Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Jacobite Rebellion chance of success?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by magnif (U14600610) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
Apologies if this has been covered before.
Did the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 ever really stand a chance of success? After Derby should they have pushed onto London or was it doomed from the start as once British forces returned from continental Europe the rebellion was bound to be crushed?
If there had been better leadership could the forces of the rebellion have won not necessarily at Culloden but another site more suited to their tactics. -
Message 2
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
I am no student on this era, but personally think that, despite the rumours of Government armies closing in as told to Murray/Charlie by a 'spy' with impeccable Highland credentials, they could have pushed on to London.
But could they have held the capital? They gained far less English support than they had hoped for as they dashed southwards and, true to the internecine way of 'Celtic' life and war, especially in hostile territory with supply lines cut off (and no French invasion), internal bickering may have sowed it's own seed of destruction? -
Message 3
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 3rd September 2010
Also, let's not rule out the religious factor, which was very important then....
Southern England would never put up with a Catholic king. -
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 3rd September 2010
I am not sure that "rebellion" is the proper word since the Highlanders were not rebelling against anything.. It was not an independence movement, but an attempted 'coup d'etat'.
They were lending their support to an attempt to win the throne by force of arms. I seems to me that those who admire Highland culture tend to see this as an example of the incredible loyalty beyond all reason of the Highland warrior culture. After all the Stuart clan had a long and terrible history of persecution and even possibly genocide towards certain clans.
So when the OP raises the question of success, one would have to ask what "success" might have meant to the clansmen who obeyed the call of honour. It almost certainly was from the start a suicide mission in which death on the field of battle was likely to be the final outcome. And indeed Culloden is generally regarded with a certain amount of reverence for the bravery against all odds of the Highlanders- so much so that in the aftermath Highland regiments of the British Army were formed which distinguished themselves by their incredible valour over the years since.
As for putting the Bonnie Prince on the throne, 35 years later the London mob took over the city for almost a week in the Gordon Riots when Parliament was discussing the possibility of granting toleration to Roman Catholics. They were certainly not going to accept an RC King.
Like the London prentice boys who stopped Charles I's march on London in 1642 or 1643, the "mob" that defied the authorities in London until chased away from the Bank of England by cannon, would probably have gone out to stop the Jacobites from getting to the capital- if the authorities failed in their duty.
But the financial turmoil caused in London by the arrival of the Jacobites as far as Derby guaranteed that the job was eventually done by "professionals" and that most commonly meant mercenaries from small German states,for which hiring out armies was a "nice little earner". And they brought with them the kind of methods and traditions of the German plains in the Thirty Years War in which perhaps a many as 20 million people died.
It is a good idea to know about your enemy before you take the military option.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by ceegar (U5411333) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
They never stood much chance of great success, I think that the previous posters were correct in that even if the rising had been a success the chances of the Stuarts holding the throne were thin to none. It's worth noting that BPC would not have been King until his father, James, died though.
The greatest chance of success for the Jacobites came in the immediate aftermath of the original 'glorious revolution' when most of the great magnates remained on the fence waiting to see which way to jump. Had the initial rising, led by Bonnie Dundee, continued it's early success then it would have generated even greater support particularly within Scotland. In fact, after Dundee died at Killiecrankie, William of Orange himself commented 'the rising has died with Dundee'.
It could also be contended that the '15 had a strong chance of success had it had better leadership.
The truth of the matter is that by 1745 the regime had too much support from the general populous to be overthrown regardless of any military support that the jacobites had. -
Message 6
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 6th September 2010
The chances of 'success' were ill-fated as can be told by the bitter divisions that went on between BPC, Lord Murray and the Highlander chieftains at a war council at Derby?
Militarily they could have taken London- weakly 'defended' by green and perhaps drunk Govt troops, lacking morale- but they couldn't have held it without support and reinforcements etc.
The English Catholic king, James II, BPC's grandad, was deeply unpopular and the English (and Scottish lowlanders) hated him towards his reign's end. After losing the Battle of the Boyne, and fleeing for his own safety, he incurred the emnity of the Jacobites themselves.
Even at the time of Glencoe, soon after the Boyne (1690), some Highland clans were against the Jacobites.
Holding the enemy capital far from home with no home or French invasion support- impossible. -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th September 2010
Militarily they could have taken London- weakly 'defended' by green and perhaps drunk Govt troops, lacking morale- but they couldn't have held it without support and reinforcements etc.Ìý
The government troops in London (even discounting the milita) probably outnumbered the Jacobites. They were fresh and well supplied and bolstered by a supportive population. The Jacobites, even with the military successes were noticing that England didn't turn out to support them and morale for the cause was suspect. So a victory (though probable in Jacobite minds) wasn't certain.
