Scottish Battlefields article

[Cynthia]

Saw this article about protection for Scottish Battlefields and thought it would be of interest to some of you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...al/8170448.stm

[Sir William]

Thanks. I was just at Culloden about a week ago where the Scots have made great efforts to not only save the battlefield but built a beautiful and informative museum to explain the 1745, the battle of Culloden, and the aftermath. Sadly, these efforts have not extended to many other battlefields and this new effort may start correcting that.

[Jock Scot]

Thanks. I was just at Culloden about a week ago where the Scots have made great efforts to not only save the battlefield but built a beautiful and informative museum to explain the 1745, the battle of Culloden, and the aftermath. Sadly, these efforts have not extended to many other battlefields and this new effort may start correcting that.

Let us hope so, although too much development around some of the battlefields may make things a bit tricky.Still, it is never too late. Bonny Dundee who is mentioned in the article is, I think, burried in the grounds of the nearby Blair Castle, home of the Dukes of Atholl. B D's breast plate is on show there with ,if my memory serves, two large bullet(more like cannon) holes in it. It is not surprising that he did not survive!

Well then Sir W. how did the trip go? I am so sorry to have missed you. Ho hum.

[Phil]

Culloden is perhaps a special case in that so many who fell or were subsequently butchered are buried on the site on the orders of the victorious army. This makes it not only a battlefield but also a war grave and, as such, has a special significance and reason to remain untouched. The normal practice of those days was for the dead and wounded to be taken away by their kinfolk and they would have been buried elsewhere which leaves such battlefields as interesting historical sites but little more. Whether they should be allowed to become building sites or anything else is debateable but just consider the battlefields of World War I where so many died and are still buried there, undiscovered, but where agriculture, road building and other development goes on.

[Sir William]

Well then Sir W. how did the trip go? I am so sorry to have missed you. Ho hum.

Jock,

Sent you a PM with all the gory details! We had an excellent time and it was all too short.

[macwilkin]

Culloden is perhaps a special case in that so many who fell or were subsequently butchered are buried on the site on the orders of the victorious army. This makes it not only a battlefield but also a war grave and, as such, has a special significance and reason to remain untouched. The normal practice of those days was for the dead and wounded to be taken away by their kinfolk and they would have been buried elsewhere which leaves such battlefields as interesting historical sites but little more. Whether they should be allowed to become building sites or anything else is debateable but just consider the battlefields of World War I where so many died and are still buried there, undiscovered, but where agriculture, road building and other development goes on.

As a former park ranger who worked at a American Civil War Battlefield, I'm not so sure I agree with Phil that a battlefield with no graves is somehow less worthy of preservation than those that do, such as the battlefields of Western France.

At our battlefield, the majority of the dead were reinterred in a National Cemetery in Springfield in 1867, or in some cases, claimed by family members. But the majority were simply not able to be identified, as military graves registration had simply not been developed at that time as it is today. Soldiers might pin pieces of paper with their next-of-kin's name and residence to their uniforms, or purchased "dog tags" from sutlers, but even that was no guarantee of proper identification if killed. Many of them lie under "unknown" tombstones in the National Cemetery. If we allow the battlefield where they were killed to be destroyed, then their legacy will be destroyed along with it.

Regardless of where the dead lie, a battlefield still is a national shrine, and an important educational tool for future generations.

T.

[kiltimabar]

Having visited many Civil War battlefields, I was familiar with the fact that many, but not all, have cemeteries associated with them (eg. Stones River, Gettysburg, Shiloh) while others (Manassas) had removed the bodies to local cemeteries. Then when I visited the Revolutionary War battlefield of Saratoga (1777), I asked where the casualties were buried, and I was told "All around--in that day, soldiers were buried where they fell." All were unmarked, except for General Simon Fraser. Although some local casualties might have been retrieved by families, most would not have been. Thus, the Concord (1775)cemetery has local American kia, but at the foot of Old North Bridge there are several British soldiers' graves. And they keep finding new bodies on battlefields of all wars--Little Big Horn (1876), Civil War, WWI-II, Vietnam, etc.

Get to the point, Dave.

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

[KFCarter]

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

I agree.

"...the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract..." Lincoln's Gettysburg address

These places will always be hallowed ground.

[macwilkin]

Get to the point, Dave.

OK. All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.

Well said, Dave.

Todd

[Phil]

As a former park ranger who worked at a American Civil War Battlefield, I'm not so sure I agree with Phil that a battlefield with no graves is somehow less worthy of preservation than those that do, such as the battlefields of Western France.

I didn't say thay were less worthy, just that their significance was perhaps less. The warships sunk at Pearl Harbour and at Scapa Flow are designated war graves and respected as such. We have sites of battles fought by the the Covenanters (a virtual Civil War in which thousands died - Drumclog, Bothwell Bridge, Rullion Green), those of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Prestonpans, Culloden), Jacobites of JamesII (Sheriffmuir & Killiecrankie), other older ones such as Flodden, Bannockburn, Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, and even ones going back to Roman times such as Mons Graupius against the Picts (whose location is uncertain). You could actually reach the stage where a significant part of the country had to be preserved for all time as a result. All I was really trying to say was that while there should be respect for these historic sites where do you draw the line?