Jacobites vs Hanoverians

[luzula]

So when I first read Flight of the Heron I didn't understand or care much of what the war of the '45 was actually about. I was just there for the slash. : ) Here's the progression of my feelings on that war so far, as I read more about it...

Reaction #1: What do I really care who's on the British throne in the 18th century? Kings, bah.

Reaction #2: Oh, okay, so the Jacobites believe in the divine right of the Stuart kings? And the Hanoverians at least also have a parliament as well as a king, even if it undoubtedly only gives influence to rich people...so they're at least marginally more democratic? I guess I should be on the side of the latter, then, if I have to take sides.

Reaction #3: So this is how the two sides acted:
Jacobite leadership: When we win a battle, let's make sure the wounded prisoners get medical treatment, and we'll release the captured officers on parole. When we move through enemy country, let's not kill and rape civilians and not burn their houses. Though we will take food (don't know if they paid for it) and also take over the taxation system, because obviously we consider ourselves the rightful recipients of it.

Hanoverian leadership: When we win a battle, let's send out death squads to kill the wounded from the other army, and we'll deny medical treatment to those we don't kill! Also, let's encourage our captured officers to break their paroles. When we move through enemy country, let's order our soldiers to kill civilians and burn their houses (no info on raping). Also, let's try to destroy the culture of an area by transporting them into slavery on the second offense if they wear their traditional clothes.

There's a reason the sides acted that way, of course--the Jacobites wanted to be seen as legitimate combatants who followed all the civilized rules of war. While the Hanoverians wanted to see the Jacobites as illegitimate rebels who didn't deserve the consideration of being treated by the rules of war.

So yeah, that does affect my view of them, and on an emotional level this means I can't help sympathizing with the Jacobites despite their political principles. This is of course also affected by shallow motives. (Kilts and plaids are hot, okay? Yes, yes, I know, there were also Highlanders fighting for the Hanoverians, but still). And I know it's always easier to sympathize with the underdogs--we don't know what would have happened had they actually won (which doesn't seem completely impossible, had they pushed on to London instead of turning back at Derby). And then they would have been the ones having to squash dissent...

Comments

[ride_4ever]

Here, have some fanart of Fraser and Kowalski in kilts:

On AO3: "Kilts Are Kinda Punky" by mific

[luzula]

Polish tartan, huh, didn't know that was a thing...

[ride_4ever]

There are entire books written about the connection between Scotland and Poland. Example: Scotland and Poland: Historical Encounters 1500 - 2010 edited by Tom Devine and David Maria Hesse.

(And I get a fannish kick out of the fact that Tom Devine is the FRASER Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography at the University of Edinburgh.)

[regshoe]

1066 and All That memorably summarised the two sides in the Civil War (not the same as the Jacobites and Hanoverians of a century later, of course, but certainly their ideological ancestors) as 'Wrong but Wromantic' and 'Right but Repulsive' respectively, which seems to be about the size of it—both sides' politics are pretty awful, but it's certainly easier to support the romantic underdogs. That is interesting about the Jacobites making more of a point of acting honourably and mercifully in order to be seen as legitimate and civilised, however—and potentially pretty relevant to FotH, given the way Keith's expectations of how a 'barbarian' Highlander should act are upended by Ewen's actual behaviour.

So yeah, I agree that the Jacobites are more sympathetic, but that neither side is at all progressive by modern standards. Actually, the book I'm reading at the moment has just suggested that the lack of a significant radical movement amongst the lower orders of society in eighteenth-century Britain was what allowed the elites to get away with fighting amongst themselves so much, which they wouldn't have been able to do if they were also threatened from below—I thought that was an interesting point.

[luzula]

'Wrong but Wromantic' and 'Right but Repulsive', which seems to be about the size of it—both sides' politics are pretty awful, but it's certainly easier to support the romantic underdogs

Ha, that's a pretty great summary. The bit about the Jacobites making a point of being honorable is from The '45, which I started on but put off finishing.

Actually, the book I'm reading at the moment has just suggested that the lack of a significant radical movement amongst the lower orders of society in eighteenth-century Britain was what allowed the elites to get away with fighting amongst themselves so much, which they wouldn't have been able to do if they were also threatened from below—I thought that was an interesting point.

Oh, that's interesting! And changed in the 19th century, of course. What book is that?

[regshoe]

Oh, that's interesting! And changed in the 19th century, of course. What book is that?

Well, quite, once you've had the French Revolution... It's Eighteenth-Century Britain 1688-1783 by Jeremy Black—a very broad overview of the period, but with some fascinating details and a lot of useful background. (And the author has also written about the '45, so as I'm enjoying this one that'll be on my list next!)