But, as you say, the ability to hold London weighed heavily on Jacobite minds - very aware that even after defeating George II, they'd have to fight a much superior and experienced army under Cumberland within a few days. -
Message 8
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Friday, 10th September 2010
If the Jacobites had taken London, perhaps the French would have appeared, so the British government army would have had to fight the Jacobites while being attacked by the French from behind.
-
Message 9
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 10th September 2010
if that's the case, then a French invasion would have done the job in terms of galvanising resistance to the Jacobites in southern England. A lot had changed since 1066 - the French were the hated enemy at the time.
It might be easy to win a military battle that results in immediate occupation. It's quite another thing to hold on to your military successes, as Napoleon found out in Moscow.... -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 10th September 2010
If the Jacobites had taken London, perhaps the French would have appearedÌý
The French didn't have an invasion army imminently arriving in London unlike government forces. By the time they'd organized an invasion the rebellion would all have been over. -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 10th September 2010
I do not think that one should over-estimate the French ability to leap into the field.. France did not have the British financial system behind it, and paying for wars was always a problem.. Joining in the American Revolution almost certainly cost the French Royal Family the throne; and that was a winnable uprising against the British Crown.
Presumably if France had been prepared to do anything, BPC would have secured some backing from France before he ever set out.
The Irish did secure such vague promises before the Great Rebellion of 1798, intending to create their own tricolour republic. But the French force that was sent was little more than a friendly token assistance.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by magnif (U14600610) on Friday, 10th September 2010
Hi All,
Lots of interesting info there thanks
Any books you would particularly recommend on the subject
Thanks -
Message 13
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 10th September 2010
And tell me will we never hear the end?
Of poor bludy Charlie and Culloden yet again?
He ran like a rabbit down the glen
leavin' better folk than him to be butchered
Are yer sittin' in yer Council house dreamin o' the clan
Waitin' fer the Jacobites to come an free the land?
Try going down the broo wi' a claymore in your hand,
And count all the Princes in the queue...
From the completely excellent song "No Gods And Preciuos Few Heroes" by Big Brian McNeill.
-
Message 14
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 10th September 2010
So, at the crucial Highlander Council at Derby- the farthest south that the Jacobites got- to decide their next move, how many Government armies were in the vicinity?
If none were close, how many other armies were closing in on them, what shape were they in and under whom?
I know that Cope was flummoxed in Edinburgh, and the London army was panicking to defend the capital. -
Message 15
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 11th September 2010
The London army (c6,000 strong, with over 30 artillery pieces) was not in any kind of panic a all, as has already been pointed out. There was also Cumberland's battle-hardened army of c10,000 in the midlands and Wade's force of c16,000 coming down from the north, while the rebels numbered about 5,000 in total.
Unfortunately for our understanding of the '45, popular authors and documentary makers
like to portray it as a 'near miss', in order to have a more dramatic story.
The rebellion was a success from the French perspective: they sent a couple of frigates and a handful of men to Scotland and secured the removal of thousands of veteran redcoats from the continental theatre. -
Message 16
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Saturday, 11th September 2010
I think it was a lot closer run thing than many on here realise.
General Wade had already been comprehensively defeated by the rebels at Prestonpans. His army had little faith in him as leader - and he was replaced by Hawley after he failed to stop the Jacobite retreat nothwards. Things didn't go according to plan for Hawley, who was defeated at Falkirkin early 1746. Most of his army fled and the rebels captured much needed supplies from the baggage train.
The volunteer army in London was a mixture of untried militia and men pressed into service. In all likelihood, they would have scattered before the Highlanders.
So what was left was Cumerland's army, with a 2 to 1 advantage over the Jacobites. BPC's best chance was to attack Cumberland on his terms before he could train and motivate his troops. Perhaps he didn't know here the redcoats were, or perhaps he was advised not to fight at that time. Either way, he didn't take this opportunity and paid for it in April 1746. -
Message 17
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 11th September 2010
It was Cope, not Wade, who was defeated at Prestonpans. The rebels were remarkably lucky then, with fog leading them to do just the right thing by accident (charge Cope's flanking dragoons when the latter were at the halt), and equally lucky at Falkirk, when Hawley stupidly flung his cavalry at them without infantry support.
The 'volunteer' army in London, the militia, was in addition to the 6,000 regular infantry, 700 cavalry and 33 cannon manned by professional artillerymen. They'd have made the same sort of mincemeat of the rebels as Cumberland, who had much less artillery, was later to do at Culloden.
