The Loose Association of Wargamers

Shahbahraz wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:25 pm A lot of deaths in a cause that never had enough active support, however many toasted over the water or drank to a mole.

I believe the Scots Guards got their knuckles rapped during Queen Victoria's reign for drinking that toast.

In 1998, I was holidaying in Ireland with the Baroness, and came across something that only an Irishman could have written. We went to the 1798 Bicentennial Exhibition at Collins Barracks in Dublin, and found a surprisingly even-handed account of the rebellion, acknowledging that the Crown (the opposition was referred to as the "popular" side) had a fair bit of support, including the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and large numbers of Catholics who had repossesed their lands following the repeal of the land-related parts of the Penal Laws in 1778. However, the final card in the sequence of relic cabinets gave the game away - it read: "In the end, the Popular side lost due to lack of support."

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:36 pm

Buff Redux wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:01 pm I don't think that he has that bad. He invaded England, got as far as Derby, where he realised that things were actually worse than in Scotland so he went home.

Stopped by a toll bridge, so the story goes.....

"We're not accepting that Scottish monopoly money here".

Shahbahraz wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:25 pm

Buff Redux wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 1:01 pm I don't think that he has that bad. He invaded England, got as far as Derby, where he realised that things were actually worse than in Scotland so he went home.

Weak, entitled and indecisive. Militarily, you would say he had very little chance anyway, but vacillating between French, Irish and Scottish military advisers was never going to end well.

He had a very good chance, but the spies in his camp "advised" him against a rapid advance from Derby and made him think that the Government Army was closer than they were.
King George had already packed his bags and had his family in a coach ready to flee and it was very possible that a battle in the likely place, to the north of London, against local forces would have seen a Jacobite victory.
However that was where the problems would have started.
It's unlikely he'd have had sufficient support in London, when he entered, and unless the French arrived quickly with support (Not going to happen) then the Jacobites would have found themselves "fixed" in London and facing a vastly superior Government army when it arrived.

I played through the '45 many times in 10mm over a decade or so using Christopher Duffy's books as the main reference, but also a few others including some near contemporary sources. 9/10 times the Jacobites captured London then got their posteriors royally kicked all over the place

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:45 pm

Shahbahraz wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 2:25 pm A lot of deaths in a cause that never had enough active support, however many toasted over the water or drank to a mole.

I believe the Scots Guards got their knuckles rapped during Queen Victoria's reign for drinking that toast.

In 1998, I was holidaying in Ireland with the Baroness, and came across something that only an Irishman could have written. We went to the 1798 Bicentennial Exhibition at Collins Barracks in Dublin, and found a surprisingly even-handed account of the rebellion, acknowledging that the Crown (the opposition was referred to as the "popular" side) had a fair bit of support, including the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and large numbers of Catholics who had repossesed their lands following the repeal of the land-related parts of the Penal Laws in 1778. However, the final card in the sequence of relic cabinets gave the game away - it read: "In the end, the Popular side lost due to lack of support."

Something I've found curious about the Irish Rebellions is that the Welsh regiments (particularly the Pembrokeshire Fencibles and 'Ancient British' Fencibles) had an especially bad reputation for brutality and were absolutely hated by the locals. Yet when they went up to Scotland and especially Cumbria, the locals absolutely loved them and instances of civil disorder dropped to zero when they were garrisoned there, with thousands turning out to wave farewell when they marched out.

That is... odd, as in the days of linear battles it was considered a bad idea to camp or stand scots and welsh regiments next to each other.

RMD wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:17 pm Something I've found curious about the Irish Rebellions is that the Welsh regiments (particularly the Pembrokeshire Fencibles and 'Ancient British' Fencibles) had an especially bad reputation for brutality and were absolutely hated by the locals. Yet when they went up to Scotland and especially Cumbria, the locals absolutely loved them and instances of civil disorder dropped to zero when they were garrisoned there, with thousands turning out to wave farewell when they marched out.

Yes, that always puzzled me as well, given that both regiments were - like many of the native Irish - not English-speaking for the most part. As I understand it, their misbehaviour began just prior to the Rebellion, so cannot be attributed to reprisals for the killing of prisoners by the Rebels. Pakenham in Year of Liberty makes the point that later arrivals of Regular troops were welcomed as the latter would escort surrendered Rebels home in order to protect them from being attacked by Loyalists and by Fencible units such as the Ancient Britons.

I wonder if it was a religious thing, rather than a "national" one, since both the Welsh and the Lowland Scots would have disliked Catholics?

Paul wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:11 pm It's unlikely he'd have had sufficient support in London, when he entered, and unless the French arrived quickly with support (Not going to happen) then the Jacobites would have found themselves "fixed" in London and facing a vastly superior Government army when it arrived.

I think BPC never factored in the public view that he was coming to take the British throne, not just the Scottish one. After 30 years of relatively successful Hanoverian rule, few people in England were prepared to countenance a French puppet (whether real or merely perceived) on the throne. Clearing Government troops from Scotland was about as good as it was ever going to get for him.

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:26 pm I wonder if it was a religious thing, rather than a "national" one, since both the Welsh and the Lowland Scots would have disliked Catholics?

Yes, that's my theory. Wales was in the throes of a huge wave of non-conformism at the time, which ironically was causing civil disorder and low-level insurrection... But bastards as the English were, at least they weren't Catholics... I think that also played a very large part in the quite astonishing reaction to the French landing of 1797.

Cumbria is an interesting one. There was a lot of civil disorder there during the time, yet it was a VERY popular posting for the Welsh Militia and Fencible regiments, as there were still the last vestiges of Welsh language and culture clinging on in that corner of England. Essentially hold-overs from the Romano-British 'Welsh' that are now long-gone.

Also helps cumbria, like the scottish borders, tends to have its own ways rather than doing as they are told.

Old lakelanders are still not English in that sense.

RMD wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 7:25 pm
But bastards as the English were, at least they weren't Catholics... I think that also played a very large part in the quite astonishing reaction to the French landing of 1797.

I work with a fella from Fishguard...I love that story!!! The French just stopped to get pissed didn't they? And then got chased off by some local fierce looking women?? Brilliant!!