A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

(1)

The battle that made Britain?

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

Scotland, Britain and the world

Sunniva Christina Ruthven Hatlestad-Hall

Master’s thesis in History at the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

Autumn 2019

(2)

(3)

The battle that made Britain?

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

Scotland, Britain and the world

(4)

Ó Sunniva Christina Ruthven Hatlestad-Hall 2019

The battle that made Britain?

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for Scotland, Britain and the world

Sunniva Christina Ruthven Hatlestad-Hall

http://www.duo.uio.no

Print: Webergs Printshop, Oslo

Illustration: Traditional depiction of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 called An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745 by David Morier (source: Wikimedia Commons)

(5)

Abstract

On the morning of 16th April 1746, the Jacobites fought a British army supported by the Government on Culloden Moor in northern Scotland. The battle was short, but brutal. Still, many historians claim that the battle was of major importance for consecutive Scottish, British and international politics, as well as the subsequent social and cultural development in Scotland. This thesis attempts to answer to what extent historians perceive the Battle of Culloden as significant, by exploring the political, social and cultural implications of the battle. It also tries to establish whether or not Culloden was ‘the battle that made Britain’.

This is done by identifying three distinct scholarly views in the historiographical debate, categorising relevant historians within these traditions, and accordingly, using this as a basis for the discussion on the various claimed consequences of Jacobitism and Culloden.

The conclusion drawn is that historians to a large extent perceive Culloden as a battle that accelerated and intensified important political, social and cultural developments of the subsequent period. For instance, Culloden is given credit for the defeat of the last domestic contestation of the 1707 Act of Union, the consolidation of the Union of Great Britain, the end to the clan system in Scotland, and for contributing to the forging of the British Empire and the development of Britain as a dominant world power. Most historians thus regard Culloden as a significant battle. The thesis also concludes that the Battle of Culloden was a catalytic factor in the creation of the British state, and consequently, definitely was ‘the battle that contributed to the making of Britain’.

(6)

(7)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor at the University of Oslo, Hans Jacob Orning, for excellent guidance and advice in this process. Thank you for letting me explore a topic I am very interested in and passionate about, and for believing in my project. We have had many invaluable talks and mail correspondences, helping me find my way in this bewildering world of Master’s thesis work and writing.

I would also like to thank my amazing husband, Christoffer. Thank you for

motivating me, for believing in me and for inexhaustible support. I would also like to thank you for bearing with me when I have been ranting over the complexity of this

historiographical debate and all its controversies and disagreements. Thank you for proof reading parts of my thesis, for valuable discussions on the topic, and for always being ready to give me a hug whenever I need one.

Thank you to my fantastic parents, Kristin and Jonathan, for endless support and encouragement. You have seemed genuinely interested in my thesis and have at times been more thrilled than I to discuss the Battle of Culloden. A special thanks to you both for proof reading parts of my thesis and giving useful comments. Thank you for always being there for me, especially these last few weeks.

Last, but not least, thank you to my two brothers and my friends for putting up with me in this stressful and demanding period. Thank you for your caring messages and phone calls, and for much needed breaks from studying.

Sunniva C. R. Hatlestad-Hall November 2019

(8)

(9)

Figures

Figure 1: Culloden Moor today………..6

Figure 2: Illustration of Charles Edward Stuart………...6

Figure 3: Memorial on Culloden Battlefield………95

(10)

(11)

1 Introduction

1.1 Presentation and research questions

The morning of 16^th April 1746 the army of the British Government steadily advanced on the Jacobite Army on Culloden Moor in northern Scotland. The British Army led by William, Duke of Cumberland, and the Jacobite forces led by ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’, collided heavily on the damp moor outside Inverness.¹ The battle that ensued was short but brutal. It was the last ever pitched battle on British soil and is by many academics considered to have had major impact on the subsequent development in both Scotland and Britain in its entirety.² Some historians even claim that the battle was of international significance. The Jacobites had been revolting against Britain’s Hanoverian rule since the end of the 17^th century, hoping to reinstate the royal House of Stuart (originally Stewart) on the British throne.³ The

Jacobites lost the battle, and it has thus been regarded as the movement’s last decisive defeat.

Even though the Battle of Culloden lasted less than an hour, it has been framed as a crucial event by many British historians and even been called ‘the battle that made Britain’.⁴ One of the reasons for this conception, is that the clash at Culloden has been viewed as the final blow to the last domestic contestation of the Union of England, Wales and Scotland, and hence the battle has been argued to in itself consolidate the Union of Great Britain.⁵ The Battle of Culloden has also traditionally marked the end of the Jacobites, the Scottish clan system and

‘the old’ Scotland, and thus represented a historic discontinuity.⁶

Despite these statements, the significance of the Jacobites and their final defeat at Culloden is a highly disputed topic. It is an ongoing discussion amongst historians today, ranging from historians portraying Culloden as ‘the hour that made the Pax Britannica’⁷ to those considering the battle as virtually insignificant. The debate is made even more complicated by factors such as nationalism, identity, cultural memory and politics. As the

1 Jeremy Black, A History of the British Isles (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 181-182.

2 Murray Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 2.

3 Jeremy Black, Culloden and the '45 (Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton, 1990), xiii.

4 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 4 & 117-118.

5 Ibid., 2.

6 Tony Pollard, "Introduction: The Battle of Culloden - More than a Difference of Opinion," in Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle, ed. Tony Pollard (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2009), 11- 12; Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden.

7 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 118.

(14)

historian Murray Pittock writes, the Battle of Culloden is still ‘a politically live topic’.⁸ The union of 1707 has been under pressure ever since its commencement and might be said to again be under as serious a threat today as it arguably was in the Jacobite era. Consequently, Jacobitism is a prevailing topic in current historical and political debates in Britain. This is, for instance, shown through the creation of the minor Scottish political party SJP, The Scottish Jacobite Party, that was politically active between 2005 and 2011, through the 270- years anniversary of the Battle of Culloden that was marked in 2016, through the British Union’s terms and conditions again being under strain due to Brexit, and through the political use which the Jacobite story is being put to in today’s struggle for Scottish independence.⁹ The Jacobites and the Battle of Culloden in 1746 have also become a huge part of Scottish national identity. Lastly, it is worth mentioning the hugely popular book series Outlander (1991-) written by Diana J. Gabaldon, and now the TV adaptation of this series that

premiered in 2014, which has contributed to a renewed rise in popular interest in the Jacobite era. The significance of the Battle of Culloden is thus a topic of relevance and current

interest.

