Culloden battle finds could be unearthed by school build

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60200297

not our period but potentially very interesting....

[DougM]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60200297

not our period but potentially very interesting....

I do love how the narrative is formed, equally they could have been: "loyalist forces of deposed king brutally massacred by usurpers bloody coated henchmen." Truly, history is written by the victors.

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60200297

not our period but potentially very interesting....

I do love how the narrative is formed, equally they could have been: "loyalist forces of deposed king brutally massacred by usurpers bloody coated henchmen." Truly, history is written by the victors.

always 2 sides to the story Doug for certain

[Nick Harbud]

Truly, history is written by the victors.

I disagree.  For nearly all of our period, history was written exclusively by the literate. 

Hence, for all those wars in Gaul, Germania, North Africa, etc, we only have accounts from those who could write latin.  For example, I am unaware of any accounts of Hannibal's campaigns written in his native tongue, but I am sure that if any are discovered, they would contain some quite different views on the characters of generals, imbecility of the other side's tactics, conduct of the troops, etc, etc.

[Mick Hession]

Truly, history is written by the victors.

I disagree.  For nearly all of our period, history was written exclusively by the literate. 

True, which is why wargames archetypes tend to be derived from a Graeco-Roman perspective.

But for the medieval period (at least in Western Europe and the Near East) both sides were literate (as indeed were both sides at Culloden). Nevertheless I'm not sure I agree with Doug in all respects - it's not who writes the history that's important, it's who decides which history books get taught.

[RichT]

This particular story seems as factual and impartial, as to the events of the '45, as it could possibly be.

In our period, there is a bit of a tendency for history to have been written by those on the losing side who sympathised with the victors (Polybius, Josephus, I expect there are others I can't be bothered to think of). Even Thucydides - there's no Spartan history of the Peloponnesian War - or Xenophon - a Spartan sympathiser, but what did the Boeotians think? And the 10,000 lost by any normal reckoning (but writers of history can turn defeats into heroic failures).

[Jim Webster]

Truly, history is written by the victors.

I disagree.  For nearly all of our period, history was written exclusively by the literate. 

True, which is why wargames archetypes tend to be derived from a Graeco-Roman perspective.

But for the medieval period (at least in Western Europe and the Near East) both sides were literate (as indeed were both sides at Culloden). Nevertheless I'm not sure I agree with Doug in all respects - it's not who writes the history that's important, it's who decides which history books get taught.

Also the view of history changes. For example the '45' could be seen, by a Lowland Scot, as just a continuation of the threat to Protestantism posed by 'Papist Highlanders', a threat which started with James Graham Ist Marquess of Montrose, rightly executed on the orders of the Scottish Parliament in 1650, less than a century before.

Even in the '45 Glasgow never supported the Jacobite cause and Clan Campbell and their men of the Argyll Militia were dead set against the Stuart Restoration

It's actually an interesting example of how nations can build a picture of their past which whilst not necessary false, misses out stuff or draws a veil over stuff.
Now if we can see how this has happened with England and Scotland in a couple of centuries, where the evidence is still there to show how flawed the legends are, imagine what a nightmare the history of Ancient Rome must be to unpick when we've lost the other sources.
The Peloponnesian War has been mentioned. But what about the Emperor Julian, accounts coloured by the beliefs of the writers, Pagan of Christian, or Constantine?

[Nick Harbud]

...and this is even without considering damnatio memoriae or similar exercises in deleting politically incorrect bits of history - a sort of ancient version of cancel culture.

[Imperial Dave]

its not as if anything like that goes on Nick 

[DBS]

For example, I am unaware of any accounts of Hannibal's campaigns written in his native tongue, but I am sure that if any are discovered, they would contain some quite different views on the characters of generals, imbecility of the other side's tactics, conduct of the troops, etc, etc.

Closest was probably Sosylus - Greek, but since he was part of Hannibal's entourage, presumably pro-Carthaginian.

[DougM]

Truly, history is written by the victors.

I disagree.  For nearly all of our period, history was written exclusively by the literate. 

True, which is why wargames archetypes tend to be derived from a Graeco-Roman perspective.

But for the medieval period (at least in Western Europe and the Near East) both sides were literate (as indeed were both sides at Culloden). Nevertheless I'm not sure I agree with Doug in all respects - it's not who writes the history that's important, it's who decides which history books get taught.

Also the view of history changes. For example the '45' could be seen, by a Lowland Scot, as just a continuation of the threat to Protestantism posed by 'Papist Highlanders', a threat which started with James Graham Ist Marquess of Montrose, rightly executed on the orders of the Scottish Parliament in 1650, less than a century before.

Even in the '45 Glasgow never supported the Jacobite cause and Clan Campbell and their men of the Argyll Militia were dead set against the Stuart Restoration

It's actually an interesting example of how nations can build a picture of their past which whilst not necessary false, misses out stuff or draws a veil over stuff.
Now if we can see how this has happened with England and Scotland in a couple of centuries, where the evidence is still there to show how flawed the legends are, imagine what a nightmare the history of Ancient Rome must be to unpick when we've lost the other sources.
The Peloponnesian War has been mentioned. But what about the Emperor Julian, accounts coloured by the beliefs of the writers, Pagan of Christian, or Constantine?

I don't think there would be many people in Scotland unaware that the various Jacobite wars were not  simple national conflicts between countries. 

[RichT]

Anyway, Jacobites aside, the interesting angle of this story is perhaps, in light of what we've been saying about HS2, that it's "Culloden battle finds could be unearthed by school build" rather than "Part of historic battlefield to be destroyed by developers". Heritage destruction as a positive good, since it triggers rescue archaeology. History is written by the developers...

[Imperial Dave]

History is written by the developers...

or at least funded by them....

[Mark G]

Less a case of history being written by the victors, than history being bitched about by the victims.

But I'm sure the BBC will be pleased to hear a small news item described as history

[DougM]

Less a case of history being written by the victors, than history being bitched about by the victims.

If that's a reference to Culloden, I find that incredibly offensive. My own (unverified) family history includes two supposedly killed after the battle.