Fiction and the ‘45: Occupied Scotland before the Last Jacobite Rebellion

You could just as easily replace Randall with Tavington.

Dear Reader,

The scene is ingrained into the consciousness of much of the English-speaking world: Barbarous red-coated soldiers, acting under the direction of their effete noble officers, brutalize or kill innocent people in an effort to spread their "law and order." Fictionalized depictions of this kind are common in the United States, Ireland, and Scotland. Usually, witnessing this type of violence cements ideological resistance to the redcoats in some hero-figure. In these narratives, red-coated barbarity is the justification for acts of rebellion and war. Compared with these fictionalized portrayals, events are somewhat less dramatic. This post argues that Scotland was relatively peaceful just before the Jacobite Rising of 1745.

British Grenadier, Morier, 1740s/1750s

Writing about violent imperialism is never an easy task, as it is often one of heightened emotions for all parties involved. Suggesting that Scotland was peaceful before 1745 does not mean that British troops committed no crimes, simply that it was peaceful compared with the bloody atrocities which followed the rebellion, as well as portrayals of the pre-rising era in fiction and film. Challenging this narrative vital, as it has been constructed in order to make the rebellion appear justified in the face of English Imperialism. Whether or not the rebellion was justified need not detain us, nor is any resolution likely on that score. Furthermore, regardless of the justification of the rising, the repression after the rising was questionable as a matter of deterrent, as Christopher Duffy has recently argued in his magisterial Fight for a Throne: The Jacobite '45 Reconsidered.  With that rather weighty disclaimer, let us turn to the fictional portrayal of Scotland on the eve of the '45 rebellion.

Outlander portrays a harsh occupation by a large British Army before 1745. 

In both Chasing the Deer, and Outlander, the British military presence in Scotland on the eve of '45 rising seems quite significant. Chasing the Deer shows Brian Blessed's character drilling troops, while Outlander portrays a fictitious low-intensity war raging between British dragoons and highland rebels (in 1743!). In one scene in the first season of Outlander, a British officer claims that skirmishes with Scots are "an almost weekly occurrence." In both media, the British Army of red-coated troops seems to be everywhere, and it follows that ordinary people in Scotland would have seen them on an almost daily basis. It may come as a surprise, then, that the British Army maintained a very small footprint in Scotland until after the '45 rising.

On the eve of the '45, there were just under 4,000 British Army soldiers deployed in Scotland.[1] Large parts of the country were entirely beyond their reach. Indeed, Scotland was one of the least militarized places in Europe, with perhaps 1 soldier per 315 civilians.[2] By comparison, the ratios for Prussia, France, Austria, and Russia are all greater than 1 soldier per 150 civilians.[3]   The Hessian allies of the British had military to civilian ratios as high as 1:14. Likewise, in the modern United States, the ratio of soldiers to civilians is 1 soldier per 140 civilians, or double that of pre-1745 Scotland.

The British Army did indeed increase its force in Scotland after the rebellion and for 10 years almost 11,000 troops were deployed in the region.

The number of British Garrisons
exploded only after the rising

The Stennis Historical Society has recently compiled a map of the garrison locations, but remember, this is after Culloden. For those interested in the occupation after the rebellion, the Stennis Historical Society has also made transcriptions of archival troop cantonments available. Troops local to the highlands, the Royal Highland Regiment, had been moved to continental Europe to fight in the War of Austrian Succession. Interaction with army also helped teach the Scottish highlanders English, so that in the eighteenth century, English-speaking highlanders often possessed less of a "Scottish" accent than lowlanders did.[4]

Samuel Johnson observed:

Those Highlanders that can speak English, commonly speak it well, with few of the words, and little of the tone by which a Scotchman is distinguished. Their language seems to have been learned in the army or the navy, or by some communication with those who could give them good examples of accent and pronunciation. By their Lowland neighbours they would not willingly be taught; for they have long considered them as a mean and degenerate race.[5]

So, if there were 4,000 British troops in Scotland in 1744-45, what was their task? In fiction, these troops are portrayed as violent butchers, conducting raids, murders, rapes, and mass executions. Once again, this is a fictional viewpoint.