There is a substantial amount of research and writing done on the topic of Culloden, but it is an area of continual change. This thesis will delve into this diverse and extensive scholarly debate, and hopefully contribute new, interesting and useful viewpoints to this field of study. The thesis will attempt to answer the research questions: To what extent do

historians perceive the Battle of Culloden in 1746 as significant? What were the political, social and cultural implications of the conflict? Was Culloden ‘the battle that made Britain’?

These research questions will be explored by doing an in-depth study of the historiographical debate concerning the political implications of Jacobitism and the Battle of Culloden for Scottish, British and international politics, as well as the scholarly discussion on the social and cultural implications of Culloden for Scotland. The thesis will primarily discuss Culloden’s consequences for the consecutive period up until 1850, apart from a few comments on the battle’s relevance today.

8 Murray Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans: The Jacobite Army in 1745 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 3.

9 Murray Pittock, Jacobitism, ed. Jeremy Black, British History in Perspective (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998), 9; Great Battles: Culloden, 155.

(15)

1.2 Historical background

The Jacobite events were set in a century of great change. The conflict unfolded during the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. This was thus a century when ideals such as liberty, progress, constitutional government and the separation of church and state were advancing. People were opposed to the absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, and the central doctrines of the time were individual liberty and religious tolerance. The Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, writers and scientists became renowned, impacting the Enlightenment teleology of the time. Simultaneously, a large-scale colonisation of the world was taking place, and the late 18^th century witnessed the fight for independence in America and the revolution in France. New constitutions were written, new nations were established, and the concepts of nationalism and nation states were becoming increasingly important. All in all, the Jacobite conflict unravelled in a century of considerable social, political, cultural, economic and industrial upheaval in the world. The long-standing enmity between Scotland and England was still causing problems. All these above-mentioned factors thus impacted the events of the Jacobite Rebellions and the successive issuing of historiography on the topic.

1.2.1 Who were the Jacobites?

The Jacobite movement’s origin can be traced to the year of 1688.¹⁰ The name Jacobites derives from Jacobus, Latin for James. The name refers to the Jacobites support of James II Stuart of England (James VII of Scotland) and his successors, who they believed to be the rightful rulers of Britain. England and Scotland had been in a personal union since the Union of Crowns in 1603, and consequently they had the same king. During the reign of James II, he dissolved Parliament, tried to strengthen the monarchy, and worked for the introduction of Catholicism, as he was a Catholic king. Britain at the time was mainly Protestant, and these elements thus resulted in a growing dismay amongst the people of Britain and the Parliament.

Eventually, William of Orange, who was married to James II’s daughter, Mary, was invited as an attempt at resolving matters. William of Orange, from the Netherlands, consequently invaded England, and at the news of this, James II fled to France. James II was accordingly disposed, and William III and Mary II became joint monarchs of Britain. These events have

10 Black, Culloden and the '45, xiii-xiv.

(16)

been termed the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689.¹¹ Despite the dethronement of James II, and his consequent exile in France, the Jacobites continued to support the original royal house of Scotland. They thus supported the Stuart’s claim to the British throne at the expense of the Hanoverian rule.

Exactly who the Jacobites were, is still disputed among historians today. The traditional representation of the Jacobites has been that they were a homogeneous group consisting of Catholic Celtic clansmen from the Highlands.¹² They have also been perceived as a movement with clear mutual political goals and a shared ideology, mainly consisting of an aspiration to fight for Scottish independence, prevent the Union of 1707, and reinstate a Stuart on the throne.¹³ In recent years, this traditional conception has been challenged. A more nuanced view has become gradually more dominant, claiming that the Jacobites were a complex movement consisting of people with different nationalities, backgrounds, religions, motivations, ideologies and goals.¹⁴

1.2.2 The Jacobite conflict

The events of the Jacobite conflict predominantly unfolded in the period between 1688 and 1746. According to one of the current leading historians within the field of Jacobite studies, Murray Pittock, the Jacobite conflict was not just a dynastic struggle, but also a conflict between two different visions. Even though Pittock is of the opinion that the support for these visions varied on both the conflicting sides of the conflict, he still asserts that both camps had their own distinct vision. One of the visions prevailed on what has been termed the British side of the conflict.¹⁵ This was the side that supported the British Government.¹⁶ Pittock alleges that these Brits primarily fought for a centralised British state, a state that would align itself with the Protestant interest in Europe, and for the marginality of Scotland, Ireland, and above all, Catholicism. He also acknowledges that many of the Presbyterian Scots,

Presbyterianism being a stricter form of Protestantism, supported the Union and the British

11 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 13; Christopher Duffy, "The '45 Campaign," in Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle, ed. Tony Pollard (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2009), 17.

12 Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans: The Jacobite Army in 1745, 10.

13 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 131; Victoria Henshaw, Scotland and the British Army, 1700-1750:

Defending the Union, ed. Jeremy Black, Bloomsbury Studies in Military History (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), 188.

14 Bob Harris, "Jacobitism," in 1707 to the Present: Volume I: The Transformation of Scotland, 1707-1850, ed.

Anthony Cooke, et al., Modern Scottish History (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2007), 25.

16 Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson, Inglorious Rebellion: The Jacobite Risings of 1708, 1715 and 1719 (London:

Hamish Hamilton, 1971), 1.

