Why Was the '45 a Big Deal?

Scotland already agreed to be part of the UK in 1707 and the Lowlands were completely complicit in this. Why did Highlanders stick their dick in a nest of hornets?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Le Bonnie prince was a drunkard and whoremonger who spent his whole life drinking and whoremonging in Italy, he never even stepped foot on Scottish soil until 1745, he didn't speak Gaelic or scots, he spoke educated English with a strong Italian accent, I never understood how highland savages could venerate and trust him like that with their lives just because his dad was king in their eyes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he didn't speak Gaelic or scots, he spoke educated English with a strong Italian accent
      proof?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He grew up in Italy among Italian and french high society, what do you think he sounded like?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd have imagined that French and Italian would be his primary languages, English spoken to a very high standard (but as a secondary language, like a modern Scandinavian or Netherlander), and Polish and Gaelic maybe spoken conversationally.

          I certainly wouldn't imagine him speaking English to a native level but with a 'very strong' Italian accent.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Highland scots still had a "feudal" system, meaning absolute loyalty to your clan. It seems absurd to the modern mind, but to them it was like fighting in ww2 or something for us, it was their duty, they were protecting their family. It was a system that existed to protect them from cattle rustlers, raids and rival clans seeking to take their land. Failing to do their duty would be a great shame, to be labelled a coward might be like being labelled a racist or a nonce. Most lived in little cottages in the highlands herding cattle and didn't see much of the outside world, there was little notion that anything they were doing was wrong or a mistake.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some highland clans fought for the Stuarts though. Did it have something to do with religion?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Fought
          Didn't fight for the Stuarts I mean, they sided with the English

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It was whatever some random aristocrat decided, by custom everyone on their ancestral acres would side with them fully and risk their lives in war without much regard for whose country or religion they are fighting for.

          It could get pretty arbitrary. I recall reading the Chief of Clan Ross was given a horse by his uncle Forbes for his wedding and when he heard the Jacobites had besieged his home and tried to kidnap him he was angered and sided against the Jacobites. The perpetrator was Simon Fraser who had been friends with Forbes but fell out over debt, which was presumably the real motive for the kidnapping rather than some sort of political purpose. Because of these spats the lives of 100s of men and their families were changed.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Religion played a part yeah but a lot of the time it was just down to who got what.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Varied reasons. Some Clans were self serving and knew they'd come out as winners if they sided with the Hanover government. Others were probably Protestants who had no desire for a Catholic king. Others probably just took their oaths of allegiance to the Hanover Kings seriously and couldn't bring themselves to rebel.
          Should be noted that deported Jacobites in America later remained loyal to the British exactly because they had sworn an oath to never rebel again, and they took it seriously, swearing to God meant something real for them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lowlands were completely
      Yes which is why there rioting all across Scotland against it.

      >savages
      Yikes incel detected.

      >he didn't speak Gaelic or scots, he spoke educated English with a strong Italian accent
      proof?

      Theres none he's speaking bullshit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Was it that most of Scotland felt that the lowland cities didn't represent the majority of Scottish opinion?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The majority of scots were actually loyal to the establishment at this time and didn’t support the rising. They were generally upset with how things were being governed though. Just like the tories, when shit got real all the talk vanished and they supported the crown.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't it true that after the '45 was lost, during the Highland Clearances, the English implemented an intricate road and sheep farm system to increase efficiency?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I’m not familiar with the clearances that followed to say that. I think that the English did end up lumping all highlanders together regardless when taking anti-Jacobite measures after.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No. The Lords that already ruled the Highlands were told they did not need to respect their tenants rights to luve5on thr land so they kicked them out.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The English
              The Scottish landowners themselves, more like. The Highland Clearances had political motivations of course, but a lot of it was also economic and basically just the Scottish version of the English closure of the commons. Landowners wanted money, not clansmen living in Crofts.
              Tbh the Highland Clearances are a perfect case study of Class conflict and how changing economic systems alter social structures and society. I think Marx actually refers to them in his works too.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >lowland
          Stop. You just sound cringe. Most of the Highland didn't support it either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just asking questions. The more I learn about it, the more it seems like it was only a minority of Scots that wanted to rebel. Really gorgeous music came from the '45 at least.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *Cities didn't represent the majority, regardless of where they were.
          A city back then was like 50 thousand people at most, they were tiny and a minority of the population, nothing like today.
          Urban Scots who read enlightenment philosophers and profited from international trade were a small burgher class, the rest were rural farmers who didn't like any of that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            London had almost 700k inhabitants by the mid 18th century

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Which was still a minority of England (and England itself was possibly the most urbanized country in Europe at this time, second only to the Netherlands or Free City states like the Hanseatic league)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A city back then was like 50 thousand people at most
            in the 1350s, maybe
            in the 1750s, no chance

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Edinburgh and Glasgow were not Paris or London. Scotland itself had a population of only 1 million, they'd never have something like London which had half a million.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Incel
        Shut up, spic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I never understood how highland savages could venerate and trust him like that with their lives just because his dad was king in their eyes
      It's easy. They were, as you bluntly stated, "savage". Still strong believers in God and traditional forms of monarchy.
      Obviously the urban merchants of cities like Edinburgh were less enthusiastic about feudal tradition and that shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't William Of Orange a turdburglar

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did the do it in public though?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I never understood why the Scots are depicted with such small shields. Why use such small shields in combaT?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I never understood why the Scots are depicted with such small shields
      Because they were comparatively small shields. Although the targe could be bigger.
      >Why use such small shields in combaT?
      From the 16th century onwards the usage of the bow & arrow and thus the threat of those projectiles declined making larger shields somewhat unnecessary.
      Another reason is the way how one fought with the targe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Enough to deflect a blow in melee, higher mobility. Remember, their most sophisticated tactical maneuver was a frontal charge. Whenever they didn't manage to rush the enemy as fast as possible they lost to the british