A portion of a mass-execution sequence in Outlander

The British government did not conduct any mass executions before the 1745 uprising, indeed, there were only 38 executions in Scotland between 1740-1749.[6] This figure does not include executions after the '45 rising, but only 80 Scottish Jacobites were executed in the wake of the rising (when you remove the 40 executions of Manchester Regiment deserters.) A far larger number of men were likely murdered by the British Army during bloody reprisals directly after Culloden. Before the rising, British soldiers certainly committed unsanctioned acts of violence against Scottish civilians. However, these acts took place outside the law, and soldiers were frequently found guilty, punished, or even executed for committing them.[7] Before the '45, the British Army was not conducting executions, nor was it spending most of its time destroying the countryside by fire and sword.

What was it doing, you ask?

Hunting smugglers. The army was indeed engaged in a low-intensity war, not against Jacobites, but smugglers. Anti-smuggling operations were quite common, and sometimes, smugglers were suspected of being Jacobites. However, it runs a bit contrary to fiction that the British Army would not have been most familiar with the highlands, but with the coastal regions traveled during anti-smuggling police work.

A 19th-century depiction of the Porteous Riots

This work could sometimes lead to violence, as it did during the Porteous Riots of 1736. In this event, public outrage over the looming execution of two smugglers caused the crowd to hurl stones at British soldiers, who eventually opened fire, killing between 5-10 individuals. Captain John Porteous, the commander of the soldiers, was placed under arrest. During the next few days, 4,000 people assembled to demand Porteous' execution. Despite a jury finding Porteous guilty, the mob believed that the judicial system was taking too long, and lynched the unfortunate man. This episode demonstrates that British soldiers were not figures of terror, but individuals who could be held accountable by the Scottish public.

The Tay Bridge, constructed by Marshal Wade's troops in 1735, photo by
Dr. Will Tatum

In addition to hunting smugglers, soldiers spent a great deal of their time building roads. Between 1730 and 1745, Marshal Wade constructed 250 miles of road in Scotland.[8] 500 men of the army in Scotland were consistently employed in roadbuilding during this era, and these soldiers were offered extra pay for their work.[9] These were undoubtedly roads designed to carry English imperialism into Scotland, but, in my mind, building roads is a far less nefarious activity than conducting armed patrols of the countryside à la Vietnam. In Scotland, men like William Blakeney, Edward Cornwallis, and James Wolfe gained valuable road-building experience which would continue to serve them in other parts of the British Empire.[10] Rather than attempting to intimidate the Scottish population by overwhelming force, imperialism and brutality, the British Army deployed a small number of men relative to the Scottish population, constructed roads in Scotland, and punished some of its own men who did commit acts of violence. 

David Morier, "Culloden"

This lack of violence makes sense if we acknowledge the fact that there were no bloody reprisals after the most recent Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1719. Rather, after these risings:

a policy of reconciliation and had been pursued by the moderate whigs-- typified by John Drummond of Quarrel, MP, who used his extensive commercial contacts to find posts for a large number of the defeated Jacobites, and so reintegrated them into Scottish society and public life.[11]

The clemency after these uprisings resulted in a relatively peaceful Scotland for twenty-five years, but it failed to prevent the '45 itself. When viewed through this lens, the Government response to the '45 becomes more understandable, if perhaps not forgivable. The 'highland army' of '45 was rebelling not only against the King, but against the peaceful Scotland created by government clemency in the 1710s and 1720s. Describing the situation in Scotland, Norman MacLeod wrote in July of 1745 about the prospect of a renewed uprising, "I've heard nothing... but peace and quiet, I think you may entirely depend on it, that either there never was such a thing intended, or if there was, that the project is entirely defeated and blown into the air."[12] The prospect of rebellion was so inconceivable to MacLeod as a result of the relative peace which Scotland had enjoyed for over twenty-five years.

