I just have to say...this animated presentation, made my blood run cold. I could just imagine being in the Highlander ranks...and even if I survived the battle and the killing aftermath...the visual horrors of that day, would haunt one's life until their last dying breath, ....to see friends, family, sons, fathers, slaughtered upon the field around you, were you lucky enough to still be standing,...wow....
I have visited the battlefield many times, and have always felt the spirits of my MacLachlan ancestors who fought and died there. And so has my wife, a Fraser.
Truly excellent, I wish it was all online. I visited the museum and was fascinated by the non-verbal insights it gives you into battle. The Battle of Culloden but also the dynamics of battle more generally.
Why didn't this video mention the Irish who held back the British cavalry and infantry back long enough to allow hundreds of Scots to flee to safety? It was an important part in the ending of the battle.
And the Royal-Ecossais. A French military regiment made up mostly of Scottish Jacobite exiles. But your right they should of mentioned the Wild Geese. Both these regiments would be given quarter for being professional soldiers the Jacobites would not.
The brave Highlanders, were simply slaughtered by the canon shot...and did they not have an 'Intel' that the cannons would be loaded with Grape Shot, in otherwords, MASSIVE SHOTGUNS!
Recently discovered that my dad's line goes back to the MacDougalls in Perthshire in the 16 & 1700s. Altho the MacDougalls did not officially join in in the uprising, the chieftains brother brought 200 MacDougalls on to the moor that day. Sadly, part of the Atholl Brigade on the right. I've walked around the battlefield more than once with my dad. Still see him turning around to me & saying "This is the saddest place in the world".
Thanks Apostlos. They've done a great job with the new Culloden Visitor centre. It's a place we recommend as a "must see" in our travel guides. We're really looking forward to seeing what the new Bannockburn visitor centre will be like when it opens in 2014 (the 700th anniversay year of the battle). Bannockburn is a fascinating battle as the Scots were so dramatically outnumbered and outclassed in weaponry, but they won the battle through their motivation, discipline and battle tactics.
Jenn Scott and some others have argued for the Highlanders' use of muskets and standard European military formations and tactics in this era. But, nothing of that kind appears in this presentation, where the traditional Highland Charge almost entirely dominates their actions. Murray Pittock's positing of the decisive event at Culloden being the British cavalry's decimation of the fleeing Highlanders seems equally at odds with this presentation, where the Highlanders appear already to have been pretty thoroughly routed by Cumberland's infantry and artillery, before being hunted down and largely destroyed in what seems to have been an essentially post-battle secondary action.
This is the sanitised 'British' version. We know what happened it was passed down to us by word of mouth. It's like most of the dark incidents in British history that shows the English in a bad light: rewritten. No word of the butchery of the wounded, the murder of women and other civilians, no word of the rampant abuse and the ethnic cleansing that followed.
The Jacobites couldn't fight a 'hit and run' war because that wasn't going to get the Stuarts the throne back, and actually the Jacobite army at Culloden were fully armed with muskets and bayonets, new research by Murray Pittock and Christopher Duffy shows that not only were the Jacobites a contemporary army they also fired more rounds per man than the British troops on Culloden. Other military historians are beginning to question if a highland charge even took place at Culloden.
Well said... It's like Vikings having horns on their helmets... and "warriors" preparing for battle with their swords stuffed down the back... And, less exciting, soldiers saluting without wearing headgear headgear...
I'm giving a lecture on history and would like to use your clip. Is it possible to download it? My Firefox button doesn't seem to work for this. It will only be for this one use. Thanks!
(from Brazil) unquestionable the courage of Scottish warriors but, in the war you fight for the victory only of 3 forms ... attacking, fleeing or, hiding. I am not an expert but I know that in just 3 minutes under the cannon fire and muskets, 800 Scots died of an army of 1,500 men.
What people tend to forget also is that Charlie was pro Britain not anti, he wanted the whole thing, not an independent Scotland like Wallace did. If Wallace existed then in the 18th century he would have been seen as a terrorist by Charlie too, because he threatened what Charlie wanted. Britain would exist whoever won at Culloden. The only difference was whether it was dominated by the Stuarts (Catholics) or the Hanovarians (Protestants). There would be a loser either way. Catholics don't like being dominated by Protestants and vice versa. People joined sides for all sorts of reasons, mainly financial, nothing to do with nationalism etc on any sides.Highland Scots etc lost, but lowland Scots won.
Yes, the lowland Scots won over the detestable and primitive highlanders. Something conveniently forgotten by present day professional Scottish nationalist jimmies. You are all pathetic.