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lighter weight, making it easier to react and finetune your movements

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >DUDE LE FOOKING HIGHLANDS
    Most or at least many of supporters were from Aberdeenshire

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Confusing Jacobitism with Scottish Nationalism
    Charles Stuart had no intention on breaking up the British Union, he wanted to reign as king of the whole islands too. Jacobites were Tories (the OG ones) who believed in the Divine Right of Kings. They saw Stuart as the rightful, God appointed, King who was denied his right by the Acts of Succession which barred Catholic heirs from ascension to the throne.
    English Jacobites also existed. The Scottish Highlanders were just the most prominent because they were the most Conservative region and the Stuart dynasty was Scottish so it still commanded respect there.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jacobitism in Scotland was primarily motivated by opposition to the Union of 1707
      >Charles Stuart had no intention on breaking up the British Union
      His first act on taking Edinburgh was to dissolve the Union.
      >he wanted to reign as king of the whole islands too.
      He did want that, but he had a difficult time convincing his Scottish supporters to support him in invading England because they only cared about Scotland
      >Jacobites were Tories (the OG ones) who believed in the Divine Right of Kings.
      The only jacobites who actually fully believed in that by the time of the '45 were the Stewards themselves. The Scottish Jacobites closest to charles formed an "advisory council" around him after he took Edinburgh to try to 'tard wrangle his absolutist tendencies because none of them were actually wanting thr absolute monarchy that Charles did.
      >English Jacobites also existed.
      >t, Charles convincing the Scots to invade england
      Hardly any English Jacobites cared enough to actually fight, because unlike Scottish (and Irish) Jacobites they didn't have a nationalistic motivation on top of the muh legitimacy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Upon reading more, I concede that you are correct, my assumptions came from very Marxist readings in college kek.
        What was Irish Jacobitism like anyway? How many were Monarchists for the Stuarts and how many were just Irish Catholics wanting to secede?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I know less about them, but I believe they wanted religious tolerance for Catholics, for Ireland to at least the same political status as the other two kingdoms, and probably some of the property seized by Cromwell to be returned. The Irish were solidly Catholic enough that I assume your pure Toryism reading might hold more weight there, but I'm not claiming to know anything here and hopefully an Irish effort poster will answer you

          Yes. Scotland would be a independent state in person Union with England like it was pre-1707 if Charles got his way.
          Charles himself obviously cared deeply about pushing his claim to being King of England as well, but like I said his Scottish supporters largely just wanted the Scottish state back and thus would have been content with Charles not pushing his claim on England, and not being as much as absolutist as he was. Like I suggested early Charles told his army that there was a massive Jacobite uprising being planned to support them in England to convice them to follow him in an invasion instead of their preferred plan of digging in for a defensive war.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Scotland would be a independent state in person Union with England like it was pre-1707 if Charles got his way.
            Nope

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What? That was literally the goal of the Scottish jacobites

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. The only single goal of the Jacobite was to make Charles the King. There were diverse opinions about every other matter and it isn't portrayed by anyone at the time to be an issue of sovereignty generally.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only single goal of the Jacobite was to make Charles the King
                It was to make his father the king.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only single goal of the Jacobite was to make Charles the King
                It was to make his father the king.

                Mental how two people can be wrong
                .they wanted to make his father king of the kingdom of Britain.

                Thats it. There was no other goal.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >.they wanted to make his father king of the kingdom of Britain.
                Wrong. Mental how you can be so incorrect on such an important point while acting so confident
                The literal first act of Charles in Edinburgh was to declare the "pretender union" defunct. Because by Jacobite reckoning there exists no "Kingdom of Great Britian" as the lawful king of Scotland and England very signed the acts of Union. Charles wanted a Stewart restoration the the three Kingdoms, bit had to lie to his Scottish supports to get them to invade England with him because they themselves largely didn't care about the other two kingdoms.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why would your college push that shit?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The marxoid historian fears the Scots warrior.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            collages push shit just for the fun of it. more then likey his proffeser was just waffling in order to fill out the lesson time

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe he’d revoke the Union so that Scotland would have its own parliament again, but I’m sure he and they were intent on keeping the personal Union under the same king, right? It’s semantics, but they’d still be united with England and Ireland.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Jacobites never invade England and declare Scotland an independent kingdom
    What now

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I assume they'd fight a defensive war against the English counter attack and try to do well enough that the French actually intervene

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >British Army march in and defeat them anyway
      Culloden is located in Scotland. The Highlanders didn't have a sophisticated army like the Hanoverian state. They'd have better results if they somehow had more French troops to support them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Culloden happened because he invaded england, overstretched his supply lines and starved his army. And also completely demotivated everyone by showing them the lacking support in England and defeats after a series of victories. I mean a defense of Edinburgh probably wouldn't have ended like culloden

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think the most likely chance for a Jacobite success would be playing defensive in Scotland and hoping for French help, but I have a hard time seeing the Hanoverian state accepting a Jacotite Scotland on its border given that it would be a security risk on its own and an encouragment for the Irish to rise in support of the Jacobite claim to Ireland in the event of further conflict.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Highlanders didn't have a sophisticated army like
        Yeah they sort of did. Maybe read and don't spout crap

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Hieland clans, wae sword in hand,
    Frae John o' Groats' t’Airlie,
    Hae to a man declared to stand
    Or faw wi' Royal Charlie.

Your email address will not be published.