Camerons at Culloden according to Frank McLynn

[AlanCC]

The other day I found a book "Bonnie Prince Charlie" by Frank McLynn. The book has plenty of references to Lochiel and Clan Cameron, so when I got up to the Culloden battle I was surprised to find that the entire battle description only contained a few sentences about the Camerons.

"The Camerons behaved badly. Most of them fled without helping Lochiel, who had been wounded in both legs by the flanking fire of the Campbells." .... "The Camerons took further casualties."

Isn't this unfair? From what I've seen from the Cameron Battles section on this site and other sources was that the Camerons did pretty well on that day.

(There is a lots of information about how well Clan Chattan did in the battle.)

[Cameronian]

Not an author that I would have chosen to read on the subject of Culloden nor Prince Charles…he is prolific, and a self proclaimed authority on all.

1759 THE YEAR BRITAIN BECAME MASTER OF THE WORLD. By Frank McLynn

The review of this book appeared in The Scotsman 3 April 2004 written by John MacKenzie.

“TO BE TRULY MEMORABLE, dates need to trip off the tongue. For the English, it’s 1066, for the Scots 1745 - both dates that are well established in our historical consciousness. But 1759? Even historians might be hard-pressed to identify its significance. However, according to Frank McLynn this was the truly decisive year in the Franco-British duel. From 1759 the British were the masters of the Caribbean, North America and India. There were more rounds to come, but the injuries inflicted in that year were sufficient to ensure the knock-out blow in 1815.

McLynn’s problems in establishing this contention are many. It is the Napoleonic period, which is deeply embedded in the national consciousness. The Nile, Trafalgar and Waterloo have far greater prominence than Minden or Quiberon Bay. In 1759 the concept of the Romantic hero was just being born……….. By 1815 it was fully fledged, commemorated not only in paintings, but in countless statues and monuments. It is the Napoleonic period that is featured in that curiously British phenomenon, the naval novel, so famously penned by C S Forester, Patrick O’Brian and Alexander Kent.

Napoleon was a worthy foe, the masterful dictator of Europe. But Louis XV? Who remembers him? Moreover, in 1759 the continued possession of Hanover ensured that the British were still a little schizophrenic. Minden was a continental battle. The British Isles were still divided: the Jacobites were a credible force and the Irish were as likely to be fighting on the French side as on the British.

So if 1759 falls in terms of national myth, how about the solid historical arguments? They are considerable. In that year the French were shown to be vulnerable. The groundwork was laid for squeezing them out of India, leaving the field free for the British East India Company. The fall of Louisbourg and Quebec ensured the British conquest of Canada. The supremacy of the Royal Navy was firmly established; the British political system allegedly worked and the national debt could fund the defence and expansion of the realm. Pitt was the first heroic minister, in a line that leads to Churchill.

Yet there are difficulties, too: the removal of the French threat provided the opportunity for the 13 American colonies to rebel. Moreover, 1759 had very little effect, if any, on the spread of the British Empire into Australasia, the Far East or Africa. The conquest of the Cape from the Dutch in 1795, confirmed in 1815, was the truly important event in ensuring British command of the linkages among the Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Pacific worlds.

But McLynn goes further. He argues that 1759 wasn’t only significant in naval, military and geo-political terms, but in cultural ones too. The Scottish Enlightenment features here, as do Wesley, Johnson, Burke and Voltaire. He tries to attach these glitterati to his chapters on Lagos Bay, Jacobitism, the West Indies, Canada and Rogers’s Rangers. It is all a little contrived.

As a literary excursion, McLynn’s book stumbles too often, like the campaigns he places under the microscope. Occasionally the prose takes off (as in the description of the Canadian environment) but generally it is plodding and there are too many errors. Although 1759 was certainly important, its chance of displacing 1805 or 1815 is about as likely as this book becoming a best-seller

[SherbrookeJacobite]

I have done extensive reading on the Jacobite period, including, of course, the '45 and Culloden. This is the very first time I have seen any negative comments directed at our Clan. Other authors speak of their ferocity and courage in the face of English fire. How they managed to not only reach, but break through the English lines - and the courage of those Clansmen who carried Lochiel off the field.

