.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Well i guess noone is descended from King MacBeth then. the poor sod
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
Lulach had i think two sons. No the Real Macbeth was too busy carving up vikings to actually have children. he was a monster in battle i've read!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
Most of the rest of your posts is stuff and nonsene but glad to hear that you are related to Macbeth. I've just met a relative of Marion Braidfute on another thread and several weeks ago was chatting to a descendent of William Wallace! It is amazing that no foreigner seems to be descended from just ordinary Scots. Personally I am descended from Julius Ceasar on my dad's side and Robin Hood on my mums
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie "Personally I am descended from Julius Ceasar on my dad's side and Robin Hood on my mums"
I don't like to brag, but my vicar assures me that I am descended from Adam and Eve.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Well at least we know that Adam and Eve reportedly had children and we can actually name them! I can't think of any of Macbeth's off hand :-)
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie "Well at least we know that Adam and Eve reportedly had children and we can actually name them! I can't think of any of Macbeth's off hand :-)"
Good point. It is a long time since my English teacher flogged Shakespeare's MacBeth into me, but I seem to recall Mrs MacBeth pointing out that her husband hadn't done anything useful in that line.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Yes from memory Gruoch (Macbeths) wife had at least one child (possibly more) from her first marriage - and one of these Lulach was king for a short period after Macbeth's death. I don't know of Macbeth himself having children though and if he did they are so obscure that the idea that someone can trace family back to them is quite daft.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Shakespears Macbeth is fictional. The MacBeth clan came from Islay, it means Man of Life.. After Gille Coemgáin's death, Macbeth married his widow and took Lulach as his stepson
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Who mentioned Shakespeare? I said that Macbeth had no children. Lulach was Gruoch's son not his. As far as I know Macbeth had no descendents. Macbeth by the way was not a clan patrynomic like MacBeth is. It was a personal first name. He was Macbeth MacFindlay (spelling) but even if it had been, and even if he had started Clan MacBeth (which is stuff and nonsense) the idea that everyone who later had that name is related is fairy tale nonsense also people assumed names
gaconnochie 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePoorhillbilly Who mentioned Shakespeare? I said that Macbeth had no children. Lulach was Gruoch's son not his. As far as I know Macbeth had no descendents. Macbeth by the way was not a clan patrynomic like MacBeth is. It was a personal first name. He was Macbeth MacFindlay (spelling) but even if it had been, and even if he had started Clan MacBeth (which is stuff and nonsense) the idea that everyone who later had that name is related is fairy tale nonsense also people assumed names
gaconnochie 10 months ago
great grand mother on same paternal side was Maud Countess of Huntingdom the daughter of Waltheof of Northumbria. She married King David I of Scotland who himself was son of Margaret of Wessex. So Alexander was descended from the old Anglo-Saxon line of England as well as the many connections of the Anglo-Norman variety. During the Barons war he took the opportunity to reclaim the earldom of Northumbria which had been his father's and swore fealty for that to Louis who had already been declared
gaconnochie 10 months ago
and Restoration. Scotland Invading England, they just didn't see the point and never had the funding to scale such a large endeavour. They just enjoyed living in peace, and they had alot of years of extreme cultural growth by themselves instead of fighting wars.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
So the English got themselves into deep shit when they thought they could for \ go against Gods will, in the view of some of the Scots because religion was quite important to them. they held God, themselves higher than their Monarch and thats saved Scotland. The English tried to Bargain with the Scots on mulitple occasions, but it was allways on the Scots terms, they never fully destroyed any Clan or defeated any of them. The three major Conflicts between have been for Independence
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
just because 25,000 men didn't fight for Stuart doesn't mean there were no Catholics left in the Highlands. No the Scottish Kings were not of the English Nobility. i myself am related to one and he was definitly not anything to do with English, the Last Celtic King MacBeth. It was more like The English Kings thought they could control Scotland. they can't though because theré were many different Clans, all with their own views and power. they were all religious!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Again look up some basic history as this incoherent waffling half truths and misconceptions is silly. You claim that the Scottish kings, and it was Alexander II we were discussing, were not of the English nobility. Well Alexander's mother was Emengarde a descendent of Henry I. On his paternal side his father, and the generations before were Earls of Northumbria and Earls of Huntingdon. His paternal grand-mother was Ada de Warenne daughter of the Earl of Surrey.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Well what i'm saying is they wern't from Renegade Normon English Nobility. England was just a Rengade Normon Provence ruling over Millions of Angle-Saxons, Scotland on the other Hand was much more Scottish, be that a hybrid of Different cultures but they thought of themselves as Scots. and the Stuarts helped change Scotland into a European Respected Country where England was losing respect. The Normons in England therefore only stayed for 400 years.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