For all its historical and costuming flaws, Outlander drives at the generational
 differences which caused support for the '45.

That, then, is perhaps the greatest tragedy of the '45. Rather than a national uprising full of righteous indignation at the barbarities of the English, the rising was a rebellion against compromise. It was a rebellion against the middle-aged men who had made their peace with the Hanoverian Succession in the wake of '15 and '19. In the words of Christopher Duffy, "It was the revolt of a generation against the compromises and hesitations of fathers, uncles, and elder brothers... remarkable was the initiative taken by youthful Lords Lewis Gordon and David Oglivy, Archibald Roy Campbell of Glen Lyon, Young Clanranald, and the representatives of the MacDonald cadet branches[.]"[13] Ironically, this is something that Outlander captures almost perfectly, as the compromising leadership of Colum MacKenzie is challenged by his Jacobite younger brother Dougal, and nephew James Fraser. This complexity is what makes the '45 truly a tragic drama, one which deserves to be remembered in story and song.

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook,  or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Christopher Duffy, Fight for a Throne: The Jacobite '45 Reconsidered, 38-39; 
[2]Alexander Webster, Account of the Number People in Scotland in 1755. 
[3] Duffy, The Army of Frederick the Great, 73-4.
[4] Duffy, The '45, 96.
[5] Samuel Johnson, A Journey through the Western Islands of Scotland, 75.
[6] Rachel Bennet, Capital Punishment and the Criminal Corpse in Scotland, 1740–1834, Chapter Two, Table 2.5.
[7] Victoria Henshaw, Defending the Union, 66-67, 77-78.
[8] Duffy, Fight for a Throne, 36.
[9] Victoria Henshaw, Defending the Union, 78.
[10] See Geoffrey Plank, Rebellion and Savagery, 6.
[11] Duffy, Fight for a Throne, 482.
[12] More Culloden Papers, Vol IV, 12.
[13] Duffy, Fight for a Throne, 482.

Tradition and Revisionism in Historical Hobbies and Professions

The 40th of Foot Light Company at Cliveden- Photo by Suzanne Shaw

History is always changing. In many ways, the past is a moving target- and historians always write with the lens of their own time. In the last fifty years, this has led to a pushback against so-called, "revisionist" historians. The general public often fears that historians try to, "change the past," in order to fit a modern political agenda. However, on the whole, this fear grows out of a misunderstanding of the job of the historian. The task of the historian is not the simple recitation of facts about history, but advancing our knowledge of the past. Thus, to call a historian a "revisionist" is not an insult, but a great compliment. If a historian has managed to revise how the general population looks at the past, they are fulfilling their purpose. However, that revisionism often meets with pushback, and many individuals resist thinking about the past in new ways. "Established wisdom," or "tradition," often views revisionist thinking with extreme skepticism. This occurs within the debates of historians at a professional level, but is also present in historical hobbies.

The picture above depicts the 40th regiment of Foot light company, a "progressive" reenacting unit depicting British soldiers in the American War of Independence. It is rather humorous to me that the term "progressives," used so pejoratively in historiographical debates, is used to describe a particular type of, "hardcore," or "serious" reenactor. The picture shows them doing controversial things in reenacting circles: giving fire while lying down, not arrayed in closed ranks, etc.  While many individuals have known that the British army did not fight in the way it was depicted so often in Hollywood films, this knowledge has become more widespread with the publication of Matthew H. Spring's book, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only. The guys in the 40th Regiment have obviously done their reading.

This text, in every sense of the word, is a work of revisionist history. Spring, "with the deftness and surety of a bayonet stroke," in the words of a particularly effusive reviewer, has killed the notion that the British army fought in rigid lines during the American Revolution. Despite this fact, few wargamers, reenactors, or historians have updated their information to reflect this incredible work of scholarship.