(17)

side, because they considered the Union as a guarantee for Presbyterianism’s protection in Scotland.¹⁷

The opposite vision was held by the Jacobites, who, according to Pittock, were Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English.¹⁸ Amongst the Jacobites there were most likely many different reasons for their involvement in the Jacobite movement, and for many of the Jacobites, their involvement was most likely due to individual goals, wishes, motivation and ideas of personal profit.¹⁹ However, Pittock still argues that there existed one main Jacobite vision. This vision differed from country to country within the British Isles. In his book Jacobitism (1998), Pittock asserts that Scottish Jacobites, among others, wanted greater autonomy through a reinstatement of political institutions, such as the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. Irish Jacobites allegedly desired Catholic hegemony and the end of Saxon rule in Ireland, whereas many English and Welsh Jacobites resisted the financial revolution

occurring at this time, the increase in taxes, and the pro-Hanoverian foreign policy. Religion is also claimed to have been an important motive for involvement in Jacobitism.²⁰

The Jacobites were by many considered a military and political movement, which rebelled numerous times between 1688 and 1746. The first Jacobite Rising occurred in 1689, not long after the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689. This rebellion is claimed to have had little support in the British population. After the Union of 1707, however, the support is said to have increased considerably. The backing of the uprisings in 1715, 1719 and 1745-46 was thus much more substantial among the British than earlier, and the Jacobites also received assistance from foreign powers. During the Jacobite Rising of 1689, the attempted invasion of England in 1708 and the last decisive rebellion in 1745-46, the Jacobites received military help from France, whereas in 1719, Spain was their ally.²¹

1.2.3 The Battle of Culloden in 1746

The Battle of Culloden, or Cùil Lodair, as is the name of the town in Gaelic, took place on Drumossie Moor, also called Culloden Moor, outside of Inverness in northern Scotland 16^th April 1746.²² Figure 1 shows a picture of what Culloden battlefield looks like today. The Battle of Culloden was short, pitching the British Army led by William, Duke of

17 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 2-3.

18 Pittock, Jacobitism, 2.

19 Harris, "Jacobitism," 25.

21 Harris, "Jacobitism," 23-24 & 32-33; Duffy, "The '45 Campaign," 17-18.

22 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 1; Black, Culloden and the '45, 166-167.

(18)

Cumberland, against the Jacobite Army of Charles Edward Stuart (see figure 2). Charles Edward Stuart also went under the nicknames of ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ and the ‘Young Pretender’.²³ ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ was trying to reinstate his father, the so-called ‘Old

Pretender’, on the British throne.

He was thus not fighting for the

position of king himself but would consequently inherit the throne if he succeeded. The Jacobites suffered a massive defeat at Culloden, and during the battle and in the immediate aftermath, large parts of the Jacobite Army is

asserted to have been eradicated. The Duke of Cumberland is portrayed as showing no mercy after the battle, killing off all the wounded Jacobites. This ruthless treatment of wounded soldiers, as well as Cumberland’s and his army’s actions in the days following the battle, gained Cumberland the nickname ‘The

Butcher’. These events have thus been referred to by many historians as a brutal massacre.²⁴

23 Black, A History of the British Isles, 181-182.

Figure 1: Not much resembles a bloody battle on Culloden Moor today (source: the author)

Figure 2: Illustration of Charles Edward Stuart (source: Wikimedia

Commons)

(19)

1.3 Historiography and theory

Historiography is a term that has more than one meaning. It can be defined as ‘the writing of history’²⁵, thus meaning the scholarly writing and debate on a certain historic topic. This then includes the entire amount of academic literature existing on the topic in question. On the other hand, the term historiography can also be used as ‘the study of the writing of history and of written histories’²⁶. This denotes the study of scholarly literature (i.e. the

historiography) in a particular field. In this thesis, both the definitions of historiography presented will be used, carrying out a historiographical analysis of the Jacobite

historiography.

Jacobitism has a long, extensive and complex historiography, and historians’ views on Culloden and the Jacobites have changed over the years. There can be argued to exist some distinct different scholarly views in the academic literature, but the divisions between them are not unambiguous and clear. Since not all of these views can be claimed to be properly developed, acknowledged and established as history schools (except for Whig history), but more trends and tendencies within the scholarly debate, I have decided to not use the term history school in this thesis. I will thus rather denote the different views as approaches, trends and traditions.

The scholarly traditions within Jacobite studies also differ from country to country within the British Isles, but it is still possible to trace some shared patterns within this complex picture.²⁷ In this thesis, I have identified three distinct scholarly approaches in the historiography based on the general tendencies: the Whig approach, the romantic approach and the revisionist approach. These different views on Jacobitism and its importance have dominated at different times, but all of these historiographical perspectives still exist today.

The historians categorised within the same history tradition do not necessarily agree on everything, but they share some common features and beliefs in their historical studies.

There are various ways to categorise the Jacobite historiography, and my choice of categorisation is thus only one of many. The terms Whig, romantic and revisionist are all in use in the scholarly debate, but they are not necessarily the best way to group historians or the most correct one. Nevertheless, it is the categorisation I found most instructive and valuable myself. I have categorised the relevant historians according to my own opinion, and

25 "Historiography," Oxford Dictionaries (2019), https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/historiography.

26 Ibid.

27 Paul Monod, Murray Pittock, and Daniel Szechi, eds., Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad, Studies in Modern History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 11.

(20)

other historians might therefore not agree on the names of the different categories or the historians I have placed within them. This is thus my own attempt at grasping a lively and heated scholarly debate. Due to the debate’s complex and continually changing nature, it is difficult to include all the different nuances of the historiography within the limit of a Master’s thesis. Some parts of the discussions might thus come across as more black and white than they are in reality, but I have tried to avoid this as much as possible.

1.3.1 The Whig approach

Whig history is regarded as the traditional view on Jacobitism and the Battle of Culloden, and was primarily dominant from 1688 until the 1770s, even though this scholarly view is still influencing the debate today.²⁸ The term ‘Whig’ in this context is disputed.²⁹ It refers to the political party that occurred at the end of the 17^th century which was against James II becoming king. The ‘Whigs’ were in opposition to the ‘Tories’, who supported James II’s claim to the British throne and have often been seen in connection with the Jacobites. As the name suggests, Whig history has been accused of being an Anglocentric model of history constructed from an English Whig Party point of view.³⁰ Historians who do not belong to this historiographical approach accuse it of being based on anti-Jacobite propaganda and of only observing the Jacobite conflict from the victors’ point of view.³¹ Whig history has also been called Whig presentism as criticism by disagreeing historians who claim that Whig historians have a tendency to interpret the Jacobite conflict in terms of modern values and concepts that were anachronistic of the time.³² Since Whig history to a large extent views the events from a political position, Whig historians mainly focus on the political level and see the conflict from ‘above’.