Ongoing conflict and Regime that would pit both France and England together in stupid massive battles. Religon is a massive part of why wars are destructive. they aid and sometimes are the target of dictatorships you can't deny that. thats just madness. go away
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
and quite a bit of the rest of the country but got held up in sieging Dover Castle. When King John died of natural causes the bulk of the English nobility changed their allegiance to the young prince instead of Louis and within a year he was driven out of the country. There may have been a pemanent change had John not died but it would have been a Frenchman on the throne and not Alexander of Scotland.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
with Catholic France ended. That is fact that no amount of arguing will change. Yes as I've said the civil wars of the mid 1600s were brought about by the Stuarts trying to force their religion on Scotland but they were just that civil wars - within Scotland as well as within england.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
England's 'different' religions was a significant factor in their conflicts. It wasn't! For almost all the time when Scotland fought England as rival national kingdoms they were of the same Catholic religion and for the short couple of decades when they weren't of the same religion the main reason they were at war was for other reasons. When Scotland and England seperated into Anglican and Presbyterian they actually became closer than they have ever been before and scotland's age old alliance
gaconnochie 10 months ago
Well Boudicca certainly knew she wasn't a Pict
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly No one suggested she was a Pict? Picts didn't exist as a nation at that time. There rest of your posts is inocherent waffling which I think is based on just a few wiki searches rather than any knowledge of history. Of course England is made up of disparate people but so what - so is Scotland? Alexander II didn't invade England as a Scottish army of conquest. He intervened on one of the sides in an english civil conflict just as the Covenanters did. You said that scotland and
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Yes but Picts excisted as a People. She was a Native Briton, the People who were treated as sub humans by the Angle Saxons. From say 1066 to the middle of the that millenium you have a Normon Aritocracy and a Angle Saxon masses. In Scotland theyré were Scots who had become that from the Gaels and Picts much earlier. they wern't bought as mercenaries. They were shaped as a Nation much earlier than England was. Ah no Many Catholics still lived in the Highlands
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbillyThe Picts did not exist as a people in the time of Boudicca. Learn some basic history as this is getting tedious. Boudicca was a Briton of the Iceni tribe in southern England. There were many tribes in Britain including in my area of southern Scotland the Votadini and Selgovae. Further north there were more tribes of Britons like the Venicones, Epiddii and Caledonii. No-one at that time was called Picts and there was no single people who could be called that. A later concept
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "In Scotland theyré were Scots who had become that from the Gaels and Picts much earlier. they wern't bought as mercenaries"
Well yes and no. The nature of medieval warefare meant that kings were loathe to rely upon their feudal levies, who had an annoying habit of disappearing around harvest time. So the Scots employed Gaelic/Viking gallowglasses as mercenaries and the English such Anglo/French squaddies who were available and out of jail.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Effectively, the various disputes between the English and Scots were a centuries long Norman civil war.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost For the most part you are absolutely right! Canmore's descendents were all partly Anglo-Norman, the Balliols, the Bruces and later the Stewarts were all families of Norman stock. Many of the notable Scottish families of the nobility- even some considered Highland clans - were of Norman stock too. The only difference with the Norman intrusion into Scotland was that on the whole they were invited in by the Scottish monarchy. And not just the post - Canmore Scoto-Anglo-Norman monarchy.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@oarfrost The Lowland Scots were of Angle Saxon origin. their dialect Scots, was completly new a different to english. there is nothing like this anywhere in Europe, and then you have a Irish Gaelic Tongue in the North who had interbred with the Picts inhabiting a large part of Scotland, then you have a Norse influence on Orkney and on the Hebrides. So Scotland is a diverse place, not a place where you had second rate citizens shoved aside by 8,000 Normon Settlers.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "So Scotland is a diverse place"
Oh.