Part of this failure is ignorance- not everyone has read, or been convinced, by this book. However, part of this failure is "tradition," the sort of tradition which got the Catholic Church into trouble in the 1500s. Many reenactors, wargamers and historians have simply not updated their way of thinking about the British army because they been thinking the same way for 30 years. This sort of behavior reflects a lack of respect for history, and in my opinion, is inexcusable. A third part of this failure to update comes from lack of finances- not everyone can afford to make the changes required when new research is done on uniforms in reenacting, or purchase a new rulebook in wargaming. However, those who cannot afford change, but are aware of new ideas, are in a much better position to serve history well.

To return to the beginning- ideas about the past are constantly changing. Dr. Christopher Duffy rewrote his groundbreaking work on the Prussian army in the 1990s, because new evidence had come to light, evidence which led him to different conclusions. That is one of the great things about history- it is in a constant state of motion, and it requires thorough, ongoing research and reading to have an adequate understanding of the past.

So- whether you are a reenactor or a wargamer, a historian or an undergraduate student, a "progressive" or a "mainstreamer": my admonition is the same. I echo Augustine in saying: take up and read.

And in the interest of helping you with that goal, I am going to list the books which have been most instructive for me in becoming a journeyman student of Kabinettskriege era warfare.

Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy

Redcoats by Richard Holmes

With Zeal and With Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring

Russia's Military Way to the West by Christopher Duffy

The Battle that Shook Europe by Peter Englund

A Revolutionary People at War by Charles Royster

Fire and Stone by Christopher Duffy

War under Heaven by Gregory Evans Dowd

The Capture of Louisbourg, 1758 by Hugh Boscawen

I highly recommend them to you.

Thanks for Reading!

Alex Burns

Russian Expansion in the Kabinettskriege Era

Putin as Peter the Great

Russia has a long and complicated history with her eastern European neighbors. At the beginning of the Kabinettskriege era, in 1648, there was no reason to suspect that Russia would rise to the status of a European power. Indeed, in those days, there was no Russia, only the small state of Muscovy. All eyes were on Sweden. Her powerful army, and exceptional leadership, gave the Swedes control and domination of much of eastern Europe, particularly in the Baltic region. By the end of the Kabinettskriege era, Russia had displaced Sweden as the dominant power in eastern Europe, and was able to do this through a complex mix of factors.

Eastern Europe in the late 17th Century

Situation in 1648

Russia (Teal/Green) had a impressive territorial empire, but lacked strategic positions and resources. Russia also had a number of powerful enemies. The greatest of these, until 1721, was the Baltic empire of Sweden (pink). Another power opponent of Russian interests was the Ottoman empire (brown), and the Ottoman empire's client state, the Crimean Khanate (bright green). Directly to Muscovy's west, the Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth possessed much territory, but was showing signs of decline.

Muscovy itself had a number of problems. Muscovy had recent emerged from the time of troubles, a disastrous  period in Russian history, which saw much instability. The Russians had also managed to survive a series of long wars against the Mongols, but the army which defeated the Mongols was now outdated. In order make Russia into a great power state, the Russians needed: 1). A stronger army 2). powerful, skillful leadership, 3) and divided and weakened states in the rest of eastern Europe. By 1789, the end of the Kabinettskriege period, Russia would achieve all of these goals, and join the ranks of the European great powers.

Figurines of 17th Century Russian Streltsy

1). Reforming the Military
Until the turn of the eighteenth century, Russian military life was dominated by the type of soldier you see above, Streltsy. These soldiers were state of the art in 1550s, but by the 1650s, had begun to show their age. In order to join the ranks of European great powers, the Russians needed to reform their military along European lines.

They adopted the flintlock musket, as opposed to the primitive matchlock used by the Streltsy, and began to dress in French and German military fashion. For most of the Kabienttskriege era, the Russian military was one of the best in the world. By 1709, the time of the cataclysmic Battle of Poltava, the Russian army began to look a bit more like this:

Early 18th Century Russian Soldiers

Peter I of Russia, "the Great"

 2). Effective Leadership

The Russian army was modernized by a man who was not a masterful tactician, but a great leader: Peter I of Russia. He lost battles in the Great Northern War, but kept Russia in the fight when his allies deserted him. He was often a brutal leader, but his methods produced results. It was his influence, more than any other factor, which led Russia to embrace a distinctly European way of life and thinking.