Whig history is based on Scottish Enlightenment teleology developed by historians and philosophers such as David Hume, Adam Ferguson and William Robertson, even though these three themselves are not always understood to be Whig historians. They regard

historical development as a stadial process, where the society evolves in the direction of ever more advanced, prosperous and civilised forms. The development goes from limitations, barbarity and savageness to progress, civility and modernity.³³ This is called stadial history,

28 Ibid., 9.

31 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 117 & 131.

32 Monod, Pittock, and Szechi, Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad, 9.

(21)

and in light of this theory, the Jacobites are considered backward, simple and primitive.³⁴ Within the Whig interpretation, the Battle of Culloden is then perceived as modernism’s final victory over the Scots’ savagery and feudalism. Whig historians claim that a feudal society structure entered Scotland after the Norman invasion in 1066 and persisted until Culloden.

An alleged English cultural superiority, and almost a calling to civilise the uncivilised were used as arguments for England’s intervention and good intentions. Hence, many Whig historians viewed England as the power that saved Scotland from barbarity and crudeness.³⁵ In the case of the Jacobites, Whig historians claim that feudal barbarity gave way to

capitalism, which according to these historians, was a necessary and unavoidable evolution.

Historians belonging to this scholarly approach have traditionally characterised the Jacobite conflict in stark binary oppositional terms.³⁶ According to Pittock, Whig historians have framed the conflict by describing it as ‘a clash between the old and the new, the traditional and the modern, the backward and the advanced, the tribe and the state, […] the Catholic and the Protestant, […] the brute and the civilised, the Celt and the Saxon’, and many other similar oppositions.³⁷ Presumably, the Whig historians perceived the Jacobites thus, but Pittock claims that such a black and white representation of the conflict indicates a simple and primitive understanding of the topic.³⁸ By this caricature of the Jacobites, the Whig historians ridiculed and marginalised this force, according to Pittock.³⁹ Historians affiliated with this theoretical approach have been known to refer to the Jacobites in words such as ‘a small company of Desperados’, and have subsequently been accused of

intentionally disparaging Jacobitism.⁴⁰

Whig historiography is said to focus on the Jacobites’ defeat being the result of the British state’s greatness. These historians, therefore, frame the Jacobite rebellions in a bigger picture of the nation’s greatness, which was not only shown through the Jacobite movement’s downfall but also through British victories in wars on the continent and the advancement of the British Empire. Consequently, Whig history has been blamed of being normative rather than historical, and of not grounding their research in primary source material. Whig historiography has therefore been criticised for not qualifying as serious in-depth research and rather baring trace of cultural memory and political state agenda. This claimed lack of

35 Ibid., 3; Pittock, Jacobitism, 3; Great Battles: Culloden, 6 & 127-128.

36 Great Battles: Culloden, 130-131.

37 Ibid., 5.

38 Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans: The Jacobite Army in 1745, 2-3.

40 Monod, Pittock, and Szechi, Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad, 10.

(22)

serious analytical study can partly be explained by the topic being so politically sensitive at the time and thus being deemed improper in academia from the 1740s. Jacobite beliefs were viewed as symptoms of emotional weakness or self-deception, and Jacobitism was, therefore, a topic not worthy of serious historical attention.⁴¹

The Whig historians presented in the preceding, are the traditional Whig historians.

Some traditional Whig historians are still active in the Jacobite debate today, but there are a few current Whig historians who are more moderate in their assessments. In this thesis, I will thus distinguish between the traditional Whig historians and the recent more moderate Whig historians, since they differ in their views on some aspects of the Jacobite conflict. Many Whig historians are Unionists. They are thus very positive in questions concerning the British Union, and think it is important to keep and protect this alliance. This therefore impacts their views. Some of the historians I have categorised within this approach, and consequently will be discussing in this thesis are the traditional Whig historians Charles Chevenix Trench, George Macaulay Trevelyan and Michael Barthorp. I will also debate the more moderate Whig views of Paul Langford and Linda Colley.

1.3.2 The romantic approach

There was also a more romantic tradition that emerged during the beginning of the 19^th century. This view was particularly evident in fictional literature such as poems, and less in historical studies. Even so, some historians could be argued to belong within this approach, and they were often called sentimentalists. It was a matter of sentiment and nostalgia, where the Jacobites were portrayed as Highland heroes. These writers regarded Jacobitism as a thing of the heart, not the head. It was to a great extent used as literary entertainment and notable names in that connection were Robert Burns (1759-1796) and Sir Walter Scott (1771- 1832).⁴² At the time, this might have been one of the less political history approaches to the Jacobite conflict, but in later years the image of the Highland clan warrior has to a large extent become imprinted in cultural memory and Scottish nationalism. Today this approach is widely used in fiction and politics, and thus the romantic view can be argued to be today’s most political of the scholarly approaches discussed here.

41 Ibid., 9-11; Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 117-120.

42 Monod, Pittock, and Szechi, Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad, 10 & 18-19; Pittock, Jacobitism, 4.

(23)

Although the romantic approach is a lot more positive to the Jacobites and their cause, it is based on the same stadial history theory as the Whig historiography.⁴³ They also regard historical development as a stadial process, where the society evolves through predetermined stages from barbarity and backwardness to progress, civility and modernity. The difference lies in the historians’ attitude towards the Jacobites. They romanticise the picture of the Jacobites and view them as great heroic warriors fighting for their nation, but who were really stuck in the past, and thus were predestined to fail their cause. Those belonging to this historiographical approach thus describe the Jacobite conflict and its participants in the exact stark binary oppositional terms as the Whig historians do. They paint the same black and white picture, but root for the tragic Jacobite heroes rather than the British Army.

The romantic view can also be asserted to have experienced a revival in the 20^th century that to some extent can be said to be the continuation of Sir Walter Scott. Along with more focus on cultural minorities and their rights, the Jacobites also received more romantic and sentimental attention.⁴⁴ The historian Daniel Szechi calls this school ‘the optimists’ and regards it as a more serious historical approach than its romantic predecessor. Most of the historians I will be using in the discussion in this thesis, will be from this newer, more serious and more academic variant of the romantic approach. In certain parts of this thesis, I will thus distinguish between traditional romantic historians from the 18^th and 19^th centuries, and the more recent romantics from the 20^th century and onwards. The historians I will be using as thus more modern and serious scholars than their predecessors but are still quite partisan on behalf of the Jacobites and sympathetic of the Jacobite cause. They are therefore also sentimentalists but base their views on more serious study of primary sources and more in- depth research than many of the initial romantic historians.⁴⁵

It can be discussed if romantic is the right word to use about these historians today, but I have still decided to keep this term in the thesis, to link the historical approach to its initial origin. Many of these historians are to a great extent Scottish Nationalists, as opposed to the Unionist Whig historians. Many of them are thus negative to the Union of Great Britain and Scotland’s participation in it.⁴⁶ Some of the historians I have categorised within this approach and will be using in the thesis discussion are Sir Charles Petrie, Allan I. Macinnes and John Prebble.

