[Lin Robinson]

The debate regarding use of the dirk with the targe will go on. The comments in this forum, pro and con are all well-taken. However, there is a contemporary description of highlanders in battle which includes mention of the dirk and the targe. It was written by “Chevalier” Johnstone, an Edinburgh man who actually participated in the charge at Culloden; at least according to him he participated. He went to France after the Jacobite defeat where he joined the French army and received a commission. Later he wound up in Canada and was present at the Battle of Quebec, where he witnessed, once again, the power of the highland broadsword. Here is what he had to say about the highland method of fighting, as he witnessed it:

“They advance with great rapidity, discharge their pieces when within musket-length of the enemy, and then throwing them down, draw their swords, and holding a dirk in their left hand with the target, they dart with fury on the enemy, through the smoke of their fire. When within reach of the enemy’s bayonets, bending their left knee, they cover their bodies with their targets, that receive the thrusts of the bayonets, while at the same time they raise their sword arms and strike their adversary…” ([i]Memoirs of the Rebellion in Scotland in 1745 and 1746[/i]” by the Chevalier de Johnstone)

Johnstone does not, of course, mention what they did with the dirk when they reached the enemy.

On the subject of the Morier painting, in spite of its being produced some years after the battle - 1753 being the most likely date - it may actually reflect information from other, now lost, eyewitness accounts. Certainly one would have to ask why the two highlanders shown in the center of the painting are carrying dirks in that manner, unless there was some evidence that this was the way which they were used. While artists takes certain licenses, and that was even more common in the 18th century than it is today, I find it difficult to believe that the painter came up with the idea that the dirk was carried in the left hand on his own.

The position of the sword held by the highlander in the foreground does not, to me at least, indicate any inconsistency with the actual use of the broadsword by the highlander. After all, three of the four broadswords still in use and visible in the painting, are being held overhead. This man just had not reached that point in his attack.

The Morier painting is certainly not a perfect depiction of the action, but I believe it reflects what went on at Culloden with some accuracy. And, I believe highlanders did carry their dirk in their targe hand when in battle.

[GG Osborne]

My point, Lin, is that the painting cannot be taken as gospel to make an "ad hominum" arguement that Highlanders must have carried and used their equipment thus and so because it is in Morier's painting. Whether of not Johnstone is correct (and there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that he was more than a little guilty of factual embelishment), my point is that Morier cannot be trusted to be ansolutely factual simply because he put brush to canvas. If he had wanted to be accurate, he could have painted Barrell's genadiers in their 1746-era togs. A quick check of English Establishment inspection returns (every regiment was subject to a formal inspection by the governement every three years or so to insure they were equipped properly and that their arms, uniforms, equipment and men were meeting set standards), indicates that regiments were often years behind the so-called "Sealed Patterns" held by the Horse Guards. Morier certainly had access to veterans of Culloden, but I seriously doubt that any of them were on the Jacobite side and came replete with proper dress and weaponry just to pose for the government painted hired to glaot over Cumberland's victory. Objectivity demands to say that we have our suspicions about how the Jacobite army looked, how they were armed, and what a "highland charge" looked like, but we simply don't know for sure and Morier cannot be the final verdict. Frankly I think we have to pur Morier in the same position with his 21st C. disciple Reid when it comes to historical authenticity.

[Lin Robinson]

[GG Osborne]

Lin, we are, of course, far off the point in this thread, but again, I will have to disagree with you in a friendly way. Sure, the Jacobite era is romantic, most lost causes are...more or less...just look at the Southern Confederacy for instance. However, my point is that we just don't know many of the "what and hows" we would like to in this two year period. We can surmise, and read, and guess, but we just don't know nearly enough first hand knowledge and it is a shame that Osprey tends to "canonize" illustrations into fact as did Morier. My main bone to pick in your statement is that the 1745 was just a blip on the British historical radar. However, I feel very strongly that in the field of constitutional theory and development of law, the reaction by England to the rebellion, as convoluted and often obtuse as it was , still became the catalyst that set the stage for the emergence of Great Britian as a world power. It was not until after the final fact that the Union of 1707 was a settled fact due to the elimination of any Stuart restoration and the later repugnance of the draconian measures used to settle it, that England would emerge as a constitutional entity with the king as a state figurehead. No, the Jacobite era was many things, but not a footnote.

[Lin Robinson]

Well...you are right. We have wondered off topic. Again, I will agree to disagree with you, a little. I still think that we must rely to some extent, although not wholly, on contemporary or near-contemprorary writings and representations if we are to understand the tactical and technical aspects of the history we are interested in, and not completely disregard even the most suspect material. We do have to try to sort out what is correct and what isn't, but without reference points along the way that is extremely difficult.

And, again, I will agree to disagree regarding the '45. Taken as a whole, the Jacobite movement, which must be said to have begun with the Glorious Revolution and ended at Culloden Moor, was an important aspect of British history. Fifty-eight years is a long time. However, the '45, taken as part of the whole, was insignificant. It occurred 26 years after the previous minor revolt of 1719, received little support from the highland clans and even less from the English Jacobites and was over very quickly. Prince Charles landed in Scotland with almost no resources and had to attempt to persuade some of the more powerful chiefs to bring out their clans, with limited success. The only reason the Jacobites did as well as they did in 1745 and early 1746 was the fact that the British were as poorly prepared as they were. Once the Duke of Cumberland arrived with a trained army, the jig was up. I say this not for your benefit, because I realize that you have studied this very carefully, but because there are others reading this who may not know.

It is interesting to note that, until the death of the Duke of Albany, there remained considerable concern in Britain about another Jacobite rising, in spite of the thorough trouncing of the the Prince's army. However, the empire building had begun before then.

I find the theory that the Jacobite rebellions were fomented, at least in part, by the failure of the Darien colony interesting. I never thought to tie those two together, but there is a pretty good argument for it.

However, that is way off topic, so I will leave it for now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is one of the more lively forums I have visited and I think the give and take is good for all of us.

On to other things.