Jacobite Victory at Culloden

While Culloden was a decisive defeat in OTL, I feel like there were many ways the Jacobites could've won near that battlefield. Suppose the planned night attack during Cumberland's birthday succeeded, or George Murray was allowed to lead the army without royal meddling. Anyway, the Jacobites not only defeat but shatter Cumberland's army to the degree they were shattered in OTL. How does the future unfold?
 
Pretty much as OTL. There'll be another battle after Culloden, once the Jacobites turned back north the cause was lost.

George II just has to win one battle. The pretender gas to win every battle and keep on winning.And George can replace a shattered army, Charles cannot.
 
That does make a good deal of sense. But wouldn't a major victory change things quite a bit for Charles? A few more clans submit, he has time to organize in Scotland, his army has a period to rest and recover.

And, there's still the possibility of major French support coming into play, as the French court sees that Charles may be there to stay.
 
No. A victory in England might be another matter. But not in Scotland.

The clan support was eroding away, not increasing. Charles already had all the Jacobite clansmen . A victory might bring in a few stragglers, but probably no more than would recruit his losses.And Louis isn't going to regard a Scottish victory as anything more than a (welcome) distraction.

What sort of a victory in Scotland could turn George off the throne? And long term if it comes to a Scotland versus England contest, the population and economic disparity is far too great.

A (major) Jacobite victory in southern England might make Louis think dynasty change was a possibility worth throwing resource at. Not so one in Scotland.
 
What forces would George have ready in England if Cumberland was broken? Could a new invasion of England occur if there were few organized English forces in place? Of course, it would not be immediate, and possibly just into Northumbria
 
As mentioned before Charles has got to keep marching on London and hope that George actually does pack his bags and run to Hanover. Now whether Parliament would accept him especially if the English Army is still in the field is another matter entirely. I wonder if you could have the two kingdoms again with Charles reinstating his father as James VIII in Scotland and England either having George back or having somebody else on the throne (Cumberland?)
 
What forces would George have ready in England if Cumberland was broken? Could a new invasion of England occur if there were few organized English forces in place? Of course, it would not be immediate, and possibly just into Northumbria

Prince Frederick of Hesse, with 5000 regulars, was guarding the southern Scottish passes, and took no part in Culloden. So that's another army nearly as large as Charles's total force. London had 6000 regulars guarding it. That's without considering the Brigade if Guards, or militia forces. Or the navy. Or the difference in artillery. The total Jacobite army was maybe 7000.

And if it came to it, George could recall units from the continent and totally overwhelm the Jacobites. Which, of course, was what Louis was hoping for.

So, the answers to your questions, lots, and no.

As to George II, he might be called many things, but coward was certainly not one of them. If Charles had marched south George would certainly have turned out at the head of his army. As he did at Dettingen.
 
I've heard that Charles's main problem was that the amount of supporters he hoped to rally just weren't there.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I've heard that Charles's main problem was that the amount of supporters he hoped to rally just weren't there.

Quite true. The Jacobite Rebellion was as much as Scottish civil war as a conflict between the Scots and the English. Probably as many Scots fought against Bonnie Prince Charlie as for him.

Moreover, there was the question of money. The Jacobites were having trouble paying their troops and keeping them properly supplied. It's quite possible that the Jacobite force might have fallen apart even if they had won at Culloden.
 
Quite true. The Jacobite Rebellion was as much as Scottish civil war as a conflict between the Scots and the English. Probably as many Scots fought against Bonnie Prince Charlie as for him.

In that case even a few won battles wouldn't win the war. I suppose winning Culloden could energize Scots who had Jacobite leanings but were wisely more interested in keeping their heads, but even that relies on there being a much more significant proportion of Jacobite-leaning Scots. If that support just doesn't exist, Charlie is doomed to fail pretty much no matter what. And optimistic scenarios aren't even getting to the odds of invading England and successfully taking London.
 
One point of interest from a Culloden victory - whats the impact on the future General Wolfe who fought there. Is he killed, injured or perhaps captured? This will have implications even though Charlie is still ultimately defeated.
 
In my opinion the problem with the Jacobites lay in the time that the '45 happened. The Catholic Stuarts had been exiled for nearly 50 years by this point, most of their main supporters are either dead or in exile and are unlikely to risk their heads on a dying cause. Sure there was English Jacobites but none of them wanted to rise until they were sure that the Jacobite cause would either win or had a high chance of victory. Charles Edward Stuart himself was highly personable and able to rally people to his side by personality alone, even when he had no French army when he landed in Scotland. I think the best thing would have been for his father, James Francis Edward, to have had a personality like his sons. A charming leading personality, combined with the '15 rising, could have resulted in the Stuats being restored or at least taking Scotland. Sadly however, James was a very depressing man, who was, like his father, unable to really inspire loyalty or hope.

I will say however, that I read in a bio of Bonnie Prince Charlie that his invasion of England sent shockwaves through the financial system in London and could have destabilized the entire financial nation IT also suggested that if Charles had pushed on to London many of the merchants and financiers might have made a deal with the Jacobites to save their financial future in exchange for supporting them (the Jacobites). I'll have to re-read that chapter but it seems to me that the '45 could have been more successful then we think.
 
Top