Talk:Jacobite rising of 1745

Proposed change to references format

In this article's current A-class Review, several comments were made about the references. Citations should be complete and consistently formatted.

I'll happily fix all the references etc. if I can convert them all to my preferred format (see Bengal famine of 1943 for example). In fact, I've already done 95% of the work in my sandbox. Will be off-wiki for maybe two weeks starting maybe tomorrow. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me and I appreciate the help; apologies for the delayed reply - I've been away myself :) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Made a good start, more later. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Culloden battle plan

Another minor point, but the battle plan for Culloden recently added (though drawn in 2007) isn't especially accurate. The enclosures shown to the south are not "Culloden Park", but the Culwhiniac enclosures. Culloden Park, which was on the north flank of the Jacobite position, is missing entirely from the diagram and instead there is a "forest" not present in 1746 - perhaps it's using a modern topographical map its basis?

Also it is doubtful that Wolfe was behind the walls at Culwhiniac, though Ballimore probably was: see the diagram below:

Svejk74 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I just cribbed it from the article page on the battle, so not sure how to correct it :). You're right on Ballimore's so I've changed this (Loudons Highlanders). Tx.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I need to learn how to use some map creation software, particularly as Aughrim is crying out for a decent map. Svejk74 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"ended [...] as a serious threat"

(Note - the below doesn't mean I do not think the article is of 'A' class, or indeed higher, as it stands).

"The Jacobite cause did not entirely disappear after 1746, but the exposure of the key factions' conflicting objectives ended it as a serious threat"

I've never been entirely comfortable with this conclusion; but recently had a look through Doron Zimmerman's book (cited as a source elsewhere in the article) again and what struck me was its forceful argument that Jacobitism remained a "serious challenge" to the state up to and even after 1746.

Amongst other points Zimmerman argues that the French regime was sincere in its support for the Stuart cause, rather than seeking a mere diversion from events in Europe, and that the 45 was potentially (in Black's words) "the biggest crisis to affect the eighteenth century British state". He suggests a polarity of debate on the issue of the potential of Jacobitism, rather than a general attitude of 'parochial' "Jacoscepticism" (great word, that) amongst historians. I note the current form of the article tends to downplay how concerned the government actually was.

Svejk74 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Svejk74, evidence that the Westminster goverment was weary of the threat well after 1745 can be found in the founding of the Highland Fencible Corps rather than creating Highland militias. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess you meant to write "wary" not "weary". But I think your point is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.208.134 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Dutch soldiers

@Robinvp11 as you know I appreciate the work you do. However, in this case I think you are wrong. 6,000 troops landing in England is a very significant event and changes the balance of power quite a bit. Also you say: "Dutch troops who never got closer to the action than London". This is just not true. Coates writes clearly: "As part of Wade's command, the Dutch troops marched under that commander in a series of fruitless marches; an attempt to intercept the rebels at Carlisle in November, then in the following month, a bid to come at them south of the Pennines and a final one in an attempt to cut off their retreat to Scotland."

and: "They also helped to quell the outbreak of anti-Catholicism which occured in Northumberland and Durham in January 1746." DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this is not new information to me, it appears in Jacqueline Riding's 2016 book "Jacobites". She gives it half a page out of 600.

Regardless of whether there were Dutch troops in Wade's command (how many actually made it to Newcastle, and their condition, is debatable), they played no significant part in suppressing the rebellion. Their numbers did not "alter the balance of power", since the Jacobites were outnumbered at least six to one when they entered England.

Any Dutch troops that did make it north played a minimal role in the Rising because the presence of Jacobite officers with French commissions meant the Dutch government (then technically neutral, despite contributing to the Pragmatic Army), was worried their participation might give France an excuse to declare war.

As I said earlier, I've left out a lot of peripheral information, particularly on defence measures taken in England, in order to keep the article within reasonable limits. Dutch involvement doesn't seem more important than any of those. As the article says, Wade's army fell apart and never made it anywhere near Carlisle, while "suppressing Catholicism in Northumberland" means zero. As the article says, the failure to gain recruits in areas of England strongly Jacobite in 1715 was one of the reasons the invasion failed. And that had nothing to do with Wade.

I appreciate your input on articles which involve the Dutch Republic, because it's a perspective which would otherwise be missed. I don't think the 1745 Jacobite Rising is one of those.

This information is probably relevant in the article on the War of the Austrian Succession, just not here. Or at least not more so than any of the other stuff that's been left out. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I certainly see your point an you are right that they played a minor role in the Rising, but what is important and what isn't is just a matter of perspective. I am more interested in the international context of the rebellion than the things you mentioned. The landing of 6,000 Dutch troops is significant, because it relates to the war in Europe and touches upon the Anglo-Dutch Alliance/close Anglo-Dutch relationship of the period.

I also would rather put more information in an article then less. Even if some readers might be frightened away because of it.

Anyway, to compromise I propose, as long as there is no seperate article on the auxiliary force or on the Anglo-Dutch alliance, that the information should be included in a even more concise way or in a footnote. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Gaelic name

Quick question - why has the Gaelic name been removed from the first part of the article? I think it's notable enough to be up there, considering a large portion of Jacobites spoke mainly Gaelic. RazorPantherz (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been removed, simply inserted as a FN; this is accordance with MOSCLUTTER, which seeks to restrict content in the Lead. Hope that makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)