Talk:Massacre of Glencoe

message: Isn't the Aftermath section just POV, or at the very least unbecoming of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lianachan 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some clarification is needed as to why this particular massacre is so well remembered, improvements will be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these comments, the issue is discussed in the section in our article. However, it's lacking in citations providing the verification from reliable sources which our policy requires. If you can find any good published sources on it, that will be very much appreciated. Of course the massacre was also remembered because it became part of Jacobite propaganda, and subsequently was part of the romantic highland history that was very popular in the 19th century, it will also be useful to find improved sources covering these aspects, . dave souza, talk 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Regarding a question raised on my talk page, it seemed to me that his article should have a link to the Glencoe, Scotland article about the village and to the old village location, which was widely thought to be where the hospitality and the start of the subsequent Massacre took place. It seemed to me that readers might welcome an early link to maps of the area, so I've added both links to the intro. Any further clarifications will be appreciated. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glencoe village

message: In general, I believe this piece manages to trace a reasonable course through one of the more emotive minefields of Scottish history.  My editing is intended to clarify some facts and eliminate some misconceptions.
1.  The Jacobite clans were not threatened with 'death' if they failed take the oath of loyalty; nothing as specific as that.  They were told that they 'would answer at their highest peril.'  It is also perhaps worth mentioning-although this does not appear in this article-that MacIan, while late, did at least take the oath to King William.  Others, including the Macdonalds of Sleat and Glengarry, did not, at least not prior to the events of February 1692.  The Macdonalds of Glencoe were chosen for extraordinary action because they were vulnerable in a way that the Sleat and Glengarry men were not.
2. I've tried to weaken any causal link between Glenlyon's losses in 1690 and the Massacre.  As I highlight, he held the Glengarry men more culpable.
3. Breadalbane was not involved at any stage in the preparations for the Massacre.  I've already highlighted this, with more detailed reasoning, in the talk page attached to the article on John Campbell Earl of Breadalbane.
4. I've rearranged the section on the Argyll Regiment to make the facts a little clearer.  The way it was written suggests, amongst other things, that the Earl of Argyll was personally present, which, of course, he was not.  He was colonel-in-chief of the regiment; but this was purely an honorary appointment; he never took part in any of its field operations.  It is also important not to make too much of the regiment as a specifically Campbell formation.  This was a regular army regiment, not a Highland militia.
5.  I think the final section, headed 'Aftermath' could be better organized.  The fair and accurate point is made that the focus of historical discussion has been steered away from official policy to clan rivalry; but then it wanders off into the usual misty Campbell/Macdonald associations.  I've removed the original final paragraph because it loses all focus, and comes close to justifying the Massacre as just another episode in an ancient feud, which I feel sure was not the author's intention.  I think my own last paragraph is absolutely necessary to put the whole thing in true perspective.
Rcpaterson 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacres and Myths 

message: Some people are looking at the historical documents, i, Quaggga, am looking at the circumstances, Could it be or couldn't it be a simple clanfight in the perceptions of the rivalising parties, the macdonalds and the campbells, and indeed, it is not my goal to rewrite the glen coe massacre, it is a tragedy and we have to remember this for the sake of abuse of power. 
My contribution to this has been erased, and apparently there is just room for one kind of view. But call it stubborn or any name you want When we're looking at the circumstances, what do we see:
1. A massacre
2. A family who had a hard time in the past decades, 
3. Animosity with another clan 
I'm not defending the campbells, or support the macdonalds. And vica versa.
But the results of 1 to 3:
1. 40-70 persons are killed
2. the campbells, the chief of the clan had to flee to Holland, the first Marquis hanged, and his sons had to fear for their own lives
3. the macdonalds, since the 1600 a major obstacle for good relationships.
and now with the blessing of the government the campbells got the chance to get rid off the macdonalds.
what would you do? take of leave it
I'm interested in your comments
:Thanks, Quaggga, the point is that there were other more murderous massacres associated with the clanfights, this one was memorable because it was under specific government orders that contravened both Scots law and Highland custom. The clans were pawns in a bigger game, and it says more about the antipathy of lowland gentry to what some effectively saw as thieving savages than it does about the complex Campbell / MacDonald rivalry. ..dave souza, talk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clanfight or not, 