I thought you said it was an ordered society with a tightly organised Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages that could easily provide the menu for the wedding breakfast at the marriage of Mr and Mrs MacBeth.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost well sadly, that was all destroyed by the English. But MacBeth came from the same line i came from. the MacBeths of Islay. He just sadly didn't have any children of his own
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly I think I am going to knock this thread on the head. I have met many a plastic Scot and hav a bit of a laugh and a joke with most of them, but I have a terrible feeling that you believe the stuff you keep coming out with.
oarfrost 9 months ago
@oarfrost Best one ever was a guy called Steven Akins on soc.culture.scottish! He ended up being found out trying to smuggle grave stones into Scotland to try and back up his wafflings. Ended up on the front page of the Daily Retard. It was a great laugh at the time. If you google alabampot then it should bring up Ian Stewart's page about it.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Absolute rubbish. You don't even know where the Lowlands are do you? Lowlanders were of diverse stock and not just Anglo-Saxon. In fact saxon wouldn't come into it much at all. The base population would be Britons in the south with an admix of Anglian in the east though they almost certainly never replaced the original - but in the north-east of course it was Pictish. In Galloway etc there was also a significant element of Gael even before Alba moved south. Add Flemings etc
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie all you need to do is listen to the Scots language. its just a different dialect of English (Angle-Saxon). its remarkbly similar, nothing like Welsh which would be similar the Britons native tongue. The Britons themselves stayed in Wales. thats a far way away from Scotland. If the Britons did stay in Lowland Scotland, what impact on the culture there have they had?
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly This getting surreal. I was born and brought in Scotland speaking a dialect of Scots and still speak a dialect of Scots in the midst of a Scots speaking community. I have also an active member of the Scots Language Society. I don't need some foreigner pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that Scots is nothing like Welsh. Who on earth suggested it was? The Britons and Picts who lived in Scotland simply ended up through time speaking Scots and Gaelic. This is not new stuff
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Anglo-Danish etc who moved into the burghs. The Lowland Scots 'dialects' were not actually totally different from 'anything else'. It was pretty similar to the dialects spoken in the north of England. In fact you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell one from the other in the written form. Read some corresponding Border ballads for comparison between Scots and northern English. It was totally different, and remains so, from the standard English developing in the south of England.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
You still havn't learnt that England the concept the country, only excists through the Monarch. the people who live there arn't the local populace. they have come in through waves of migration. From Germany, Denmark, France, originally, and everywhere else since then. alliegences do not actually matter to them they have been bought and sold for like,....2000 years? its there numbers that made them strong and powerful. through greed and oppression they became what they are.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
so you are telling me that Religion is not an major issue, but at the time of Alexander II's massive trek to Dover, The closest any Scot has come to conquoring England, He had a full army, Rations everything, he could have taken London, he had support more than he imgaine in the English Rebel armies of the North and the French, but the reason he didn't go forth was because the Pope had told him to return home. he would have become King of Britian in 1216 and England would have collapsed!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
as far as I know to actually conquer England at that time!
gaconnochie 10 months ago
a largely hostile Scotland. However again this was all later on when Scotland and England had the same monarchs. As completely seperate rival kingdoms religion was not a major issue. The stuff about wallace conquering England is complete nonsense. The Scottish raids into northern England were for various reasons. To be such a nuisance that England would give up its possessions in southern Scotland and would conceed Scottish independence etc. There was no serious possibility - or even attempt
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie I don't think they ever wanted to conquor England. It was mostly regaining Control of the Country for a start, then raids, marching an army into England and see what happens just for the Hell of it. Why would you want England anyway? No Scot Would. Though because England had a feudal system there was a possibility that if you could invade, defeat the throne claiments like the Normons did, take over and let the peasents seetle peacefully in their same kingdom under a different ruler
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Of course Alexander II wasn't attempting to conquer England. He initially invaded northern England in support of the Baron's rebellion against King John. The Scottish kings were themselves of the English nobility and held large tracts of land in England. The later incursion further south was in support of Prince Louis of France who the rebels had proclaimed King of England. Alexander swore fealty to him as many of the other English nobility had. Louis already controlled London
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie it didn't matter, England by then was a Normon Provence. They had been getting worse and worse relations with their homeland in France as the years progressed. It was to do with a wreckless Nobility that owned %95 of the Land in England and the Angle Saxons hated it. thats why you had the French backing that Rebelllion. Scotland could have taken it, the Northumbrian Rebels could have. It was Normon Nobility who were the Problem. the Pope's order was gigantic, thus ensuing a 400
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
With the Alliances of the The Dutch Republic, Austria, Russia, French Empire at the time of the French Revolution, the Expansion into America, Britian the United Kingdom as a concept! thats how Britian became the biggest Empire ever seen. England was only at war with France for a long time, Religious differences and Uneasy relations with Scotland, and a massive Naval force. They fought hard for a long time before they actually became a giant military might. they were a Normon provence for 400 y.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