44 Monod, Pittock, and Szechi, Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad, 29-30.

45 Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688-1788, ed. Mark Greengrass and John Stevenson, New Frontiers in History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 2-3.

46 Henshaw, Scotland and the British Army, 1700-1750: Defending the Union, 187-188.

(24)

1.3.3 The revisionist approach

As the name reveals, the revisionist view is based on a revision of earlier historiographical interpretations. The revisionists have conducted new research into primary source material, archaeological excavations and research projects on social conditions – aspects of Jacobitism Whig historians have tended to not offer a lot of attention.⁴⁷ This scholarly approach

generally views the Jacobite conflict in a wider British and international context, at the same time as it focuses more on social history and studies the Jacobite movement from ‘below’.⁴⁸ This implies that many revisionist historians to a great extent analyse the social factors that motivated Jacobitism. The revisionist approach thus examines the conflict and the battle to a greater extent from ‘below’ than the other historiographical traditions do.⁴⁹

The revisionist approach emerged as an opposing view to the other established history traditions within Jacobite historiography around 1970.⁵⁰ It then continued to develop

throughout the 21^st century and is the view dominating the debate today.⁵¹ The revisionist approach has eventually emerged in the historical debate in all the countries in Britain, but has earlier to a large extent been dominated by English academics.⁵² Not all historians within this tradition agree on everything, but what they have in common, is that they all revise earlier prevailing Jacobite apprehensions and thus contribute to a re-thinking of the Jacobite conflict and the Battle of Culloden.⁵³

The historians that often are categorised within the so-called critical approach, have in this thesis been included as part of the revisionist approach instead. This is because the revisionist approach largely emerged from the critical approach, and the traditions

consequently have many similarities. The arguably critical historians are thus addressed as early revisionists in this thesis. The revisionists are often revisionist historians within specific fields such as political, military, cultural, social, religious and economic history. They are thus not necessarily revisionists in their approach to all aspects of the Jacobite conflict.

Historians I will be discussing as part of the revisionist approach are, for instance, Murray Pittock, Daniel Szechi, Eveline Cruickshanks, Frank McLynn and Tom Devine.

47 Pollard, "Introduction: The Battle of Culloden - More than a Difference of Opinion."; Pittock, Great Battles:

Culloden.

49 Pittock, Jacobitism, 7; Great Battles: Culloden, 135.

53 Pittock, Great Battles: Culloden, 136; Jacobitism, 8.

(25)

1.4 Method

As presented at the beginning of this chapter, my research questions are: To what extent do historians perceive the Battle of Culloden in 1746 as significant? What were the political, social and cultural implications of the conflict? Was Culloden ‘the battle that made Britain’?

These questions will be answered by doing a historiographical study of influential and renowned secondary works that has contributed to the shaping of the scholarly debate on Jacobitism. I will thus not do an empirical study of primary material. I have identified three distinct scholarly views within the historiographical debate, which I presented in part 1.3: the Whig approach, the romantic approach and the revisionist approach. Accordingly, I have categorised relevant historians as I see fit within these three traditions and will be using this as the basis for my discussion of the various claimed political, social and cultural

implications of the Battle of Culloden.

Most of this thesis will be devoted to the political implications of Culloden in a Scottish, British and international context, since this is the discussion which is currently most disputed and debated. The social and cultural implications for Scotland will also be

addressed, but to a lesser extent. There are unfortunately some alleged implications of

Jacobitism and Culloden I have had to exclude from my discussion due to certain limitations, but I will explore those implications I consider most decisive, relevant and disputed within the historiography. I have not been able to include all the historians either, and accordingly, I am sure some important ones are missing. However, I have tried to select the most

influential, renowned, ground-breaking and significant scholars.

1.5 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is divided into six chapters, where chapter one and six is introduction and conclusion respectively. Chapters two to four explore the implications of the Battle of Culloden for Scottish, British and international politics, in that order. To be able to understand the different scholarly views on the political implications of Culloden for Scotland, the British Isles and internationally, a discussion of historians’ conceptions of the prevalence of Jacobitism is necessary. How historians perceive Jacobitism’s political importance and Culloden’s political implications is so closely connected to the debate on prevalence. All three chapters on political implications, chapter 2-4, will thus include three sections, were the two first discuss the prevalence of Jacobitism before and after 1746

(26)

respectively. This is necessary to be able to understand the general debate on Culloden’s political implications, which will be further examined in the third part of these chapters.

Chapter five discusses the social and cultural implications of Culloden for Scotland.

(27)

2 Political implications for Scotland

2.1 Chapter introduction

The Battle of Culloden’s political implications are a controversial matter which has been disputed among historians for centuries. Scotland has in large been blamed for the rise of Jacobitism, the Jacobite rebellions and the Battle of Culloden in 1746, and the Jacobite movement can thus be asserted to have affected Scotland in particular. Culloden more or less eradicated large parts of the Scottish Jacobite movement, and issued a period of extensive military occupation of the Highlands by the British Army and the subsequent enactment of a series of legal statutes to subdue Scottish Jacobites and their ideology. Arguably, the Battle of Culloden marked the final loss of Scotland’s independence and resulted in considerable political implications for the country, but there are disagreeing opinions. The Whig historians to a great extent view Culloden as having no or limited impact on consequent Scottish

politics, while the romantic historians and the revisionists on the other hand, argue for a greater political significance. What were the political implications of Jacobitism and the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for Scotland? Was Culloden of importance for consecutive political development in the country, or was it a negligible conflict?

