Not entirely Great War, but the trailers I saw on BBC News 24 this morning looked promising (had GW footage of the London Jocks, so it got my vote).

BBC Link

And I like Rory Bremner (who's presenting it), so I'm in negotiation with the family.

You can watch the Breakfast interview here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/8238147.stm

ITV also have a similar series coming up, also featuring Loos.

Thank you for the info, Steven. It promises to be a watchable hour. Good chap, that Bremner. I agree.

Phil.

I watched the clip of the breakfast TV interview and whilst I really like Rory Bremner, I felt he fell into the old Culloden trap. He seemed to imply that after defeat at Culloden the Scots joined the British army and served all over the world. This is a distortion of history. Yes it is true of many highlanders, but the "Scots" were not defeated at Culloden. The Jacobite forces, which were mainly highlanders were defeated. Huge numbers of Scots irepresenting the Government including the Royal Scots fought against them . The earlier occupation of Edinburgh could not be stopped even though the city was pro government. As a Scot I can try blame the English for many things, but not the 1745 Rebellion. This was a civil war and the "Scots" were on both sides.
Glen

It was OK. Nothing special, but nothing too awful, either.

Though I must confess I did a double take at the description of the 93rd's feather bonnets as 'Bearskins' ...

I quite enjoyed the programme, and only two things jarred it for me. Firstly, Rory Bremner tried on a few occasions to play, rather hesitantly, "the unemployment/poverty link to recruitment" card, but was rightly ignored on this particular point - perhaps a "trendy" director's failed attempts to make a modern political point? And, secondly, one expert speaking to Bremner stated that until the Highland regiments were raised and incorporated into the British Army several years after Culloden, that the British Army never enjoyed success only defeat on the battlefield when facing the French. I concluded it must be an editing error - unless, of course, this particular expert has never heard of Marlborough, and one or two other campaigns conducted in the forty-odd years between the signing of the Act of Union and the highlanders joining in the fun.


Cheers-salesie.

Salesie,
I've yet to watch the programme but will do.
However I did see the promotion on Breakfast Time.
Bremner was a Dud Corner Cemetery and when referring to the screen walls he referred to the Names being dead and wounded.
During the Breakfast Time interview he did refer to the Lowland Scots in passing but it did appear the main thrust of the programme would be directed to the Highland Regiments,in so doing I gained the impression Pontius Pilates Bodyguard would be overlooked.
George

Spot on Salesie and George
Glen

But bear in mind it was not just the Royal Scots that fought on the Government side.

Glen,
Luckily the Royal Scots do not claim Culloden as a Battle Honour.
In that period they do,however,claim Namur,Blenheim, Ramillies,Oudenarde,Malplaquet,Louisburg,(Continent or the New World?) then to Havana.
George

My understanding is that there were five Scottish regiments in the government ranks at Culloden, Glen? Is this so, and would this have put Scots in the majority within that particular British force?


Cheers-salesie.

Salesie

“At the time of the Battle of Culloden The Royal Scots were known as "St Clair's", after their Colonel, as was standard at the time.

The Royal Regiment is the1st Regiment of Foot, the senior regiment of infantry in the British Army, and as such, their traditional place in battle is

at the Right of the Line (the "Line" being the Infantry of the Line). This was their position on 16th April 1746.

An irony was that The Royal Scots during the closing stages of the battle engaged their French sister regiment, the Royal Ecossais, who as a
regular unit, loaned by France, were not subjected to the brutality meeted out to the Scots and English Jacobites.” The British Army under Cumberland, assembled and trained at Aberdeen, was well supplied. It included:

• Twelve battalions of foot, three regiments of horse and a company of artillery. They were largely English, but possibly also included German Hanoverians.
• Three battalions of Lowland Scots foot soldiers; one battalion and a militia had been largely raised from Clan Campbell Highlanders.
• A professional battalion of Highland Scots from the Clan Munro who had been fighting for the British in France. As well as other various other Scottish clans both Highlanders and Lowlanders.

