Talk:Battle of Falkirk Muir

Opening heading

General Hawley was an ancestor of my husband. They have always said in the family that he lost the Battle of Falkirk because he was totally drunk that day and ineffective as a leader. Is there any evidence to support this?--Alicejenny 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hawley at Falkirk

I have no idea if he was drunk or not but he certainly lost the battle because of a serious misconception. As a young subaltern he had been present at the Battle of Sheriffmuir in 1715, where he witnessed the effect of cavalry on some of the Highland troops. He formed the lasting-and mistaken-impression that Highlanders were afraid of horsemen. At Falkirk the charge of the dragoons was his one great gamble. When this failed he had nothing to fall back on.

Rcpaterson 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Falkirk Muir → Battle of Falkirk (1746) — These two battles are both known as the "Battle of Falkirk", they just happened to take place at different dates. The battle that took place in 1746 is not commonly known with the addition of the word "Muir", added on the end. These two articles were previously titles as I would like them to be moved back to. Someone has just come along without any prior discussion and moved the pages. They should in fact, in keeping with the format of Wikipedia where two or more battles have the same name be titled with the year the battles took place in brackets. In this case (1298) and (1746) Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC) QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Battle of Falkirk → Battle of Falkirk (1298)

• Oppose move of Battle of Falkirk, as this is the primary meaning, see Talk:Battle of Falkirk#Requested move. Weak oppose of the move of Battle of Falkirk Muir pending evidence that the common name is in fact as claimed. Oh, and the claim that Someone has just come along without any prior discussion and moved the pages is not only false but ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re-write

If this article is going to be re-written like other battle articles of the '45 have been recently, then I would request to keep the well sourced information in the aftermath about the death of Sir Robert Munro, and also keep the campaign box for the Clan Cameron and Clan Munro feud. Any experienced Jacobite historian will know that the risings were also entwined with the local clan feuds.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC) @User:Robinvp11, as you have mentioned in your edit summary you are happy to discuss here on the talk page. Again, in your re-write you have decreased the amount of well sourced and detailed information that was included about the death of Sir Robert Munro. I don't see any need to removed this and will be re-adding it in due course. You have to discuss removing sourced information BEFORE removing it, not after. While many battles of the Jacobite risings could qualify as being part of clan feuds, this was has particular detail relating the feud between the Cameorns and Munros.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There has been a Citation Required template on here for a couple of years. You've had plenty of time to update this article but you haven't. Don't complain when someone else is willing to put the effort in.

For about the fifth time, look at Wikipedia guidelines on single sourcing. Well-sourced does not mean taking a paragraph from one source, breaking it into short sentences, then using multiple repetitions of the same source. I'm honestly unsure why that's so hard to grasp - yes, I'm irritated because I've made this point over and over again.

Late Victorian clan histories written at the height of the tartan and shortbread craze need to be treated with care.

Any experienced Jacobite historian... The ones I've read refer to the relevance of local power struggles for land etc. If you recall, its included in my rewrite of Killiecrankie, as to why the Presbyterian Macleans took the Jacobite side in 1689. Specifically, Lenman and Pittock both state that to see these things through the narrow prism of clan feuds is over simplified and incorrect - if you like, 'the 'tourist' version of Scots history. Macdonalds fought on both sides; there were Camerons in government regiments at Falkirk. It isn't simple and to claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

Relevance; I’m not an expert on Scottish clans but I’ll take your word for the existence of a Munro-Cameron feud. What isn’t clear is its relevance to this article. Hard to explain why Munro's death deserves a six line paragraph, when the collapse of Hawley's army only gets three. Its not even mentioned in most of the sources (including the official Historic Scotland).

I've made considerable efforts in the last two years to accommodate your specific area of interest, even when I disagree and engage you in a collaborative effort. Once again, wasted effort.

My first instinct was to remove the stuff about Munro but I recognise your focus on it; what I've done is shorten it, using the same source you provided (which I think is pants but there you go) and included Harry's letter in a footnote. I also added a picture of Munro and corrected the link to Falkirk Churchyard, which doesn't exist. Where do you think I'm being unreasonable?

My objective is to rescue Scottish history from the Bonnie Prince Charlie, gallant Highlanders, tartan and shortbread bs. Its far more interesting than that and many of the issues are relevant today eg why so much of Scotland is owned by so few.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Updating the Citation Required templates is not something I have ever taken issue with previously.

2. My intention is only to use a single source to describe the death of Sir Robert Munro and nothing else. If there are other sources available which describe this incident in the same level of detail then of course they can be used too.