So When the Normons arrived in England in 1066, they only had 8,000 setlers. they had to rely on recruiting from the local peasent populace for a long time in the armies, and it was hard. the only reason the Scots didn't defeat them forever with the invasion of Wallace and his campiagn, Alex II was because they were not fully backed by ALL the clan cheifs and magnates of Scotland. Its allways been a case of they have the manpower but the organistion and care for the shared goal didn't excist.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
as the Scottish Covenanting army did not invade England as part of a national struggle. It invaded northern England at the bequest of the English Parliament in London. The Scottish army was at that time allied to the Parliamentarians in their war with the royalist forces of Charles Staurt - ie Charles I. Charles had already twice tried to invade Scotland but could not gain enough suppport to do so within England hence both attempts faltered in the Borders.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
England has been ruled by greedy ruthless bastards for thousands of years. they have never acheived anything. they are brutish. The masses were just blind being guided by those monarchs
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
The kings of Scotland were sometimes not given 100 per cent dedication by all their citizens in the case of Lord of the Isles! Those McDonalds were powerful they once owned half of Scotland. It didn't happen like this in England. the Conventers actually beat the English sometimes.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly The MacDonalds were even seen as a fifth column for England. That is true. As I already said the Scottish nobility - not just the Lords of the Isles were in a stronger position and the monarch was weaker within Scotland than his English counterpart. I've also several days ago already mentioned the Covenanters when comparing what size of armies they could put out compared with the small Jacobite force that could be raised to cross the border. Different times too though
gaconnochie 10 months ago
and Alexander II was killed when his own canon exploded. James IV died in the midst of battle aginst the English but it was a disaster both in terms if the unnecessary conflict and the disastrous tactics. Nothing to crow about certainly. Scotland tended to lose most of the big battles though Edward II was lucky not to be killed or at least captured at Bannockburn. Closest to the Scots killing an English king would probably be the Black Douglas's attack on young Edward III's invasion forces when
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Mmm i'n not sure. the Conflicts between Scotland and Englad were mostly breif small encounters with English being victorious. but there are exceptions like Bannockburn and Stirling Bridge where the Scots massacred them. considering the different hierachy and religions of both Countries and the oppressive nature of the greedy nobles of England, you see how they won so many. they had more money, more people forced into fighting for them, more influence, less European Respect
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly To tell you the truth I'm not sure what you are getting at. At the time of Bannockburn etc there was no difference in the religion of the said countries. They were both Catholic. The nobility in Scotland was if anything more powerful and oppressive than it was in England. England normally won the large encounters because it was richer and had more resources including trained more professional trained fighting forces. Scotland's remained a feudal army for much longer.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie No you are stupid. England became its own religion. that affected the Coveneters of Scotland wars arose from religious differences there. The invasion of Alexander II was halted because the Pope told him to stop. The Clan system in Scotland menat that they had trained Soldiers who were unpayed but lived on the land of the cheifs, England they recruited peasents mostly for Archers and relied on nobility for the Knights usually, and paid soldiers for the fighting.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Henry VIII didn't break with Rome until the 1530s or so. You'd had many hundreds of years of intermitent (arguably about 500 or so) warfare up until then and both kingdoms were of the same Catholic religion. James V then went to war with England because of the Auld Alliance etc. Then later there was Henry VIII's war of The Rough Wooing. That war was fought over who the infant Scottish queen would marry - not of religion. The last pitched battles between Scotland and England
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie I'm not saying Religon was the sole reason for the conflict between Scotland and England, but it did play its part in certain events. The first few hundred years of Battle between the two was over places like Northumbria. it was the act, of the seek for a claiment around Edward Longshank's era that it became more about opression, and these crazy schemes by England of trying to pay off the Scots, seperate them, to bring what they ere together , Scotland, crumbling.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly as completely seperate national rivals happened in the mid 1500s so this change in religion only happened at the very end. When Scotland then Reformed its religion too this actually brought the countries closer together and Scotland's traditional alliance with Catholic France was broken. James VI of Scotland then succeeded to the English throne in 1601. After that there was the major civil wars in the mid-1600s. Yes about religion as Charles I tried to force Anglicanism on
gaconnochie 10 months ago
I'm not sure what is relevant one way or the other about how many English kings died in battle. I'd have thought it was a positive thing that not that many did. More Scots did bu tthat is mostly because they argued amongst themselves and the Scottish kings were weaker in their kingdom than English kings were in theirs. Kenneth III, Duncan, Macbeth and James III all died in battle but they were all killed in civil conflicts within Scotland. Malcolm Canmore was killed in an ambush by Northumbrians
gaconnochie 10 months ago
be Kings of Great Britain and France (as well Ireland). They weren't though! They were monarchs of seperate English and Scottish kingdoms until 1707 and the claim to be King of France was a hollow illusion.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
You said the "English monarchy" had been part of strange disputes for a good 2000 years and when challenged on that held Boudicca up an an example! That is what I disputed. The idea that she was a 'central figure' in the shaping of England is nonsense. Offa may have staked a claim to be King of the English but no succ kingdom existed and no such kingdom existed for a long while after his death. there were many Kings of Mercia and Kings of wessex etc after his time! The 17th Stuarts claimed to
gaconnochie 10 months ago
There is a memorial to William Wallace in London but he wasn't English! There are 50 odd million English people nowadays but hardly any of them are part of the monarchy! Let's be sensible. Boudicca was a leader of the Iceni tribe of Britons and the tribal land is a small part of what in now England. That under no stretch of the imagination makes her part of "the English monarchy".