These questions will be explored in the following by examining historians’ views on the prevalence of Scottish Jacobitism in the period between 1688 and 1746. Was Jacobitism widespread in all of Scotland in this period, or was the country politically divided? This might give an indication of the Jacobite movement’s potential to impact Scottish politics, and thus shed light on the extent of Jacobitism’s political influence on Scottish affairs and the possible political threat it posed. Thereafter, the prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland after the Battle of Culloden in 1746 will be discussed. Did the Scottish Jacobite movement persist as a political threat after 1746, or was Culloden in reality the end of Scottish Jacobitism?

Conclusively, further political consequences of Culloden for Scotland, not yet addressed in the two preceding parts of the chapter, will be debated.

(28)

2.2 Prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland 1688-1746: The Highlands vs. the Lowlands

The prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland in the period between the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688 and the Battle of Culloden in 1746, is a heated scholarly debate. Historians have contradicting opinions on the matter, and the constant research on and analysis of new

primary source material, continuously provide new insight, approaches and understandings of the topic. One of the main arguments for rendering Jacobitism a more or less political

insignificant force, is the claim that the Jacobites were almost entirely limited to Scottish Highlanders. Traditional Whig historiography advocates this belief and claims that these Celtic clansmen from the so-called ‘Highlands’ of Scotland did not cover a large area and were a primitive and barbaric force that was not able to pose a substantial political threat. The traditional Whig historians also emphasise that there was a stark divide between the Scottish Highlands and the Lowlands. They tend to distance the Lowlands from the Highlands and consider the 18^th century Highlands as ‘backward Scotland’, while the Lowlands are regarded as ‘modern Scotland’. According to traditional Whig historiography, it was only ‘backward Scotland’, represented by the clans, that was involved in the Jacobite movement. The Lowlanders on the other hand, are by Whig historians considered to be modern and

supporters of the Hanoverian rule.⁵⁴ By limiting the Jacobite movement to Scotland alone, and then again to only encompass the Highland region, the historians of the Whig belief limit the scope of Jacobitism considerably, both geographically and in terms of number of

supporters.

A historian promoting this view, is Michael Barthorp (1928-2018). In The Jacobite Rebellions 1689-1745 (1982) Barthorp writes: ‘In the 17^th and 18^th centuries the Lowland Scots shared many of the feelings of the English, and had cause to hate and fear their fellow countrymen in the Highlands.’⁵⁵ He even goes as far as to claim that ‘some of the most brutal treatment inflicted on rebellious Highlanders after the ’45 was the work of Lowland Scots’.⁵⁶ Through these assertions Barthorp creates a clear divide between the Scottish Highlands and Lowlands, and more or less blames the ‘rebellious Highlanders’ for the ’45 and the Battle of Culloden. He states this even more explicitly by ascertaining that the Jacobites relied upon

54 The Myth of the Jacobite Clans: The Jacobite Army in 1745, 3, 10 & 13.

55 Michael Barthorp, The Jacobite Rebellions 1689-1745, ed. Martin Windrow, Men-at-arms series (London:

Osprey Publishing, 1982), 16.

56 Ibid.

(29)

the Highland clans for their most reliable manpower.⁵⁷ Barthorp thus maintains the traditional Whig understanding of the prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland and the alleged stark divide between the two regions of the country. However, Barthorp does allow a slight leeway in his claims. He does briefly point out that there were a few Lowlanders participating in the ’15 and the ’45 but upholds that ‘they were the exceptions rather than the rule’.⁵⁸

Barthorp is in agreement with the historian George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876-1962).

In English Social History: A Survey of Six Centuries: Chaucer to Queen Victoria (1944) Trevelyan clearly refers to a divided Scotland consisting of the two entities ‘Highlands’ and

‘Lowlands’. He highlights the Highlands as being the core of the Jacobite movement, in accordance with traditional Whig historiography and Barthorp. Yet, he is less traditional in his treatment of the Lowlands. In his work, Trevelyan points out that even the Lowlands were divided. The nobles in this part of the kingdom did not all agree, and the gentry were divided into Presbyterian and Episcopalian.⁵⁹ According to Trevelyan, the division between

Presbyterian and Episcopalian was ‘scarcely distinguishable from the political division of Whig and Jacobite’.⁶⁰ He writes that the Revolution of 1688 had left the Episcopal Church in Scotland disestablished and not even tolerated by law. ‘Scottish Episcopalians, therefore, were necessarily Jacobites, looking to a counter-revolution for their relief.’⁶¹ This signifies that even though Trevelyan claims, in accordance with other Whig historians, that the core of Scottish Jacobitism was situated in the Highlands, he also acknowledges the existence of an element of Jacobitism in the Scottish Lowlands. He thus makes the picture more nuanced, and appears less traditional, despite his fairly staunch Whig beliefs.

John L. Roberts, a current geologist specialising on the Highlands, seems to share Trevelyan’s view on the religious aspect of the claimed divide between the Highlands and the Lowlands. Overall, Roberts appears to have a more revisionist approach to his Jacobite studies, but he still emphasises the division between the Highlands and the Lowlands, similarly to Barthorp, Trevelyan and many other Whig historians. Thence, he does show some Whig tendencies in his contribution to the debate on the so-called ‘Highland Line’. This is evident in his work The Jacobite Wars: Scotland and the Military Campaigns of 1715 and 1745 (2002). Here, Roberts focuses on the religious aspect of this alleged divide. He writes

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 George Macaulay Trevelyan, English Social History: A Survey of Six Centuries: Chaucer to Queen Victoria (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1944), 423-424.

