Culloden

[Woodsheal]

That's a stirring and romantic view, but let's not forget that a majority of Scots opposed the '45 Rising, and that a lot of the redcoats at Culloden were indeed Scots. As well, many of the clans were pro-government, and half (or more) of Prince Charlie's army was comprised of non-tartan-wearing lowlanders.

It was not a Scotland vs. England conflict, but more in the nature of a civil war in many ways.

Also, recent archeological work at the battlefield has revealed that the battle was bigger than has been thought, and that the Jacobites came closer to success on the field than is traditionally portrayed. Their musketry was much heavier than previously thought, for example. It was not a hopeless slaughter, but rather a near-run fight that ended in defeat, but could have gone the other way....

[BEEDEE]

Also, recent archeological work at the battlefield has revealed that the battle was bigger than has been thought, and that the Jacobites came closer to success on the field than is traditionally portrayed. Their musketry was much heavier than previously thought, for example. It was not a hopeless slaughter, but rather a near-run fight that ended in defeat, but could have gone the other way....

That is interesting. Can you point us to a reference to this work?

Brian

[Woodsheal]

Here's one of the articles:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/bat...ects/culloden/

And there's a summary of recent conclusions in the Wikipedia entry on the battle (under "Culloden Battlefield Today"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden

For the U.K. folks, the new evidence was dealt with in an episode of the TV series "Two Men in a Trench" back in '03, I think....