I also was of the impression that Lochiel's legs were broken by grapeshot from English cannons, not by the musket fire of the Campbells who did indeed flank the King's troops by sneaking up behind a rock wall.

I suspect that if some genealogical sleuthing were done, we would find McLynn has some reason to put the Cameron's down.

I don't believe I will add his book(s) to my library.

John

[SherbrookeJacobite]

I just read my post and thought I better correct something. I have in fact seen lots of negative things said about our Clan - but I have never seen their courage at Culloden questioned before.

We have been called lazy, thieves, marauders, outlaws etc..., but never cowards.

A Son of the Hounds,

John

[AlanCC]

According to the notes, McLynn based his information on Cumberland's archives, 69/11.41.18, whatever that means.

Good to see he's used unbiased sources...

[SherbrookeJacobite]

I have remembered some more criticism of the Camerons at Culloden. My late Uncle, Vance Macdonald, who was possessed of a keen knowledge of history, and rapier sharp wit, said the job of the Camerons at Culloden was to make sandwiches for the MacDonalds ;D

[SherbrookeJacobite]

I know his name has been mentioned in other posts on this forum, but for those of you who want a sense of what happened at Culloden, I highly recommend John Prebble's book of that name.

He has been criticized for taking liberties with historical fact, but I believe his writing remains true to the spirit of what happened.

As for the numbers behind McLynn's reference to butcher Cumberland, cleverly disguised as a library reference number - their true meaning is as follows; 69 was his waist, 11 his shoe size, 41 his I.Q. and 18 the size of his fat heid.

Slainte,

John

[Thomas Cameron]

Frank McLynn

OK folks, brace yourselves for an unfiltered, unrestrained post here...

His source were Cumberland's papers? That's on a par with someone basing his interpretation of WWII on Hitler's diary!

I did some checking on Mr. McLynn and found the following post on a Napoleonic message board:

"Re: Does anyone recommend Frank McLynn?

Hi Alexandre,

I did buy the McLynn book as my first Napoleon biography, and even then I thought it junk. Large amounts of poorly selected and half digested secondary material and an unpleasant obsession with sex. Don't waste your money.
regards,

Susan"

I agree with John, that anyone interested in hearing how the Camerons really did at Culloden should track down a copy of Prebble's masterpiece on the subject. As for McLynn, though I have absolutely no proof of this, I wouldn't be surprised to see one of his ancestors hiding behind that stone wall with the Campbells until they thought it safe enough to emerge and fire upon the retreating wounded Jacobites... ;D (absolutely no apologies on that one folks!)

[Alans]

Sherbrooke or John is a little too apologetic about using Prebble. Most criticism about prebble is for taking a too romantic and slightly sentimental view of some Scottish History issues. I have never heard the depth of his research assailed merely his interpretation of some agreed facts.
His books on "Glencoe" and "Culloden" are mainly reliant on primary sources. His "Highland Clearances" is based more on oral history and a view of landlords that the facts don't always support- and even he allows that some of the better hearted landlords bankrupted themselves.
In writing about the Cameron effort at Culloden he quotes a very reliable authority in Brevet Major James Wolfe, and quotes at length from one of his letters which says that the Camerons and Stewarts "behaved with uncommon resolution".
Wolfes own personal courage and sense of honour has never been in doubt despite his rather ruthless use of ordinary soldiers, including Highlanders during his military career- his own courageous death on the field of battle on the heights of Abraham at a later date, suggests that his opinion of the Cameron regiment' display at Culloden is at least worthy of consideration.
The Camerons and Stewarts were the only units apart from Lord George Murray and his Atholl tenants who inflicted any damage on Cumberland's Army. Prebbles greatest strength as an Historical writer was his research. Even those revisionists who disagree with some of his conclusions have never accused him of sloppy research. Later writers on Glencoe regard him as a trailblazer for the topic even when critical of some parts of his analysis. McLynn may well be confused enough to have mixed up the fairly mediocre Cameron display at Sherriffmuir in 1715 with their very creditable fight at Culloden.
One need only ask why Cumberland ravished Lochaber and the Lochiel estate so thoroughly? What was he afraid of? I suspect he never wanted to see a Cameron regiment out in the field against his family again.
Wolfe to my mind is a far more reliable source on the Cameron effort at Culloden than anything McLynn may dredge or dream up. Prebble may also be regarded as a far more creditable writer than Mclynn on Scots History. I say that as a thorough going "revisionist" and fan of Lenman, Devine and Smout.