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Yes but they actually posted his on a spike and sent his quarters to various parts of Britian. Boudicca is a bit more respected than William Wallace in England i would imagine. Offa was the first Monarch of England, thats 774. Angle Saxon, it was less than 200 years before the Danish raids and Dane Law, multiple restorations, then Hastings. 400 years of Normon rule. then years of Restorations. the Tudors, Stuarts. Its Ridiculous. the monarchs are just any old sods. the poor masses
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly My point was that Boudicca wasn't part of the English Monarchy! Of course English history was turbulant and Scottish was no less so. I'm no expert on English history but don't think Offa is generally considered the first monarch of England. He was King of Mercia and was dominant over some of the other Heptachery kingdoms. The sons of Alfred the Great of Wessex (Edgar and Athelstane) made themselves dominant over the Heptachery and Danelaw area and united England in about 900AD
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Ooops should read Edward not Edgar
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie No i'm not saying she was monachy, but she was certainly English had a central figure for the shaping of England. Offa of Mercia was the first to claim *Rex Anglorum *(King of the English) Heres a fact for you, only Harold Goodswin, Richard the Lionheart and Richard III are the only Kings of England to die in battle. House of Wessex had ridiculous titiles thats all i'm saying. the Unready, the Peaceable, Ironside. who the hell are English nowadays anyway the? GLOBALISATION!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "No i'm not saying she was monachy, but she was certainly English "
Actually she was a Briton, although I doubt that she would have recognized the concept. The English didn't turn up until several centuries later.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost well she knew she wasn't Scottish
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly She wouldn't even have thought about it because Scottish didn't exist as a concept then either. As Oarfrost said she was a Briton - though we don't know if that would be a major identity for her or not. She was Queen of the Iceni tribe who imhabited a small part of what is now known as England. A country names after Germanic tribes who came to this island centuries after Boudicca lived.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
The Romans, The Angle Saxons, Dane Law, Normon Invasion, Henry VIII, William of Orange, Victoria. its a who's who of Europe.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
not enter England until the start of November. The two main armies in England were lead by Wade and Ligonier. Hawley later replaced Wade and Cumberland replaced Ligonier. After Hawley's defeat at falkirk - Cumberland replaced him - but the bulk of Cumberland's army remained south in case of a French invasion. This is not rocket science try and get your head round it.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Its remakrable that the French having defeated the British combined forces, would not follow them straight away and bring the war the British soil. its just bizarre.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Wider picture. France had achieved its main aim which was not to put the Stuarts on the British throne, but rather was to reduce the land forces on the continent against them. Britain was only part of the alliance against France and Prussia. The bulk of the British troops were withdrawn from the immediate theatre of war. Secondly France was always going to struggle with an invasion because Britain enjoyed overwhelming naval superiority on its own.plus it had Durch help
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie The Spanish helped with the Jacobites aswell. still, if there was an overthrowing of power to the Stuarts how long would it have lasted? with the allies of Britian being Austria, Hanover, Dutch, Nassau, you would imagine that there would be a backlash invasion probably. its would have turned into Battle for Britain. I hate the English Monarchy, still now in 2011 they forget to invite my own Tasmanian Princess Mary of Denmark to their Royal wedding. they are just rude.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly A good what-if to play with. It would revert to the 1600s and that was a dreadful century for Scotland and the island of Britain as a whole. You may even have seen a French style revolution here. The Stuarts held the same divine right dogma that the French monarchy had. That could never survive for long in a modernising western European country like Britain was at that time. In my opinion anyway.There is really no 'English monarchy' as such. Hasn't existed since 1707
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie as i said it was a different time. Some of Highlanders were still hanging on to Centuries old traditions. alot of Scottish influence was expanding into places like Canada, America. they recognised the Highland plight, but didn't think it was worth it, and happy to do as they pleased, to save themselves. The French Revolution would change the Royalty face and laws etc for Europe. If you look at the English monarchy, its been part of strange disputes for a good 2,000 years