Cumberland didn't need to train his troops, who were hardened veterans of the continental campaigns, and needed no extra motivation to go hurtling off northwards in pursuit of the rebels rabble once the latter had the sense to retreat and go back to plundering Scottish towns (their chief talent). -
Message 18
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 11th September 2010
PS, the Jacobites' beloved Pseudo-prince
Charlie didn't pay for the whole stupid idea half as much as those Brits daft enough to follow him, either in April 1746 or any other time... -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 11th September 2010
1507George
Why on earth should you believe that the London militia in 1745 was any worse soldiers than their forebears, who had been defending London for centuries. Military training had always been a fundamental activity for young boys, and apprentices, and young men had often decided to go off and see a bit of the world in payed military service.
William the Conqueror, a much more serious military commander than BPC, with what is generally considered to be a well-organised and efficient army, did not try to capture London in 1066, but invited leading citizens out to parley.
After 44 years residence in London I sense that mood of self-confidence that Londoners will do whatever it takes to meet whatever is thrown at them. It may be a myth that someone will eventually destroy: but as long as myths have credibility they still have power.
As for 'untrained men pressed into service', I seem to recall that this applied to many young men with a few hours of social flying experience who were rushed into the defence of London/England in 1940. "The Few" did not do so badly.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
And of course it was never a simple Scotland vs England conflict at all. One side of my family may well have supported the 45, the other side almost certainly did not. Both were Scots.
-
Message 21
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
Things didn't go according to plan for Hawley, who was defeated at Falkirkin early 1746. Ìý
The Jacobite army at Falkirk was much better than that at Derby. It was about twice the size, including French regulars, and even then the victory was close.
The volunteer army in London was a mixture of untried militia and men pressed into service. In all likelihood, they would have scattered before the Highlanders.
Ìý
There were men pressed into service in the Jacobite force, so we shouldn't write off such soldiers. There were experienced troops in London and about 500 guards. And the militia had a strong incentive to defend their homes.
So what was left was Cumerland's army, with a 2 to 1 advantage over the Jacobites.Ìý
I don't think you can ignore Wade based on a battle where he didn't command and where the Jacobites were far stronger. -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
Taking up Sceptical Scotties point, surely there is no reason to believe that affairs up in Scotland would have necessarily been any different to- for example- the see-saw of fortunes between Catholic and Calvinist during the 'reign' of Mary Queen of Scots, and then the minority of James VI.
If the Highlanders possessed the capacity to permananently conquer Scotland and become the ruling establishment, presumably it would have happened before economic development really emphasised the difference between "The Wealth of Nations" that a famous Scot pre-empted Karl Marx in flagging up as the basis of human power.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
I just noticed that Making History has an item tomorrow about how the Jacobites "ran riot in Manchester".
-
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th September 2010
MB
Having just watched the news the Manchester police are working hard to make sure that their Protestant- 'brothers in arms' do not do so this week.
Cass -
Message 25
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th September 2010
MB
Mind you I understood that "Manchester" did not yet exist in 1745.. It became a populous district in the second half of the eighteenth century and achieved municipal status after the new law The Municipal Corporations Act c1835.
Cass -
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
"Mind you I understood that "Manchester" did not yet exist in 1745.. It became a populous district in the second half of the eighteenth century and achieved municipal status after the new law The Municipal Corporations Act c1835."
Pity that no one told William O'Sullivan, the Jacobite Quartermaster:
"..... so he was obliged to go by Manchester ....."
or Chevalier de Johnstone:
".... and on the 29th we arrived at Manchester ...."
or Loch Elcho:
""... mett at Manchester ...."
or Maxwell of Kirkconnel:
"Though the Prince's reception at Manchester ...."
I could continue but that seems enough examples. -
Message 27
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
And a advertisement from the Manchester Magazine of January 1746
"Stray's or convey'd from Edgcroft near Manchester"
(that is a direct quote from an image and not from a transcription) -
Message 28
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th September 2010
MB
I did presume that the name Manchester was not just invented when the city was formed: and presumably it does indicate the location of some old castle..
I was merely suggesting the fact that a riot in Manchester in 1745 must not be imagined in terms of the City of Manchester.. Even by 1819 when the great meeting at was held in St. Peter's Field outside the "populous district" the region lacked any proper urban infrastructure- hence the use of the county yeomanry and the subsequent Peterloo Massacre..
It was the kind of "Church forsaken", if not "Godforsaken", region that Charles Wesley went to to preach in the open air because of the lack of adequate Churches to minister to the common people.
Cass -
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 13th September 2010
Mind you I understood that "Manchester" did not yet exist in 1745.. It became a populous district in the second half of the eighteenth century and achieved municipal status after the new law The Municipal Corporations Act c1835.Ìý
I'm guessing it merely failed to qualify for whatever stood as the arcane legal definition of a town. But in real terms it was definitely understood as Manchester by people of the day. The Jacobites even named a regiment after the place (where they'd received virtually their only support within England). It had briefly even had an MP in Cromwell's commonwealth -
Message 30
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
The Jacobites do not seem to have behaved all that badly, their main activity appears to have been going around all the towns extracting taxes from people.