Dias Mhuire duit a Camshronaich na Colombia.

[ChrisDoak]

I can only agree with Alan's posting,and confirm the most important statement in Wolfe's letter:

"They (Barrell's Regiment) were attacked by the Camerons,the bravest Clan amongst them".

Oh aye ......regarding Uncle Vance's claim that the Camerons were only at Culloden to make sandwiches for the MacDonalds - if true,it seems a pity that Ronald McDonald wasn't there making copious notes,for if he had been,we would surely now have a helluva lot more healthy teenagers around the world ! (A Big Cam anybody?)

[Cameronian]

Alan said: " I say that as a thorough going "revisionist" and fan of Lenman, Devine and Smout.

Well Dear Cousin, you may have to make a trip to Sydney in November as Professor Bruce Lenman (now retired from St Andrews) will be our Guest during Scottish Heritage Week and although Jacobites will not be his chosen subject on the evenings, we can not let him leave without a mention.....Val

[Alans]

Bhal if only he were coming about mid Dec( My School finishes 10th of December). He would be a very interesting speaker I'm sure. His "Jacobite Clans of the Great Glen" along with Stevenson's "Alasdair MacColla and the Highland Problem" are two of the best pieces of Historical writing I've ever read- never mind the National History involved.
Despite being about different eras both give such a good picture of the Gaelic way of doing things; and of that turbulent period from 1603 to 1745 when Scotland underwent such enormous conflict and change. Our ancestors who came out here brought the essence of that time with both the good and the bad effects. The passion was not too diluted by pragmatism forged from bitter experience.
Nice to hear from my "cousin" North of the Murray. Good new poem on the bards forum!

Dia duit a bhal na Camshronaich!

[Cameronian]

Ah Ailean, not to torment you further, but our second guest will be his companion Iseabal Nic Leòid, a noted scholar of the early Scots languages, and she has offered to present a paper on the topic "The languages of Scotland: Scots and Gaelic".

Sorry that the Murray gets in the way of travelling north, I will take notes Bhal

[Heather Willis]

Cameronian,
I speak, read, write and teach gaelic here in San Diego

[Alans]

Bhal,
I'm partly posting just to raise this thread up for Culloden Day, but also to ask if you ever did take notes on Bruce lenman's lecture?

Dia Mhuire duit a an Fianna na Camshronaich agus Bhal an seannachie Mhor!

[Chambers31]

I've read through the forum, can anyone tell me what clan affiliation that this yahoo author has? McLynn?
If he were to research his history a little further he would there is an interesting piece online that, "The 17th Chief , Sir Ewan Cameron, killed a solider of the Cromwellian General Monck by tearing out his throat with his teeth, and it was to that Lochiel that Charles Edward Stuart later looked when he landed in Scotland. Cameron men guarded the Prince on the night before Culledon..." I'd like to know if his realitives were there or off hiding with the Campbells???!!!

I am proud to be a daughter of the hounds

[SherbrookeJacobite]

Frank McLynn is a yahoo! I agree with your sentiments completely. Just a wee correction - Sir Ewen did indeed kill an English Officer by biting his throat - but he wasn't the Lochiel that greeted young Charles Edward Stuart - that was his grandson, Donald Cameron, the gentle Lochiel. He took over the running of the Clan in 1716 at a very young age (21), as his father (John) was attainted after the 1715 Rising, and was exiled to France.

Slainte,

John