60 Ibid., 424.

61 Ibid., 425.

(30)

that as the Jacobites wanted to restore a Catholic dynasty to the throne, the movement was supported by the Scottish Catholics. He acknowledges that many of these Catholic Scots lived in the Highlands, but whereas most Whig historians paint a picture of all Highland clansmen being staunch Catholics, Roberts points out that the Scottish Catholics were a very small minority in the country.⁶² On account of this Catholic dimension of the Jacobite cause, Jacobitism was thus ‘anathema to the Presbyterians’⁶³, who Roberts claims were dominant in the Scottish Lowlands. According to Roberts, the support for the Jacobites was therefore poor in the Lowlands due to the Catholic nature of the cause. Still, he makes the picture more nuanced by claiming that Jacobitism got staunch backing of the Scottish Episcopalians, in accordance with the assertions presented by G. M. Trevelyan.⁶⁴ Roberts writes that these Episcopalians were the predominant, ‘not only in the Scottish Highlands but throughout the country to the north of the River Tay’.⁶⁵ This means that even though the Catholic support for the Jacobites and the alleged none-existing Presbyterian support for the movement to some extent followed the Highland Line, the Episcopalian support did not adhere to this divide, according to Roberts.⁶⁶ Roberts hence claims that the Scottish Episcopalian Jacobites were from both the Highlands and the Lowlands. This last statement is more in accordance with the revisionist conception of the matter, as well as with Trevelyan. It thus indicates that on the subject of the Highland Line, some of the more recent Whig historians, such as Trevelyan and arguably Roberts, diverge moderately from traditional 18^th and 19^th centuries Whig notions.⁶⁷

The division between the Highlands and the Lowlands that the Whig historians argue for, was not only a question of a division between the ‘backward’ and the ‘modern’,

62 John L. Roberts, The Jacobite Wars: Scotland and the Military Campaigns of 1715 and 1745 (Edinburgh:

Polygon at Edinburgh, 2002), xi; Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans: The Jacobite Army in 1745, 10.

63 Roberts, The Jacobite Wars: Scotland and the Military Campaigns of 1715 and 1745, xi.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid.

67 The claimed divide between the Scottish Highlands and Lowlands is also commented upon in the primary source ‘Disarming Act’ (State Paper 54/26/25), which can be found online at The National Archives’ website:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/9128-2/. The primary source is an extract from a letter written by Lord Justice Clerk Thomas Fletcher to the Secretary of State for Scotland in September 1745. This was during the events of the ’45, and Thomas Fletcher writes that Scotland is divided into two parts. One is the Highlands, which is armed, and the other is the Lowlands, which is unarmed. He claims that the Highlands are the source of the Jacobite uprising in 1745, while the Lowlands are asserted to have nothing to do with it. This supports the Whig interpretation of the contemporary situation in Scotland. Even though this is written at the time of the events, the Lord Justice Clerk is likely to have had his own political sympathies and agenda considering his position in society, and it is therefore difficult to determine whether this primary source describes the reality or not. However, the primary source also acknowledges that there did exist Highland clans that were not Jacobites. So, even though Thomas Fletcher believes that the Lowlanders are not to blame at all, not all Highland clans are to blame either, in his opinion.

(31)

Catholics and Protestants, or Jacobites and Government supporters. According to Whig conviction, the Highland Line also represented an ethnic divide. A considerable amount of Whig literature asserts that all Highland Scots were Celts, while Lowland Scots, however, are claimed to be Germanic.⁶⁸ The English themselves were considered to be a Germanic people, and thus Whig historians are of the opinion that the Lowland Scots and the English were of the same ethnic origin, while the Highland Scots were an alien ethnic group. A number of Whig historians therefore maintain that the divide between the Highlands and the Lowlands was an ethnic divide as well as a geographical, cultural, religious and political divide.

Trevelyan, the more recent and less traditional Whig historian discussed in latter paragraphs, does not comment on this claimed ethnical divide. This might be on account of him being a 20^th century historian, who thus presumably views the Jacobite events slightly differently than many of the 18^th century Whig historians. Trevelyan does uphold the divide of the Highland Line, but he asserts that this division only was deep ‘on its political side’.⁶⁹ He even argues for the presence of a common Scottish mentality and civilisation being shared by Highlanders and Lowlanders alike, which is quite unconventional for a Whig historian.⁷⁰

In general, most Whig historians tend to limit the prevalence of Scottish Jacobitism to the Highlands alone. Consequently, they use this as an argument in the scholarly debate on the political significance of Jacobitism and the Battle of Culloden. According to Whig academics, the Jacobites were a limited force with few supporters, led by uncivilised,

unorganised and barbaric Highland clansmen. As a result, they regard the Battle of Culloden as having no significant political implications for Scotland. Some Whig historians might concede that the Battle of Culloden had a slight impact on subsequent political development in the country, but they still consider this impact restricted and insignificant.

The romantic historians more or less agree with the Whig historiography on the topic of the Highland Line. They primarily perceive the Scottish Highlands as the core of the Jacobite movement. However, whereas many Whig academics view the Jacobites as uncivilised ‘Highland rabble’ in need of civilising, the romantics chiefly see them as brave and heroic Highlanders acting as true patriotic Scots. The romantic academics might partially agree that the Jacobites were barbarians living an outdated way of life, but they still largely sympathise with these Celtic clansmen and regard the suppressors of the Jacobite movement as the savages rather than the Jacobites. Traditional 18^th and 19^th centuries romantic historians

69 Trevelyan, English Social History: A Survey of Six Centuries: Chaucer to Queen Victoria, 425.

70 Ibid.

(32)

claim that the Jacobites were tragic heroes doomed to lose this battle against progress, modernity and the always suppressing big brother England. Thereupon, the Hanoverian regime’s reactions to the Jacobite conflict are seen as a violation to the native Celts of Scotland.

A number of recent romantic historians are Scottish Nationalists. They thus direct their attentions specifically towards the Highlander – a trend caused in part by a ‘desire to highlight everything distinctive about Scotland’.⁷¹ Among these historians is John Prebble (1915-2001). In his book Culloden (1961) he writes: ‘To an Englishman of the eighteenth century, and to most Lowland Scots, the Highlands of Scotland were a remote and unpleasant region peopled by barbarians who spoke an obscure tongue…’⁷² Through these words, Prebble clearly distances the Highlands from the Lowlands, and supports the divide of the Highland Line that the Whig historians argue for. He proceeds to assert that ‘the Highlanders were a constant threat to the people of the Lowlands, or were believed to be’⁷³, and that the Lowland Scots also joined the English in the suppression of the Jacobite Rebellions.⁷⁴ Prebble thus creates an even greater divide between the two Scottish regions and align the Lowlanders with the English. Even though Prebble refers to the Highlanders as barbarians, his book is largely sympathetic to the Jacobites. He seems to believe in the same stadial history theory as the Whig historians, where society evolves through predetermined stages from barbarity and backwardness to progress, civility and modernity. This might explain why he regards the Jacobites as barbarians who had no choice but to be overcome by the modern age. Still, Prebble appears to be partisan in his support for the Jacobites and refers to the suppression of the ’45 as ‘savagery’.⁷⁵ He is hence considered a romantic historian in this thesis.