Regards Glen

Thanks for that, Glen.

Though not a majority of the government's ranks, it seems that Scots formed a sizeable minority that included Highland as well as Lowland regiments. What with this and some English troops fighting on the Jacobite side, it seems your earlier assertion that this was a civil war is pretty much spot-on. So where did this programme's makers get the idea that there were no Highland regiments in the British Army until several years after Culloden - from the Mel Gibson school of history?

That said, there can be no doubt that Scottish Regiments have played an important role in British military history; that they have indeed punched above their weight on many occasions - and this programme, despite its errors, is to be congratulated for at least getting that right.


Cheers-salesie.

AAAHHHH! There's that man's *&^^%$ name again. Need a lie down.
Aye
Malcolm

From The Royal Scots(A Concise History) by Trevor Royle.
"Amongst the regiments mobilised was 2nd Royal Scots,which crossed over to Scotland in September(1745) to join an army which would eventually number 15 battalions of infantry(including the 21st,later The Royal Scots Fusiliers and the 25th,later the Kings Own Scottish Borders),the irregular Argyll Militia,4 units of 800 mounted soldiers and a small but effective force of artillery.
In keeping with their position,the Royals took the right of the front line with Cholmondeley's(34th,later The Border Regiment) to their left and they received the brunt of the charge made by the Clan Chattan,later a subsequent charge made by the Clan Macdonald.
In the aftermath of the battle the regiment took part in the mopping up operations including the summary execution of 31 Highland officers found sheltering in the grounds of Culloden House and the sacking of the Lovat stronghold at Beauly.
The battle also underlined the dreadful anomalies caused by civil war.Lord George Murray,Bonnie Prince Charlie's most trusted field commander had once held a commission in the Royals.During the charge of the Can Chattan,the Chisholms of Strathglass were led into battle by their chief's youngest son Roderick Og Chisholm.Facing him in the ranks of the Royals were two of his brother's,James and John Chisholm.
The battle was never recognised as a battle honour by the British Army."
George

Made me laugh in particular, because the film this was voiced over on (I think) two occasions showed the London Jocks, who certainly weren't joining up because of poverty or unemployment

The 1964 documentary Culloden, which was shown later in the evening on the same channel, made it clear that Lowland Scots, and some Highlanders, fought for the government at Culloden, and also played a significant role in the post battle atrocities. Culloden isn't a Battle Honour for the British Army but no battle honours have ever been awarded for actions in civil wars and, even for fighting abroad, honours were awarded more sparsely in that period than later. Battles Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies by Anthony Baker does, however, give those regiments which would have won the Honour had it been awarded. These comprise 3 cavalry and 15 infantry regiments, including the 1st Foot (Royal Scots), 21st Foot (Royal Scots Fusiliers) and 25th (King's Own Scottish Borderers). The Culloden TV documentary said that the Edinburgh, Stirling, Glasgow and Dumfries militias were also in Cumberland's army

Bremner claimed that the British army started recruiting Highlanders 10 years after Culloden but the Black Watch was formed in 1739 out of independent companies that had been raised in 1725. It wasn't at Culloden, however.

Just an aside, chaps...can anybody confirm when the last time was when a 'civil war' in the UK was actually limited to one of the individual countries that now make up the greater body? Take the 'English Civil War', for example; it's my understanding that this ultimately dynastic, religious and politically-based struggle, which involved a King of England with a distinct Scottish ancestry, ultimately resulted in fighting in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland

Just a guess.
War of the Roses?
Glen

Even the War of the Roses involved Wales i.e. Henry VII landed in Pembrokeshire and marched across Wales, gathering support, on his way to defeat Richard III at Bosworth field - and there was the siege of Harlech castle earlier in the wars (and probably more such incidents?).

Best be careful here - best get on to a more WW1 theme before the "Redcaps" intervene. A fascinating thread all the same though.


Cheers-salesie.