@@cp4512 That's true Chris, this battle wasn't Scotland v England, it was the Jacobite followers of Charles Edward Stuart (Catholics) against a Hanoverian Government force (Protestants) led by the Duke of Cumberland. There were members of the same family on opposing sides, brother against brother and father against son. One third of the Hanoverian army were Scottish born and bred. The Scots chose to fight on the side of who they wanted to be king, Stuart or Hanover?
If you go to the Culloden visitor centre, they have an audio-visual presentation room that gives you an immersive surround vision and sound experience which makes you feel like you are standing in the middle of the battlefield between the fronts of the Jacobite and Government forces.
It was a British army, more Scots faught against Charles than for him in 1745-46. The Jacobites were mearly pawns of the French in a big European power struggle.
Erm, sorry Neil, there is zero evidence to support a claim that more Scots fought in the British Army side than did the Jacobite side. I understand why you may have been given this idea, as these false/unsubstantiated 'facts' are widely branded about even on our education websites. I reccommend reading Murray Pittock's book.
@@JuanKuzov Of the army's 16 infantry battalions present, four were Scottish units and one was Irish. On the Jacobite side, it contained English recruits plus significant numbers of French, Scottish and Irish professionals in French service
No that's simply not true. There were some 1800 Scots fighting under Cumberland in an army of about 8000. The Jacobite army of about 5000 was almost entirely Scots, the second largest force being Irish.
@@deborahdennison571 I was talking about the campaign as a whole. As I said: 1745-46. Certainly more highlanders in arms against the Jacobites that with them, perhaps some 6000 to the Jacobites 3000.
Brave men to charge cannon and shot. Cumberland was a butcher hunted down fleeing Jacobites which included women and children form villages and settlements.
They should have carried on at derby,London was a mess,And then those brave french would have turned up.could it have been any worse.No-one is scared of an army that runs away.
Charging against three ranks of infantry able to get off, at minimum, three rounds per minute means the fire power is a volley nearly under every six seconds. That fire is annihilating. The action of the pursuing troops after the battle understandable. The killing obviously fear driven. The red coats did not want to meet the Scots in organised battle ever again.. They succeeded. Merry Christmas..🤭🤗🇺🇸🇦🇺👵
Just terrible. The Scots are altogether out-generalled. The Jacobite soldiers put their trust in men that had a poor idea of how this was supposed to end well.
This video by the NTS is so out of date, and dwells on the traditional pro-British myth about the Highland Army being a bunch of savages with very few firearms. Right at the end it boasts only 50 dead on the British Army side. (It was the British Army they were fighting, which had some Scots units in it) People are now accepting that the British casualties were more like 400-500. Which is more realistic.
I believe the English had over 9,000 men to the Jacobite Army of 4,000 they were out flanked by the English. Showing the utter waste of good men a Army lead by Sheep with big egos. many Scottish clans fought withe the English. some clans stayed natural. If all the clans had been United then the Jacobite would of won and we would now be a separate nation.
Neil Sives it wasnt the "English" who the Jacobites fought. It was the British government, a huge portion of government troops were Scottish regiments that had been drafted from the Lowlands. Not to mention there were English Jacobites too.
All the clans didn't join the jacobite rebellion because they didn't support bonnie prince Charlie with his pro catholic with closer French n Spanish sympathies
Yes ,neil sives should go and read up on the history of the british isles Of that era,,,instead these people who comment upon the jacobites as scottish and the british army as english disrespect those who fought and died on the moor that day and all days before and after the battle,,,,indeed bonnie prince charlie couldve had indeed won the scottish throne,,but he wanted the british throne thus marched south,,,,, but the feeling of a pro catholic french spanish supporting king was never going to win in the now liberated free thinking protestant worship of british people,,,,, Please read up on your history Nei sives,,,,,,its facinating
A separate nation? This wasnt a war of independence. Prince charlie was pro union and would have been king of Scotland and England. This was just a catholic v protestant and king v king war. No doubt Scotland would have been treated more fondly though
I just have to say...this animated presentation, made my blood run cold. I could just imagine being in the Highlander ranks...and even if I survived the battle and the killing aftermath...the visual horrors of that day, would haunt one's life until their last dying breath, ....to see friends, family, sons, fathers, slaughtered upon the field around you, were you lucky enough to still be standing,...wow....
I have visited the battlefield many times, and have always felt the spirits of my MacLachlan ancestors who fought and died there. And so has my wife, a Fraser.
Truly excellent, I wish it was all online. I visited the museum and was fascinated by the non-verbal insights it gives you into battle. The Battle of Culloden but also the dynamics of battle more generally.
