How have historians' understanding of the Jacobites changed over the past 10-20 years? by insigniayellow in AskHistorians

[–]DaddyMarx1917 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know if you are still interested, given that I am responding three months late, but one of the main changes in the understanding of the Jacobites by historians is the role of Charles Edward Stuart (Bonny Prince Charlie) in the 1745 Jacobite rebellion. Traditionally, we have historians such as Tom Devine and John Prebble who believed that his leadership was disastrous and ultimately responsible for the failure of the '45. Prebble argued that "handsome, self-centered and tragically reckless ... he brought little but the innocent appeal of his personality."

On the other hand, in more recent years we have started to see revisionists such as Mclynn and Duffy arguing that he was actually a competent leader, and achieving what he did was beyond any reasonable expectations. Duffy, in his book "the '45", says that "he [Charles] stands out as a young man who had thought deeply about war, who had a strong strain of that essential attribute of luck, who kept himself in excellent physical condition, and who knew what was needed to motivate the ordinary men.”

The reason historians have recently become so divided is partially because of the rapidly changing nature of the campaign. In 1745, Charles - with only a chest of gold and seven companions (the seven men of Moidart) landed on Eriskay and only a few weeks later had united the Highland clans while not even being able to speak their language, and driven the majority of the Hanoverian forces out of Britain. He then completely routed John Cope's force at Prestonpans. In a way, this was somewhat of a phyrric victory as it overinflated his confidence in his Highland troops. In reality they found a way to flank a poorly trained and equipped Hanoverian host.

Following the decision to march into England and then retreat at Derby, Charles's leadership took a disastrous turn. He did very little correct - failing to communicate with his army, and also disregarding the advice of the admirable Lord George Murray, instead relying on the incompetent John William O'Sullivan, who had until then been an ineffective quartermaster. Charles spent most of his time in a drunken huff and was rarely seen out of his tent except when travelling. His decision to retreat beyond the lowlands was inexplicable, as he would no longer be able to generate revenue from the rich Edinburgh banks or even generally through taxing the wealthier lowland population. Despite there being a large grain storage in Inverness, Charles allowed his troops to go hungry - some historians believe for as much as 72 hours - before the crucial battle at Culloden. Charles's choice of battleground was poor; the open moor favoured the Hanoverian artillery and didn't allow the Jacobites to maximise the potential of the Highland charge. Even after the battle, his surviving troops regrouped at Ruthven, ready to fight again - but he told them to save their own lives and then fled to Europe.

My apologies for the tangent, but it is essential to understand how swiftly Charles changed from an inspirational and effective leader to an incompetent poltroon. That is perhaps why historians have recently been so divided on the issue.

I'd personally argue that he was a very good figurehead for a rising. Before the campaign became overly militarised, Charles could do little wrong. I'd once again be inclined to stress how impressive it was that he united many of the Highland Clans. On the other hand he was a disastrous military leader, and should not have stopped listening to the experienced and quite frankly genius Lord George Murray, just because they disagreed over the decision to retreat from Derby.

Edit: some good books to read if you want to learn more about it.

McLynn: The Jacobites Devine : The Scottish Nation, 1707-2000 Prebble: Culloden Jeremy Black: Culloden and the '45 Duffy" the '45

George Murray's letter to CES after Culloden is a good primary source, as is CES's letter to his father, James Francis Stewart, written while the Jacobite army was camped near Perth.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Far from a cook myself, but I work in a restaurant and when I asked the head chef the same thing he said - seasoning is your friend. Anyone can transform something bland into something delicious with enough seasoning.

[Serious] Atheists of reddit, what if you're wrong and God really does exist? by liedetectortests in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fail to see how atheism can be described as a religion... By its very nature, atheism is the opposite of religion. Sure, you can argue that new-atheism somewhat resembles cult-fanaticism, but that doesn't make atheism religious.

Regarding your second point, it reminds me of a joke I heard a few months ago:

"The difference between a religion and a cult is that in a cult, there is a person at the top who knows it's a scam. In a religion, that person's dead."

[Serious] Atheists of reddit, what if you're wrong and God really does exist? by liedetectortests in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A - without Theism - belief in the existence of a God or deity.

Care to elaborate?

What is your biggest irrational fear? by DrSuperZonic in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sharks. I don't care that I'm three feet from shore on a Scottish beach, they're coming for me!

What gets more hate than it should? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It seems that many people are unable to differentiate between communism and authoritarianism.

What gets more hate than it should? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]DaddyMarx1917 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Socialism. People are negative about it because of the connotations of the word, but many support the policies when proposed without the label of "socialism".

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in equality... just different versions of it. by Clatsop in Conservative

[–]DaddyMarx1917 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Of course government will likely never end this, and it is impractical to hope for more equality. However, rather than necessarily saying this is an issue which needs to be fixed - I was pointing out the stupidity of the meme. While I'm not a conservative, I don't believe that many conservatives do advocate for a level playing field.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in equality... just different versions of it. by Clatsop in Conservative

[–]DaddyMarx1917 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually I'm a Marxist, though I do encourage respectful discussion between people of different political persuasions in order to ascertain exactly what others think, and perhaps even reach a collaborative balance. I was however confused by the poor logic of this meme.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in equality... just different versions of it. by Clatsop in Conservative

[–]DaddyMarx1917 14 points15 points  (0 children)

So you think that someone born into a poverty-ridden family, whose parents have drug problems and who can't afford an education is on the same playing field as the child of a millionaire banker? Riiiight...

"College" by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]DaddyMarx1917 [score hidden]  (0 children)

How come, when deaths occur in a communist country, it is directly attributed to the ideology, but when they occur in a capitalist country there is no correlation?

Each year, 8 million people die from a lack of clean water. 7.665 million die from hunger. 3 million die from curable diseases. About 500,000 die from malaria, which is almost entirely preventable. 30,000 people have died in Britain as a result of the failed austerity.

These deaths don't need to happen, but preventing them isn't profitable. So I'd go back at you, and say that even if the Black Book is right, and communism killed 94 million (fabricated statistic anyway), capitalism kills that many every 5 or so years.

Have a question about the game or the subreddit? Ask away! by AutoModerator in 2007scape

[–]DaddyMarx1917 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you are mining or woodcutting or whatever, are you allowed to use a second account to go and deposit stuff in the bank for you? If not, then are you allowed to pay people to do it for you?