3. As for the Victorian era source, it does actually cite a contemporary source itself.

4. Killiecrankie is not the article we are discussing here.

5. A six line paragraph is not exactly a large amount of information to be included in one article.

QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of information that I find interesting or colourful - Johnstone's story about stumbling around the battlefield in the night for example - but which I probably wouldn't add because it tells people nothing about why the battle happened the way it did. I like illuminating details as much as the next editor, but what does this particular detail illuminate? If it's some aspect of the relationship between the Munros and Camerons isn't its best place in their articles? For me the central issue with Falkirk is that the Jacobites were faced with a golden opportunity to completely destroy substantially the same army that later beat them at Culloden, yet didn't take it.

I think there's also the question of what is best filed under 'historiography' and what isn't. There's a lot of information on the 45 which can be traced to Victorian history, which had its own political agenda, as well as that traceable to oral tradition. The latter has its place but is often an attempt to translate a larger conflict into 'local' terms (look at Montrose's campaign for a good example) and should be framed appropriately. I'm sure a few of those standing in the Jacobite lines were conscious that the Munros, or the Campbells, were with the government but how do we separate them from the men who were just dragged out of bed by the agent or tacksman of their landlord? ("Mac-'ic-Raonuill needs your services, need I remind you Argyll is with the other side, by the way that's a nice roof you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it")

I hope I'm not coming across the wrong way, but think Robin has dealt with this pretty fairly as he's retained the information in a footnote, plus it's there in Munro's own article. It's good to question the historiography and I think it's led to some real improvements in the articles on the Rising - I'm sure everyone can work together to achieve this. A lot of people who won't want to shell out 20-30 quid for Duffy or Pittock's latest will be Googling for this stuff, after all. Svejk74 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits re Commanders

Re recent discussions, let me explain my position;

(a) Flag icons; I have no particular animus either way but a number of editors feel strongly they should not be included and if you look at Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict Infoboxes, they are probably correct.

(b) Commanders; please take a look at the Jacobite Army (1745), which is primarily the work of Svejk74. This sets out its organisation; Drummond (a regular French Army officer) and Murray each commanded an infantry division. O'Sullivan was chief of staff. Viscount Strahallan commanded the cavalry (such as it was). Lochiel was a regimental commander; certainly one of the largest units but not a senior commander and the MacDonalds had their own colonels (see article above for detailed breakdown). He isn't mentioned in accounts of this battle (and its not even clear he was at Falkirk, although (some) of the Camerons were).

(c) Why this matters; a few months ago, an editor who is a big fan of James Wolfe decided to insert him as a commander on the government side, even though he was only a major at the time. Prior to that, it was the Munros. Prior to that etc...This comes up on a regular basis and is why we need to be consistent.

I hope this makes sense, please feel free to comment. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above: I'm not really a fan of the "flag salad" approach (as another editor called it) particularly when a lot of the flags are historically dubious.

From a conventional military perspective, the Jacobites were surprisingly well organised with a definite command structure, thanks to O'Sullivan and his French colleagues. Lochiel was in some ways significant to the campaign overall as an influential figure on the "Council of War" and the senior West Highland landowner involved, but as pointed out above, he was only a regimental commander and therefore had limited authority on the battlefield; popular histories have probably overstated his importance because of this). If you look at the records - such as they are - of the major decisions around deployment, movement etc at Stirling, Falkirk, Culloden, then the key figures always seem to be Murray and Drummond (the 'divisional' commanders) and O'Sullivan as QMG, the latter backed up by his professional colleagues such as Walter Stapleton (who was called in to assess Murray's alternative choice of field prior to Culloden). This is entirely in line with what we know of the Jacobite command structure. So no, I don't think we need to have Lochiel, unless we also have Elcho, Lewis Gordon (who somehow managed to lose his regiment at Falkirk), Keppoch and every other colonel involved. Svejk74 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Lochiel was only a regimental commander, but he was certainly present at the battle of Falkirk Moor, as some users seem unsure of. The only reason I and others think to include him is not because of his rank or responsibilities, but for his significance in the war council and during each battle. I’d argue more so than the newly arrived John Drummond (despite him bringing much needed equipment and funds) or regimental commanders such as Keppoch and Ewan MacPherson. John Stewart of Ardvolich confirms in his work, A History of Clan Cameron (pages 305-307) that Lochiel was present. But as I say it’s debatable whether he could be thought of as more than a regimental commander. Empolo (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're more or less aligned but for the sake of completeness....

Lochiel's commitment was crucial to getting the Rebellion off the ground, a point covered in the article on the 1745 Rising; however, that's not the same as military status.

All the Highland chiefs were included on the Prince's Council, a body of around 20-25 men set up to stop Charles making decisions on his own, deeply resented as a result and which only met once or twice after Derby. So again Lochiel's membership is not really an indication of military significance.

Thanks for the discussion, let me know if I've missed anything. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The account making the edits seems to have now been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously-banned, Lochiel-obsessed user, so business as usual I guess.Svejk74 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)