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly The strange thing is one thinks of the tradition of the Stuart monarchy and its highland particularly MacDonald support but that was not particulary traditional. That didn't emerge until the mid 17thC during the civil war period. Prior to that the Stuart monarchy had basically permanent backing from the Campbells in the Highlands and the MacDonalds in the guise of former Lords Of The Isles saw themselves as rivals to royal authority and on several occassions sided with England
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly It was only when Charles I twice attempted English invasions of Scotland (ie the Bishop Wars) that the Campbells, who supported the Scottish govt, came into dispute with the Stuart monarchy.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie well yeah its like Mafia or something. they had their own loyalties. if what you are saying is true, 30,000 Highlanders being able to fight, it shows the independent spirit they only fought for themselves thus the Stuarts struggling to find ALOT of troops to take Britian. Many lowlanders stated accounts of Highlanders coming to the cities and being scared of them, as they were often fully decked out and had their own ways of doing things, affiliations, pride.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Its not what I say that is the official govt estimates at the time of the total manpower available to the clans - or at least the estimates ranged from 25,000 to 30,000. Charles only managed to raise a small fraction of them. Of course people in the cities which were basically undefended would be panicking when an army of 3,000 or so turned up. especially considering the atrocities of the 17thC. Though to be fair to Charles and the army they behaved well overall
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Mind I'd be interested in what disputes you think the "English monarchy" had with the Romans. The said royalty doesn't go back that far - nor does England as a concept.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Well.... theres only a fucking statue in London of her, Boudicca. I know that Romans met mixed resistance in England, they had to resort to hiring Anglo Saxon mercenaries to hold their land, who eventually took control and turned the local britons into a sub-race.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Boudicca wasn't an ancestor of the 'English monarchy' nor was she part of anything called the 'English monarchy' in her day. She was Queen of a tribe of Britons called the Iceni who lived in the Norfolk area or thereabouts. The 'English' and 'England' and an 'English monarchy' were much later concepts.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie If she isn't English, why the hell do they have statue of her in London. shes definitly nobility. Of course. Angle-land (England) came along with the Anglo Saxons.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePoorhillbilly "If she isn't English, why the hell do they have statue of her in London."
Probably for the same reason we have a statue of Ghandi in London's Tavistock Square. We liked the idea.
oarfrost 10 months ago
Most recruits in England were from the manchester Regiment which amounted to about 250 so we are looking at a maximum of about 5,100 plus a few other English recruits. This ties in with other figures I've read including Elwand's biography of Charles Stuart. There were still Jacobite forces in Scotland and recruiting still went on in Scotland whilst the army was in England - hence the higher figures at Culloden etc. it isn't difficult to understand
gaconnochie 10 months ago
They had 8,000 Jacobites at Falkirk muir, ! so this army had just been in England! they lost 1,000 troops in between Falkirk and Culloden from deserting.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly No some of this army had been in England. In his book on the "The 45" Duffy lists the army which invaded England and estimates the numbers. The Lowland Division (which wasn't all Lowlanders) consisted of 2,640 and went via Peebles and Moffat. The Highland Division of 2,250 made its way via Kelso and Jedburgh. So that is 4,890. It is known there were hardly recruits in the Scottish or the English borders and any there were would be offset by desertions anyway.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
he could have never have gotton England to rise up in arms. because they're just wasn't anybody. its not a warrior society. it never has been. its a farming society. there wasn't an armed man and his sons in every croft like there was in Scotland. Plus look if you look at most of the Battles Britian fought in this era it was with the assistance of the Dutch Republic, House of Hanover, Austria etc.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
Fotenoy. this was within 3 months of Prestonpans. a 50,000 a side fucking slog of a battle, Cumberland was there. so you are telling me they are capable of fighting this, and keeping at least 21,200 troops in England? thats just as mad a crack pot theory, even more mad than the ghost troops theory by goodness. and nits not like the Jacobites didn't know this was taking place, they just wanted to go home haha
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
Re-forces in Scotland once the army invaded England. Vastly outnumbered is probably an exaggeration! We are all prone to that once in a while :-)
gaconnochie 10 months ago
when I say it wasn't a case of 6,000 men - I was talking about your two small armies opposing him of 3000 each. Like I said there was actually nearer 30,000 opposing him. You are using the 6,000 estimate of the Jacobite Army itself but the various histories I've been reading suggest smaller numbers.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