This significantly overstates the casualties to Barrel’s regiment
Crazy the frontal assaut
Why didn't this video mention the Irish who held back the British cavalry and infantry back long enough to allow hundreds of Scots to flee to safety? It was an important part in the ending of the battle.
and the french
And the Royal-Ecossais. A French military regiment made up mostly of Scottish Jacobite exiles. But your right they should of mentioned the Wild Geese. Both these regiments would be given quarter for being professional soldiers the Jacobites would not.
Why...because they were utterly irrelevant to the days events
Good example of how firearms changed the battlefield
The brave Highlanders, were simply slaughtered by the canon shot...and did they not have an 'Intel' that the cannons would be loaded with Grape Shot, in otherwords, MASSIVE SHOTGUNS!
Recently discovered that my dad's line goes back to the MacDougalls in Perthshire in the 16 & 1700s. Altho the MacDougalls did not officially join in in the uprising, the chieftains brother brought 200 MacDougalls on to the moor that day. Sadly, part of the Atholl Brigade on the right. I've walked around the battlefield more than once with my dad. Still see him turning around to me & saying "This is the saddest place in the world".
Thanks Apostlos. They've done a great job with the new Culloden Visitor centre. It's a place we recommend as a "must see" in our travel guides. We're really looking forward to seeing what the new Bannockburn visitor centre will be like when it opens in 2014 (the 700th anniversay year of the battle). Bannockburn is a fascinating battle as the Scots were so dramatically outnumbered and outclassed in weaponry, but they won the battle through their motivation, discipline and battle tactics.
It is full of misinformation.
@@deborahdennison571 you should write to the National Trust for Scotland and alert them to the errors then.
Thanks for videoing this. Where was this filmed. Very interesting and well presented.
Inside the visitor centre
Jenn Scott and some others have argued for the Highlanders' use of muskets and standard European military formations and tactics in this era. But, nothing of that kind appears in this presentation, where the traditional Highland Charge almost entirely dominates their actions. Murray Pittock's positing of the decisive event at Culloden being the British cavalry's decimation of the fleeing Highlanders seems equally at odds with this presentation, where the Highlanders appear already to have been pretty thoroughly routed by Cumberland's infantry and artillery, before being hunted down and largely destroyed in what seems to have been an essentially post-battle secondary action.
This is the sanitised 'British' version. We know what happened it was passed down to us by word of mouth. It's like most of the dark incidents in British history that shows the English in a bad light: rewritten. No word of the butchery of the wounded, the murder of women and other civilians, no word of the rampant abuse and the ethnic cleansing that followed.
The Jacobites couldn't fight a 'hit and run' war because that wasn't going to get the Stuarts the throne back, and actually the Jacobite army at Culloden were fully armed with muskets and bayonets, new research by Murray Pittock and Christopher Duffy shows that not only were the Jacobites a contemporary army they also fired more rounds per man than the British troops on Culloden. Other military historians are beginning to question if a highland charge even took place at Culloden.
Correct Neil.
The highland charge never took place here because there wasn't a single steep hill
Well said... It's like Vikings having horns on their helmets... and "warriors" preparing for battle with their swords stuffed down the back... And, less exciting, soldiers saluting without wearing headgear headgear...
I'm giving a lecture on history and would like to use your clip. Is it possible to download it? My Firefox button doesn't seem to work for this. It will only be for this one use. Thanks!
Always grand how the top guy gets the hell out first. That was a stupidly planned battle.
what happent to the second line charlz?
(from Brazil)
unquestionable the courage of Scottish warriors but, in the war you fight for the victory only of 3 forms ... attacking, fleeing or, hiding. I am not an expert but I know that in just 3 minutes under the cannon fire and muskets, 800 Scots died of an army of 1,500 men.
There were around 7,000 Jacobites at the battle, and around 1500 to 2000 were killed or wounded.
The background noise on this video is too distracting.
the bloody Campbells always causing a ruckus!
What people tend to forget also is that Charlie was pro Britain not anti, he wanted the whole thing, not an independent Scotland like Wallace did. If Wallace existed then in the 18th century he would have been seen as a terrorist by Charlie too, because he threatened what Charlie wanted. Britain would exist whoever won at Culloden. The only difference was whether it was dominated by the Stuarts (Catholics) or the Hanovarians (Protestants). There would be a loser either way. Catholics don't like being dominated by Protestants and vice versa. People joined sides for all sorts of reasons, mainly financial, nothing to do with nationalism etc on any sides.Highland Scots etc lost, but lowland Scots won.
Yes, the lowland Scots won over the detestable and primitive highlanders. Something conveniently forgotten by present day professional Scottish nationalist jimmies. You are all pathetic.
You are wrong. The Stuart Manifesto called for the restoration of the Three Kingdoms with independent parliaments. Get your history right, please.
Doesn't mention the British who had deserted and joined the jacobites.
correction, doesn't mention the English who deserted and joined the Jacobite Army.