It is said that the most valuable recruits to the rebel army were those who had experience as collectors of customs and excise taxes. -
Message 31
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 13th September 2010
By 'extracting taxes' you mean plundering, eg as they did at Dumfries, where they demanded the towns folks' shoes, as well as money.
Also, you might want to have a look at the behaviour of the pre-revolutionary regime the rebels wanted to re-establish (arbitrary killings of suspected malcontents, the use of medieval torture instruments on suspects as a tactic of first resort, the ravaging of south western Scotland by the government's Highland Host etc). -
Message 32
Posted by VoiceOfReason (U14405333) on Monday, 13th September 2010
whereas post Culloden Butcher Cumberland was the model of restraint
-
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th September 2010
cloudyj
I did look up in Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England" and found that King Edward of Wessex did repair the Roman fortifications of Manchester in 919 because of the threat to Northumbria, especially from across the Irish Sea..
That would suggest that the place had some psychological importance for invaders..
As to whether or not it was a town, it may well be that the locals saw it as an ideal kind of town, because [I believe]that it had no town corporation or urban parish- or the costs involved.
The Anglican parish boundaries in the region were based upon the assumption that there was a rural rather than urban population. And the place had never received a charter setting up a government with mayors, aldermen etc..
Subsequent to the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act there was a great publicity and propaganda campaign, especially by Richard Cobden and "The Manchester School" who wanted to establish the idea that Manchester was "the future"
[Frederick Engels observations helped to convince Karl Marx that this was the case.. and that given the nature of Manchester, class war and revolution were inevitable]
My own hunch is that the "life-expectancy" statistics that were in every school history text-book about the horrors of the industrial revolution were probably produced by Cobden's publicity team. They wanted to shock everyone with that average age of death being 9 years old, so that everyone would vote in favour of having a municipal government empowered to raise taxes. The new registration of Births and Deaths Act made such information available. But, of course, there is a difference between life-expectancy and average age of death.. But that is another matter.
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
The Manor of Manchester was given to one of William the Conqueror's supporters, Manchester is recorded in the Domesday Book. Whether it has the same boundaries and administration as later Manchester seems irrelevant as I doubt whether whether any other town or city has the same boundaries as it did in earlier times.
-
Message 35
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 13th September 2010
Re Glencairn's attempt to besmirch the memory of our brave deliverer, HRH the Duke of Cumberland...
The Whig population of the British Isles had been showing restraint for over 50 years, taking a very 'softly-softly' approach to the Jacobites' failure to get it through their skulls that these Islands were NOT, in fact, the personal property of the absolutist Stuarts and the population NOT, in fact, the Stuarts' hereditary slaves. Perhaps if Cumberland's approach had been taken in 1689, Scotland would have been spared the rebellions of 1715, 1719 and 1745.
Incidentally, to call HRH 'Butcher' is to follow a southern English fashion for romanticising the Jacobites once they were defeated. The slur originates from a quip about HRH's insistence that three Jacobite nobles (the 'Rebel Lords') be given no special treatment, and has nowt to do with the pacification of the highlands...
-
Message 36
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 13th September 2010
I wonder if General George Murray was one of those.....
-
Message 37
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th September 2010
MB re message 34
As you say Manchester was a Norman manor and was still being administered as such until c1838 when Cobden was adjudged to have won a mandate in favour of establishing a municipal corporation and changing it from a manor into a town- or even a city.When did it get a cathedral?
Cass -
Message 38
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 13th September 2010
whereas post Culloden Butcher Cumberland was the model of restraintÌý
Is anyone saying he was? His actions followed the methods used widely by the Stuarts themselves. Hundreds of fleeing rebels were butchered in the immediate aftermath of Sedgemoor, and hundreds more tried and executed or sold into slavery. Stuart kings had more than happily set their soldiers to ravage swathes of Scotland to punish rebels, so it rings a little hollow that Jacobites in 1746 cried foul. -
Message 39
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 13th September 2010
The church became a cathedral in 1847 but the church itself is much older than that.
-
Message 40
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
MB
Thanks for the information..
Naturally there would have been a church serving a Norman manor. The manorial system seems to have been based upon the collecting of dues for the Crown; and a Church was a "nice little earner" for anyone who founded it as a "public service".
In those days it was profitable to run a public service because public services were run for the whole community and "Not Just For The Poor"- to quote a Church of England study on the Welfare State.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.