Historical trivia
Jun. 12th, 2020 05:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, something that's puzzled me for a while about the opening of Flight of the Heron: there were, historically, two companies of the Royal Scots ambushed at High Bridge and taken captive by the MacDonells, and (if my knowledge of army structure is correct) each company ought to have had a captain, but the history books I've read so far only ever mention one captain, Captain John Scott—who appears in FotH. There, of course, the other captain is Keith Windham, and I wondered whether the identity of the real second captain was lost to history and Broster simply slotted her character into the gap. But now I'm reading The Lyon in Mourning, a collection of letters, journals, speeches and eyewitness accounts relating to the 1745 rising put together by the Jacobite clergyman Robert Forbes, and it appears the name of the other captain is recorded: he was a Captain James Thomson, and he was taken prisoner alongside Scott and the rest. He must have escaped at some point, because he turns up again later on, in charge of a party of Jacobite prisoners and attempting (unsuccessfully) to persuade his superiors to treat one of these prisoners more humanely:
I like to think Keith would have approved of his real-world counterpart. :D
...dreading the worst from this harsh usage he [Buchanan of Arnprior] sent for Captain Thomson, who very readily came to him, and after some conversation upon the unexpected change of treatment desir'd to know what he could do for him. Mr. Buchanan beg'd he would wait upon the commanding officer... Captain Thomson frankly undertook to do as he desir'd, and without loss of time, honestly represented the whole affair to the commanding officer, who said he was heartily sorry for the gentleman, but that it was not in his power to do him any service, because the Solicitor-General was come to Carlisle, and that (now he was in the place) his province it was to determine in these matters. Captain Thomson did not stop here, but like one of generosity and compassion, went directly to the Solicitor-General and laid before him the case of Mr. Buchanan, requesting him to consider it and to allow the gentleman a more easy and comfortable confinement.
I like to think Keith would have approved of his real-world counterpart. :D
no subject
Date: Jun. 12th, 2020 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Jun. 12th, 2020 05:25 pm (UTC)It was one of Broster's sources, because the epigraph to part 3 is quoted from it! I am enjoying trying to guess which pieces she used when putting the story together—the detail of Captain Scott's horse being given to the Prince turns up in the same section, and I think Keith remarks on it :D
no subject
Date: Jun. 12th, 2020 05:45 pm (UTC)Duh! You're right! Then that's probably how I found it in the first place? I searched for all of the epigraphs and quotations she used, and it all might have become a bit too overwhelming, haha ;) It really looks like an interesting but tough read, because of how the whole conflict affected real people. But it's definitely a good, important thing, to read people's experiences in their own words.
no subject
Date: Jun. 12th, 2020 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Jun. 14th, 2020 02:04 pm (UTC)Sweetenham was actually the one who, on his way back, warned Cope not to go over the Corryarrick, which pleases me, because it means that when Keith fails to escape at Fassefern in my current AU, the battle at the Corryarrick is not actually a separate AU branching point. : D (Although to be quite accurate, Cope was also warned by Duncan Forbes.)
I think Keith is an amalgam of Sweetenham and Thomson.
no subject
Date: Jun. 14th, 2020 04:47 pm (UTC)Sweetenham was actually the one who, on his way back, warned Cope not to go over the Corryarrick, which pleases me, because it means that when Keith fails to escape at Fassefern in my current AU, the battle at the Corryarrick is not actually a separate AU branching point. : D
How very neat :D