Prebble is to a great extent supported by the historian Allan I. Macinnes. Macinnes writes in Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (1996) that all the major Jacobite risings ‘tended to begin and end in Scottish Gaeldom’.⁷⁶ He continues to claim that this geographic circumstance, ‘together with the deliberate adoption of a Highland profile by the Jacobite armies […], has indelibly identified the clans as the people who primarily fought

71 Henshaw, Scotland and the British Army, 1700-1750: Defending the Union, 187-188.

72 John Prebble, Culloden (London: Secker & Warburg, 1961), 34.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 Allan I. Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1996), 159.

(33)

and died for Jacobitism’.⁷⁷ Macinnes thus singles out the Gaelic Highlanders as the core of the Scottish Jacobite movement, similarly to Prebble and many Whig historians.

Nevertheless, Macinnes does not use this statement as an argument for the Jacobites’ and the Battle of Culloden’s political insignificance. On the contrary, he emphasises Jacobitism’s political importance and stresses that it was ‘a major preoccupation of Scottish politics over six decades’⁷⁸. This is generally the case for many recent romantic historians – they argue for the political division between the Highlands and the Lowlands, but still attribute political significance to the Jacobite movement.

Among the first historians to contradict this claim for the division between the

Scottish Highlands and the Lowlands, were Alistair Tayler (1870-1937) and Henrietta Tayler (1869-1951). These two academics are often considered to be the predominant historians within the critical approach, but in this thesis the critical historians have rather been

categorised as early revisionists, due to the similarities of the two views. Tayler and Tayler were two of the first historians to do systematic in-depth studies of primary source material existing on Jacobitism. Through their work on primary sources, they clearly demonstrated

‘what even many historians today seek to ignore, the importance and depth of Jacobitism among ordinary middle-class Lowland Scots’.⁷⁹ They published extensive evidence for this claim in their works Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Rising of 1715 (1934), Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Forty-Five (1928), and Jacobite Epilogue:

A Further Selection of Letters from Jacobites among the Stuart Papers at Windsor Published by the Gracious Permission of His Majesty the King (1941).⁸⁰ In the Jacobites of

Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Forty-Five, Tayler and Tayler write that ‘the previous Jacobite Rising of 1715 derived its main support from the two counties which are the subject of this monograph’⁸¹, and then proceed to demonstrate and argue for these counties’

considerable support for Charles Edward Stuart and their participation in the Rising of 1745.

Aberdeenshire and Banffshire are both counties belonging to the Lowland region. Tayler and Tayler thus disagree with the Whig and romantic historians. They do not believe that

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

80 Alistair Tayler and Henrietta Tayler, Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Rising of 1715 (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1934); Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Forty-Five (Aberdeen:

Milne & Hutchison, 1928); Henrietta Tayler, ed. Jacobite Epilogue: A Further Selection of Letters from Jacobites among the Stuart Papers at Windsor published by the Gracious Permission of His Majesty The King (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1941).

81 Tayler and Tayler, Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Forty-Five, 2.

(34)

Jacobitism was only limited to the Scottish clansmen in the Highlands but assert that there was an important and deep element of Jacobitism prevailing in the Lowlands as well.

This view is supported by Murray Pittock (1962-), a pronounced current revisionist.

He argues that ‘the Jacobite Army of 1745 was as much a Lowland as a Highland force’.⁸² He asserts that the Scottish Jacobites were not only limited to the Highland clans, but that there existed many Lowland Jacobites as well.⁸³ This claim is also endorsed by historians such as Christopher Duffy (1936-) and Stuart Reid (1954-).⁸⁴ Duffy writes that in the Jacobite Army ‘the Lowland troops were […] the absolute majority at between 54 and 57 per cent’, and that ‘the Lowlanders and their leaders therefore made up the bedrock of the ‘Highland army’’.⁸⁵ Duffy then more or less asserts that the Lowlanders were just as vital for the Jacobite Rising of 1745 as the Highlanders.

Pittock, accompanied by many other academics of the revisionist approach, doubt that there was such an ethnic, cultural, economic and political division of Scotland into the two entities ‘Highlands’ and ‘Lowlands’. Both the historical geographer Charles Withers (1954-) and Pittock claim that these two parts of the Scottish kingdom were closely connected and integrated.⁸⁶ Still, some revisionists do make use of the term ‘the Highland Line’, but for them it is purely a geographical term denoting a division between two geographic regions in Scotland. The revisionist historian Victoria Henshaw has also done studies on individuals of Highland and Lowland background, which have revealed similarities proving that

‘eighteenth-century Scottish gentlemen above and below the Highland Line had more in common with each other than is popularly suggested’.⁸⁷ Henshaw is hence of the same belief as Tayler and Tayler, Duffy, Reid, Pittock and Withers. They all maintain that Scotland was not such a divided country as the Whig and romantic historians suggest, and that Jacobitism accordingly was widespread in the entire Scottish kingdom.

The prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland has now been discussed to a certain degree.

Generally, historians on Jacobitism seem to be divided in two camps on this matter, where Whig and romantic historians tend to limit the Scottish Jacobite movement to the clansmen above the alleged Highland Line, whereas the revisionists to a great extent argue for the

83 Ibid.

84 Christopher Duffy, The ‘45: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Untold Story of the Jacobite Rising (London:

Cassell, 2003), 80; Stuart Reid, Culloden 1746: Battlefield Guide, Third ed. (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2018), 114-130.

85 Duffy, The ‘45: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Untold Story of the Jacobite Rising, 80.

87 Henshaw, Scotland and the British Army, 1700-1750: Defending the Union, 188.

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

The battle that made Britain?

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

Scotland, Britain and the world

Sunniva Christina Ruthven Hatlestad-Hall

Master’s thesis in History at the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

The battle that made Britain?

A study of the historiographical debate on the significance of the Battle of Culloden in 1746 for

Scotland, Britain and the world

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Figures

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Presentation and research questions

1.2 Historical background

1.3 Historiography and theory

1.4 Method

1.5 Structure of the thesis

2 Political implications for Scotland

2.1 Chapter introduction

2.2 Prevalence of Jacobitism in Scotland 1688-1746: The Highlands vs. the Lowlands