Britain to take! Who would he do that with? He needed the english to rise for him but they didn't - that is fact. Alternatively he needed foreign intervention but it didn't materialise - that is fact. Anything else is just what-ifs and imaginations.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
control. Places in the Scottish Lowlands were in general only Jacobite when the army of Charles was there to enforce it. When they were in England the govt forces (Hawley's arrival, the Argyl Militia, the Independent Highland Companies, both the edinburgh and Glasgow volunteer regiments) built up and vastly outnumbered the remaining Jacobite forces in Scotland. Had Charles made London; and had he been succesful over the defenses which can't be a given; then he would still have the rest
gaconnochie 10 months ago
But they didn't. The Scots leaders then realised they were dangerously exposed in Derby. Only then did Murray's argument prevail over the Prince's and reluctantly he agreed to retreat. The Scots had no wish to even try conquer england. The anti-unionists in their camp wanted him to declare Scottish independence and assert control in Edinburgh. He refused as for him it was the English throne or nothing. You do know that as soon as he left, got as far as Dalkeith, the capital reverted to govt
gaconnochie 10 months ago
Charles would have easily taken on two small armies of 3,000 men, and then march onto London to rendevous with the French, where they would have caviar and celebrate the second norman invasion of britian/conquoring of England by Scotland under the Stewarts, but no they get scared by ghost soldiers and march on home. UTTER MADDNESS!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly It wasn't a case of 6,000 men though. Charles had a small army of somewhere between 4,000 and 5,500 men. Against him were two armies of over 10,000 men each (ie Wades and Cumberlands) plus a small arly of about 1,200 in Chester; plus a force larger than his own in the London environs which included the Royal Scots and Black Watch. There was no French army outside London. The Scots leaders had never wanted to invade england but he assured them the English would rise in favour
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie uhhhhhh no. there were 6,000 union troops left in England. they were actually fighting a battle overseas in Fotenoy. thats the whole reason Charles organised this whole grande scheme at that exact time. Charles probably had 8,000 if not more. So if an army marches from Scotland to England, picking up barely any drafts then back, fights another battle, with deserters going all the time, they come to Culloden with 7,000. its a pretty easy equation. union forces were make believe
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly You really should try and read some proper history of the 45. Yes Britain was barely defended at that time because of the war on the continent. That is why there was a crisis over it. Otherwise the Jacobite Army would probably never have made it even into central Scotland. Because of an existing treaty the govt was able to call on 4,500 Dutch and Hessian troops who were quickly dispatched here to join with Wade's existing 4,950 British troops and 1,500 cavalry (ie 10,950 total)
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie Those Hessan troops were only called in to hold the border as Cumberland moved through. 6,000 infantry, 700 horse and 33 artillery pieces were protecting London. Wade and Cumberland were not in England at the time, Cumberland only took control of Hawleys defeated army and marched north to Aberdeen and then onto Culloden. yeah they took on 2,000 Jacobites for the Falkik battle they still would have taken London.. Its the Lack of English Jacobites and French Help
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Simple time line. First troops come back from continent and disembark on 19th Sept - these are the Dutch and Hessians brought back to reinforce Wade who is in north east England protecting Newcastle and environs. 21st Sept the Jacobites defeat Cope's small army at Prestonpans. 23rd Sept first of the British army stationed in Flanders disembarks back in southern England. By 13th Oct all but one of the battallions in Flanders leaves for Britain along with Cumberland. Charles did
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Then there was Ligonier's (later Cumberland's) army which was brought back from Flanders with approx 8,500 infantry and 2,200 cavalry a total of 10,700. Then there was the force at Chester of approx 1,400. Then those stationed around London which totalled approx 6,000. This in itself amounts to almost 30,000 alone and does not count all the local militias etc which were in the process of being formed - and this doesn't count the considerable forces in Scotland
gaconnochie 10 months ago
The Union won this, by use of quickly gathering together mercernaries and paying the men a fair wage for a dirty slaughter.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
thats figures for Falkirk Union troops, Jacobites barely a scratch, picked up more munitions.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
actually no.6,000 british troops left in England becuase of battle of Fotenoy, Prestonpans was 2,000 aside. 700 wounded killed Union, 1,500 captured. So we see charles pick up , oh 6,000 troops before he gets to Derby? retreats. Falkirk, 600 killed/captured/wounded troops. 1,000 leave Jacobites before Culloden, 5,000 Hessian troops arrive to hold border, Cumberlands newly drafted army of 8,000 march north to meet the starving tired army of Charles 7,000 strong..