He had other, very effective rulers follow him as well. Both Elizabeth Petranova, his daughter, and Katherine the Great of Russia followed in his mold of making Russia a first rate European power. Under Elizabeth, the Russians defeated Frederick the Great's Prussia in the Seven Years' War, and Prussia only survived this disastrous war by tenaciously hanging in the fight until Elizabeth's death in 1762.

Katherine the Great in military dress

 3). Weakened Neighbors in Eastern Europe

The Russians were able to achieve spectacular success, because of their great army and leadership, but also because of their diplomatic choices and options. Throughout the eighteenth century, Russia was able to isolate specific enemies, and destroy them in detail. This began with the Great Northern War in 1700, and would continue throughout the eighteenth century. In the Great Northern War, Russia was able to isolate Sweden, and attack it, in an alliance with Denmark and Poland.  This war was successful and Sweden's empire was dismantled. However, this achieved a dual purpose. In the course of the war, Poland was also weakened, both economically and militarily. This would lead to the partitions of Poland, later in the eighteenth century, where Russia, Prussia, and Austria would claim large swaths of Polish territory.

Another example of this is the Russian conflict with the Ottoman empire. The Russians used their common Christianity with the Austrians to gain powerful allies, and force the Ottomans to fight a two-front war. Many of the smaller states in eastern Europe, such as Courland or the Crimean Khanate, were snapped up in times of crisis, when larger powers were too busy to intervene.

 Practical Application Today

At first glance, it might seem as though Putin is a "new" Peter the Great, as the picture at the top implies. However, there are a number of historical differences which actually work in favor of the EU and their allies. First- in the twenty-first century, it is much more noticeable when large countries annex smaller ones, thanks to instantaneous communications, social networks, etc.

Second, Putin may be a charismatic strongman, and a capable strategic leader. His diplomatic maneuvering shows some skill, and his handling of the 2008 South Ossestia war show that he has the potential to force opponents to make mistakes, and back down. With that being said, he is no Peter the Great. While he may be attempting to revitalize the Russian armed forces, those forces are still years away from matching and exceeding first world armies, such as the United States, or even France and Germany. The fact that the dispute is happening in Russia's back yard, Ukraine, indicates that despite the saber rattling, NATO and their allies have Moscow on the back foot.

Third,  the Russian army, unlike the Russian army of the eighteenth century, is badly in need of reform. However, the Ukrainian forces they would be fighting are not much better off. With that being said, Russia should worry about more than just Ukraine, should it choose to invade. While the United States might not intervene, other powers, such as Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic States, will certainly not take Ukrainian annexation lying down.

This brings us to the fourth and final point: Europe is not divided. This is not 1914. This is not 1938. The entire continent of Europe condemns what Moscow is doing, and should Moscow attempt the total annexation of Ukraine, will act to protect European interests. The Poles, particularly, will fight to keep independence.


Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Heroes, Villains, and History

Don Troiani's Parker's Revenge

Dear Reader,

The above painting shows British soldiers early in the American War for Independence. When you look at the above men, what do you see? Heroes or Villains?

Who were the, "Heroes" of the Kabinettskriege era? And above all, what does reducing things into the terms of, "right and wrong," achieve in our understanding of the past?

William Potter, an American historian who works for Vision Forum, released an audiobook, entitled, Bayonets! Heroes, Villains and Character Lessons from the American War for Independence. You can find this book here. In this book, Potter attempts to draw spiritual lessons from the American War of Independence. In Potter's view,  the British are the evil villains of the American Revolution, while the Christian Americans were on the side of right. Potter gives excellent and insightful details about the American War of Independence, but I continue to wonder whether his conceptual lens offers any positive results.

While the book is obviously targeted for children, there is no reason why we should portray history, particularly such vital history as the founding of the American nation, in simple, moralistic terms. If the American War of Independence is a simple moral tale, why did so many Americans own slaves? American Slavery shocked and appalled both Hessian and French writers during the revolution.