Also doesn’t mention the Scottish fighting in the British ranks against the Jacobites.
@@cp4512 That's true Chris, this battle wasn't Scotland v England, it was the Jacobite followers of Charles Edward Stuart (Catholics) against a Hanoverian Government force (Protestants) led by the Duke of Cumberland. There were members of the same family on opposing sides, brother against brother and father against son. One third of the Hanoverian army were Scottish born and bred. The Scots chose to fight on the side of who they wanted to be king, Stuart or Hanover?
Can we have some real amazing culloden battle ...cgi movie ....just like the real battle .....
If you go to the Culloden visitor centre, they have an audio-visual presentation room that gives you an immersive surround vision and sound experience which makes you feel like you are standing in the middle of the battlefield between the fronts of the Jacobite and Government forces.
It was a British army, more Scots faught against Charles than for him in 1745-46. The Jacobites were mearly pawns of the French in a big European power struggle.
Erm, sorry Neil, there is zero evidence to support a claim that more Scots fought in the British Army side than did the Jacobite side. I understand why you may have been given this idea, as these false/unsubstantiated 'facts' are widely branded about even on our education websites. I reccommend reading Murray Pittock's book.
@@JuanKuzov Of the army's 16 infantry battalions present, four were Scottish units and one was Irish. On the Jacobite side, it contained English recruits plus significant numbers of French, Scottish and Irish professionals in French service
No that's simply not true. There were some 1800 Scots fighting under Cumberland in an army of about 8000. The Jacobite army of about 5000 was almost entirely Scots, the second largest force being Irish.
@@deborahdennison571 I was talking about the campaign as a whole. As I said: 1745-46. Certainly more highlanders in arms against the Jacobites that with them, perhaps some 6000 to the Jacobites 3000.
@@brucemacallan6831 I was talking about the campaign as a whole. As I said: 1745-46
Brave men to charge cannon and shot. Cumberland was a butcher hunted down fleeing Jacobites which included women and children form villages and settlements.
They should have carried on at derby,London was a mess,And then those brave french would have turned up.could it have been any worse.No-one is scared of an army that runs away.
holy shit
Charging against three ranks of infantry able to get off, at minimum, three rounds per minute means the fire power is a volley nearly under every six seconds.
That fire is annihilating.
The action of the pursuing troops after the battle understandable.
The killing obviously fear driven.
The red coats did not want to meet the Scots in organised battle ever again..
They succeeded.
Merry Christmas..🤭🤗🇺🇸🇦🇺👵
Just terrible. The Scots are altogether out-generalled. The Jacobite soldiers put their trust in men that had a poor idea of how this was supposed to end well.
not true. This is the view of Hanoverian propaganda and has been debunked by historians since.
Visually this is a very poor job
This video by the NTS is so out of date, and dwells on the traditional pro-British myth about the Highland Army being a bunch of savages with very few firearms. Right at the end it boasts only 50 dead on the British Army side. (It was the British Army they were fighting, which had some Scots units in it) People are now accepting that the British casualties were more like 400-500. Which is more realistic.
that's right
I think General Cumberland is a good strategist,
adding the ineptitude of the Scottish peasants
Who had managed to route the British army twice. Whatever you say.
Cumberland is in the same league as Adolf hitler
I believe the English had over 9,000 men to the Jacobite Army of 4,000 they were out flanked by the English. Showing the utter waste of good men a Army lead by Sheep with big egos. many Scottish clans fought withe the English. some clans stayed natural. If all the clans had been United then the Jacobite would of won and we would now be a separate nation.
Neil Sives it wasnt the "English" who the Jacobites fought. It was the British government, a huge portion of government troops were Scottish regiments that had been drafted from the Lowlands. Not to mention there were English Jacobites too.
Neil Sives err nope the jacobites wanted it all
All the clans didn't join the jacobite rebellion because they didn't support bonnie prince Charlie with his pro catholic with closer French n Spanish sympathies
Yes ,neil sives should go and read up on the history of the british isles
Of that era,,,instead these people who comment upon the jacobites as scottish and the british army as english disrespect those who fought and died on the moor that day and all days before and after the battle,,,,indeed bonnie prince charlie couldve had indeed won the scottish throne,,but he wanted the british throne thus marched south,,,,, but the feeling of a pro catholic french spanish supporting king was never going to win in the now liberated free thinking protestant worship of british people,,,,,
Please read up on your history
Nei sives,,,,,,its facinating
A separate nation? This wasnt a war of independence. Prince charlie was pro union and would have been king of Scotland and England. This was just a catholic v protestant and king v king war. No doubt Scotland would have been treated more fondly though