 |
| 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.
