Scottish Battlefields article

[Scotus]

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 disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.

[BEEDEE]

Let's hope they bring this in before they build pylons on Sherrifmuir. See Sherrifmuir Update in http://www.clan-macrae.org.uk/

Brian

[macwilkin]

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?

I'm sorry, but I disagree again in regards to you use of the word "sigificance". The battlefield where I worked at "only" had 537 killed, but yet the battle was significant in that it 1) kept Missouri in the Union and 2) was a "training ground" of sorts for many of its participants, who went on to serve in other battles during the War, thus gaining valuable combat experience. While casualities should never be dismissed, you're only looking at one aspect of a battlefield's overall history.

T.

[macwilkin]

I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.

And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.

T.

[Jock Scot]

When I was a lad,in the 1950's, I spent several months in Northern France living with a relative who had an estate at Gommecourt. The sight of a disastrous British diversionary attack 1st July 1916. The casualties were over 4000 British dead on that day, just in those few thousand acres. Co-incidentally one of casualties was a relative, he has no known grave, along with the many hundreds in that battle and the many tens of thousands with no known grave on the Western front.

I spent many days driving up and down some of those acres ploughing. It was a strange feeling. I did not knowingly plough up any bodies, they are there somewhere,I did however, plough up yards of barbed wire, metal fence posts, bullets,bits of shrapnel, and a 12 inch shell! It is not much different these days I am told.

The Western front is such a huge area that the Belgians and French could not possibly "freeze" it.They do preserve parts of the battle fields and when they come across a body(parts of) it is treated with the greatest of respect not only by the landowner ,but by officialdom and it is to their ever lasting credit that they do. The military cemeteries that are sadly so abundant in that area are beautifully maintained. We cannot preserve everything, we may not be able to preserve the best, and life goes on as it must and in reallity the same applies to the battle fields in Scotland. Wilful and careless destruction of a historic site is to be avoided though,but as in France a compramise can be found.

I will never forget the villagers of Gommecourt who, to a wee child, filed out at dawn on the 1st of July some time in the 1950's and standing in pouring rain in total silence beside a wheat field to remember that day.That is respect and it meant a huge amount to me. I would not be at all surprised if they still follow that respectful tradition to this day.

[Scotus]

And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.

T.

But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.

[macwilkin]

But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.

On "my" battlefield, we have a sinkhole that contained the bodies of 34 Union soldiers hastily buried after the battle. The remains were later exhumed and removed to the National Cemetery in Springfied. While not technically a grave, I always asked visitors to treat it as such, because soldiers killed at Wilson's Creek had been buried there at one time, and therefore had "hallowed" the ground in a sense.

T.

[KFCarter]

Gentlemen, I think to argue over whether the word "grave" properly applies to these places does a disservice to those who fought and those who fell. Can we not simply agree that these places are, and ought ever to be, hallowed ground?

[macwilkin]

Gentlemen, I think to argue over whether the word "grave" properly applies to these places does a disservice to those who fought and those who fell. Can we not simply agree that these places are, and ought ever to be, hallowed ground?

Well said.

I can agree to that 100%.

T.