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
for the Jacobites.its 2,000 wounded and killed. 370 captured inlcuding the French Irish. Union casualties are 300 dead or wounded. its was the late jacobite charge after cannon fire, the McDonald clan on the left stug in the bog, the complete lack of leadership on the right charge that led to a crossfire as the Jacobites broke the first line, only to get shot up by second line, whilst a flanking force shot down any fleeing troops to the side. If I was there. by god. Macdonalds should have ducked
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly Right so it's went from 2,000 died at Culloden to 2,000 wounded and killed - which is the figure as given in wiki in my last post. Though how reliable that is I don't know
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie well ok 2,000 dead and wounded, and 2,100 something flintlocks found on Jacobite Soldiers. i guess people just ran for their lives dropping their expensive french flintlocks. its striking though the figures for captures. they just hunted down them like animals, taking no prisoners. but i guess thats what happened at Prestonpans
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
gives 1000 dead and that ties in with other estimates I've seen. Wiki gives between 1,500 and 2,000 for all casualties - that is wounded as well as killed. I'm sure other sources will give other figures. However there is no doubting the personal bravery of the frontline clansmen who obviously because of the Highland Charge tactic took the brunt of the fighting, but that doesn't prove they were all volunteers. People are often brave in war even when they are conscripted. Note the likes of WW1
gaconnochie 10 months ago
He only recived cannon, and a Artilliery master, and French Irish troops, Spanish French Flintlocks pretty late, like as they were retreated back into the Scotland. Its the Bloody French mate it allways has been.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
the jacobite was a volunteer is plainly ludicrous. It is well known that many clansmen were pressured or even forced into joining. Mind the same would be for the British Army. Many in those ranks may well not have supported the Hanovarian cause.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
but the Jacobite Clans had largely ignored the disarming act any way. On the other hand the clans loyal to the govt had largely disarmed - hence the reason the Jacobites were virtually unopposed at first. The majority of Britain at that time was no longer an 'armed society' as you out it. There was a massive war going on in mainland Europe involving hundreds of thousands of troops on either side. Some were diverted over here, mostly British but also european troops. The idea that everyone on
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie No the Charles sent word out in the Highlands with a burning cross to raise an army. they assembled in the Highlands and were tracked for weeks by Copes army, giving them the Flick, then PrestonPans,. they were unnaposed because noone was stationed in the Highlands until the Blackwatch. yes people were forced to fight but a large core were pretty dedicated. enough for 2,000 for them to die at Culloden you goose.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly The Black Watch as such were on the continent and were brought back with the vast bulk remaining on the outskirts of London to protect that against the French. There was a small contingent back in Scotland. There was another 19 new Highland Independent Companies raised and commanded by Louden in Scotland as well as the Mamore's Argyl Militia. But these were in reaction to the uprising. I think the Jacobite losses at Culloden are pretty much unknown. The Britishbattles site
gaconnochie 10 months ago
nothing in his writings which suggests he viewed himself as particularly Scottish. In fact he comes across from that as well as from his actions as being more English if anything. His stated prize was obviously the throne in London for his father. On a cultural level he was not Scottish and for the times he totally alienated many Scots because of his religious views along with his advocacy of Divine Right. Had the Stuarts given up their doctrines and dogma they may well succeeded without war
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie I think you are missing a crucial point here. he's wasn't called ''BPC'', but actually Charles Edward Stewart. as in Stewarts who ruled Scotlands for generations! mmm 7,000 men is alot for an uprising. i'd be shitting my self if i was a unionist. money has nothing to do with it, they were volunteers. alot were forced onto the battlefield which was pretty bad, but they were forced the same clan cheifs who decided not to attack london.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago