The Last Highland Charge and the End of Jacobitism

            After the English Crown was taken from the Stuart Family by the Hanover’s, there was much dissention. In the following controversy the political following known as the Jacobites was born, believing the Stuart family to be the right heirs to kingship. These Jacobites began several wars in the time following this transfer of power, but were put down finally in the 1745 rebellion at the Battle of Culloden. Following the battle, the British Military forcefully kept the rebels down by exiling and executing a majority of the captured Jacobites. In looking at the Jacobite 1745 Rebellion, researches wonder if it is the how the Jacobites military successes, early in the conflict, led to the complete disaster and following massacre at Culloden around a year later. This evolution of warfare can be compared to other similar evolutions, making it interesting to study what the root cause of it would have been.

            This particular evolution, like most others, has several individual influences, as well as other, more connected influences. While all of these influences should be studied, some of them leap out as the most influential, and as such should be looked at before the others. Therefore in the events of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, more commonly known as the ’45, one should look first at the leadership of the two armies, and how they played a key part in the war. One particular aspect to look at is how these two leaders took an entirely different look at how to handle politics, but also how to look at soldiers in general. This does not only include how they treated their men, but their enemies, and the cause of such differences.

            To understand the changes that happened in this war, a comparison between the Jacobite victory at Prestonpans, and the English victory at Culloden. The battle at Prestonpans took place on September 21 1745, at Prestonpans Scotland, which is near Edinburgh. The highland troops made an early morning assault, under the cover of a thick fog, on the British lines.  The sword bearing highland troops were able to get close enough to the British position, and the assault was successful, routing the British troops. 

            The Battle of Culloden took an entirely different course. The Jacobite army was falling back to the North when Bonnie Prince Charlie decided to take a stand. He chose a moor East of Inverness, and decided to defend it. On the night before April 16, the Jacobite Army attempted a night attack that was ultimately unsuccessful. The next morning Prince Charlie ordered traditionally European assault against the British position, which was reinforced by cannons. The charge was a complete disaster, and the British massacred almost all of the surviving Jacobite Soldiers.

            The most prominently discussed leader from the 1745 rebellion is Prince Chares Edward Stuart, the leader of the Rebellion itself. The first thing to look at is “Bonnie Prince Charlie’s” young life, which was spent entirely on the mainland of Europe. In fact, his landing on the second of August of 1745, to start the war, was the first time he had ever set foot in Scotland, let alone the highlands from which most of his fighting force came.  This means that while the Highland Jacobites showed him their utmost respect and acceptance, he was not aware of the whole of the highland customs and tactics. This meant that his decision at the battle of Culloden to take a more traditional European defensive tactic was not wise, but can partially be attributed to this lack of understanding of the highland troops he had to use.[1]

Another part of Prince Charles’ influence on the war to look at is his devotion to his public image. For example, even though he was not a highlander, he adopted the Highland dress of a kilt (a highlander’s plaid pleated skirt) and Highland plaid, for a publicity painting.[2] He also made a great effort to protect the image of his soldiers, as they were his command, even though their effectiveness might have been lost slightly due to these attempts. For example after his victory of Prestonpans, he had his soldiers stay in the area so he could provide doctors for all of the wounded British troops.[3] This was to create the image that he was a humane and Christian leader, even though his troops used swords. It is important to note that a majority of European militaries had begun to consider swords as outdated, as well as inhumane due to the cleaving, gashing, and less fatal wounds they inflicted, when compared to firearms. This means that while he was stuck using sword wielding soldiers, had had to clean up after them to protect his reputation. He also spent weeks trying to train the disorderly highlanders to march uniformly, and otherwise behave like other European militaries. This time could have been spent on campaign, but instead he believed in protecting his appearance.[4]

This devotion is part of the reason he chose his plan for attack at Culloden, but ignored the difference in geography between Prestonpans and Culloden.  Culloden was a marshy wetland, and was not suited to an infantry charge. This was partially the cause of the failure of the Jacobites’ night attack. Prestonpans however gave them the cover of fog that they used in their early morning assault that routed the British troops. The land around Culloden is also a great marsh, which the Highland soldiers were not suited to fight in, due to the hindrance of movement and great visibility. The highlanders did not want to fight on flatlands, instead wanting to fight in the rough hills as they were accustomed.[5] This had played in their favor at Prestonpans, but they were uncomfortable at the Culloden Moor.  This is part of the reason that Prince Charlie had attempted to take control of his armies and use them in the traditional European manner, as he had to prove that his troops were more than just wild highlanders. This also would have been driven by Bonnie Prince Charlie’s attempt to ascertain his legitimacy to the other European loyalty as a strong European leader.

            A final item to look at concerning Bonnie Prince Charlie is his apparent alcoholism. Alcoholism is widely regarded as a poor trait in leaders, and must be noted in his decision making abilities, as well as what the alcoholism says about his self control. Some historians, such as Sir Charles Petrie, consider this to be a sign of weak character and therefore proof of poor leadership abilities.[6]

            Charles Stuarts’ opposite Commanders must be looked at, too. At the beginning of the ’45 the leader of the English army was Sir John Cope.  He had been successful in previous wars, however at the battle of Prestonpans he was not prepared for the surprise attack mounted by the highlanders. His previous experience had him prepared for a traditional European military encounter, which did not include fighting the claymore bearing highlanders. This is quite possibly a cause for his rout at the battle of Prestonpans, as well as the Highlanders success at mounting a surprise attack.

            After the Battle of Prestonpans control of the British army in Scotland was turned over to Lord William, Duke of Cumberland.  The duke was similar to Prince Charles in several ways, including his practice of spending time drilling his troops when he could have been using them to wage his war. He was mocked for this, and his critics even jokingly suggested that he used women to fight, instead of constantly training his troops and not winning the war.[7]

            This is a difference between the Duke of Cumberland and Prince Charles Stuart: the duke was not as interested in protecting and nurturing his public image as he was in being effective.[8] In fact his push to train his troops had little or nothing to do with his public image, but was simply in the name of efficiency.  The Duke of Cumberland seemed to be more focused militarily than Bonnie Prince Charlie. Also, while Prince Charles was basing many of his actions on how others would react politically, the duke of Cumberland did what he felt was necessary, and justified it with politics.

            Intertwining between differences in leadership is the politics behind the war. Prince Charles Edward’s obsession with maintaining his public image was partially due to his belief in not only winning the war militarily, but politically as well.[9] He felt the need to not only win the war, but to prove his legitimacy to rule England to the rest of the European aristocracy.  This meant that he had more to worry about than the Duke of Cumberland, who was the son of the king in power, and had nothing to prove about his legitimacy.

            After the battle of Culloden, in an effort to prevent any further Jacobite dissention, and any further dispute to his right to his father’s throne, the Duke of Cumberland ended the battle of Culloden with the systematic trial and punishment of the Jacobite soldiers and lords. He declared all Jacobite soldiers born in the British Isles to be rebels guilty of treason, and not soldiers, allowing him to treat them as civilians and not as prisoners of war.[10]   All Jacobite troops that could provide proof of birth in France were released and treated as soldiers. The remaining troops were systematically executed or deported to the Americas, earning the Duke the nickname “The Butcher” which he carried for the rest of his life. This is a perfect example of how these two leaders differed. While Bonnie Prince Charlie had fought the war basing his actions around other peoples politics, the Duke of Cumberland did what he wanted, and found a way to politically justify it.

            All in all, while failure in leadership and soldier’s morale played key roles in the evolution of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, the geography and the politics surrounding the war played an equally key roll in shaping them. Other influences certainly presented themselves, but these stand out as some of the most important. In studying the evolution of a war, one can gain perspective on the evolution of warfare itself, leaving one to wonder if these same influences have affected other wars in a similar way.