And what about the idea that the Americans were Christians, and the British were godless? After all, weren't the Americans rebelling against a government, which the Bible instructs Christians to respect? The British soldiers were just as devout as the Americans, as is extremely evident in their letters. The Hessian Subsidientruppen who fought for the British were just as pious, and they often felt disgusted by what they saw as an American lack of religion.

What about the European Seven Years' War? Are there heroes in this context? Why is it we are so eager to say that God and right was on the side of the Americans, but do not have a quick answer for who was right in the contest between Austrian and Prussian?

If we simply want to view the Americans as right, is there truly a need to view the war in terms of heroes and villains? Individual humans are not good or evil. Their actions display both good and evil. They are complex, and it is a disservice to history to portray the past in the simple terms of a morality play.

For our international readers, I have a question: Does this effort to portray the past as a simple battle between good and evil occur in your countries? If so, what form does it take?

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

Why Study History?

Dear Readers,

Today we are going to venture off the Kabinettskriege path and look at a question that many minds (much greater than mine... Marc Bloch, for example) have answered, or attempted to answer.

The question is this: why study History?

Why should anyone care about History? It doesn't feed you, it doesn't clothe you, it doesn't shelter you, why should you care?

As a history student, I can't recall how many family dinners where someone hears that you study history, and asks something like, "So you are studying history because you want to be a professor... doesn't that seem like a self-sustaining system?" or, "What is the use of history? So we won't be doomed to repeat it?"

The answer to this question is manifold. Here, I will attempt to give you the bare bones of an argument for history.

1) The "doomed to repeat it" mantra.

Believe it or not, this is actual a legitimate reason to keep the past alive. Ever heard of the Holocaust? American Slavery? There are people in this world who attempt to argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that Slavery, "really wasn't so bad." Well, as a Historian, I can guarantee that the Holocaust did happen, and Slavery really was so bad. Let's not even talk about what happened to the Native Americans. 

2) The "Informs who we are today" argument.

This is another common argument, and another good one. The best example I have ever heard of this is the Confederate flag. If you think History doesn't matter to people, go buy a Confederate (non-American readers: The rebels during the United States Civil War) flag, and wave it around in the American rural south. The individuals there will probably clap you on the back and offer to buy your drinks. Do the same thing in urban centers of the American north, and you might receive a beating. (With VERY good reason.) Thus, while history might not put food on the table, it informs who we are today.

3) Leads to a full life.

I met someone recently, who told me that living a life without a knowledge of history is like watching the Thanksgiving day parade on a small black/white tv. You could hear the commentary, perhaps even make out the various floats, but would it really be enjoyable? Living a life without history is the same way.Without it, you can get by, do your job, and live your life, but history adds meaning and depth to life.

4) Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy it! (And this makes History marketable)

In my mind, one of the best arguments for history is that some individuals actual enjoy it! Ever met a Civil War reenactor? A wargamer? Or perhaps someone who just enjoys reading? These people love history. In this way, one could think of the historian as a someone in the entertainment or hobby industry. While my professors would doubtless cringe to think of themselves in this way, the historian is not unlike a company which builds fishing boats. Not everyone loves fishing, or fishing boats, but some people do, and these people fishing boats, creating a demand for more fishing boats. In the same way, historians create a product (books, lectures, etc) to meet a demand.

5) Unless our society changes, schools and colleges require students to have History classes. 

History is a subject which students need to have. Like it, hate it, you have to take it anyway. This creates a demand for history teachers and professors. No one tells the science teachers that they are unnecessary. The fact that history teachers cannot be coerced into designing WMD's is an advantage, right? Just watch Back to the Future. If Doc Brown had been a History teacher, the Libyans wouldn't have shot him.

In summary, History warns us about the traumatic events of the past, (even if we usually choose to ignore that warning,) creates the word in which we currently live, adds meaning and depth to life, and is a commodity which can be bought and sold like anything else.

Believe it or not, History matters.

Thanks for reading,

Alex