message: This is an argument that Glenlyon was unaware of the impending massacre, and that he was duped and threatened into carrying it out by his superior officers.
From a military point of view the regiment was given a very difficult task when it was ordered to carry out the massacre. This is quite apart from any ethical considerations. The problem was that they were specifically ordered to take the MacDonalds (or MacIains) by surprise - see Dalrymple's letter to General Livingstone, where he is most emphatic that they should not be allowed to escape to the hills, as this would cause further problems. However, any approach by a large body of soldiers to the valley of Glencoe would be visible for miles. Approaching at night would also have been very difficult. The soldiers would have to march a long distance without lights, and could very easily go astray. This meant that no normal approach to Glencoe could succeed. They had to devise a ruse in order to get soldiers into the glen, where they could fall on the MacDonalds.
It seems likely that the senior officers in the regiment picked the most junior captain in the regiment, Glenlyon, as the 'fall guy' to carry out a massacre which other officers found distasteful or dishonourable. As an older man (in his 50s), an alcoholic, a gambler, and a general loser, he was the obvious choice. He wasn't told about the orders to carry out the massacre, or the real reason for his being sent to Glencoe. If he had known he might not have been able to keep up an act of friendliness and successfully deceive MacIain. It was far simpler to leave Glenlyon in the dark.    
The order to him dated Feb 12 is extremely threatening in tone. the order emphasizes "the King's special command", and that if he fails to carry out the order "you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fit to carry Commission in the King's service." He is told to carry out the order "as you love your self". 
He is explicitly being told that if he fails to carry out the order, which is presented as though it was from the King personally, he will lose his commission and be dealt with as a traitor. Since it was known to the other officers that he had no other means of support for his family other than his commission, this was also a threat that his family would be left destitute.
If he had known beforehand about the planned massacre, or if he had hated the MacDonalds of Glencoe, it wouldn't have been necessary to threaten him so blatantly.
He is also told to attack at 5am whether or not the other detachments who are supposed to support him are there. This seems to indicate that there was never any real intention for the other detachments to arrive in time for the attack. In fact, they only arrived very late the following day, many hours after it was all over. They were never even close to arriving in time. So this was just a convenient excuse for the other officers not to be present.
If any other captain or senior officer had felt any desire to take part in the massacre, he could very easily have arranged to be there. Instead they found a trick to avoid being there and to put the whole responsibility on Glenlyon. 
It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if Glenlyon had refused to carry out the order - unlikely as that might be, since he had a weak character. It seems probable that he would indeed have suffered exactly what was threatened. It's true that Lts. Farquhar and Kennedy were later acquitted for disobeying orders, but this was only after the massive publicity and outcry following the massacre. If Glenlyon had refused and there had been no massacre, then only a few people in the military and in government would have known about it, and it's highly likely that he would have been court-martialed and found guilty of disobeying orders. 
GreenWyvern1  —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Glenlyon as dupe or 'fall guy'

message: :Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 30 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's to blame? 

message: In the Aftermath section there is reference to two brothers who escaped to Ireland. It is unclear as to who they were. Were they simply two brothers from the Clan Donald or did they hold some prominence in the clan? After all, it is recorded that the sons of the chief, Alastair MacIain, escaped the massacre. It is unclear as to whether these were the brothers referred to, or not. I think clarification is needed here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by YrFyrddin (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath - Brothers 

message: There's a very good account of the the massacre and the events leading up to it in Clan, king, and covenant: history of the Highland clans from the Civil War By John Leonard Roberts. You can read quite a large chunk of it online at Google books here Richerman (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's was also a programme on BBC Radio 4 today (21 Jan 2010) about the massacre which you can listen to, or download as a podcast at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/index.shtml. Richerman (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent radio program, it goes over many of the points discussed above. The one sentence summary i could make of the radio show is the Macdonalds of Glencoe were killed because they were poor, a softer target than the Macdonalds of Glengarry, and were to be made an example of.203.2.218.132 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reference 

message: Quote: "...and James was defeated on 1 July 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland" - the Battle was on the 12th, not on the 1st -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ouch, thats ok - I'm referring to nothing but the own Article of the Battle. Forgive me, my english is not very good and maybe my concentration was out for reading some hours long english articles, which is very hard for me. -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Battle of Boyne 

message: The fact that not all the men were named Campbell does not mean that they weren't the Earl of Argyle's vassals or even part of his clan. Since he recruited them, he was landlord to most of them. This would mean that the Earl would have considerable power and influence over them. In fact, some of the names  are the names of Campbell septs. However, this article suggests differently. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  septs 

message: The article currently uses three different names (or rather, two names with different capitalisation): "Massacre of Glencoe", "Glencoe massacre" and "Glencoe Massacre".  Likewise, the location is sometimes "Glen Coe" and sometimes "Glencoe".  Is there a prefered term?  ("Glencoe Massacre" is the term I've most often heard, although the memorial uses "Massacre of Glencoe"). Iapetus (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Glen Coe is the name of the whole glen, and the village located in the glen is called Glencoe. Or at least that seems to be the general convention. As to Massacre of Glencoe or Glencoe Massacre, sources vary. I don't think you can say that one or the other is more 'correct'. Any decision would be arbitrary. However, they both mean the same thing and there's no ambiguity, so I don't see any need to impose an artificial consistency. Green Wyvern (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should this event be called? 

message: While not disputing the reality of the Massacre, these sections as currently written are largely cut and paste inputs from non-Wikipedia, non-sourced websites, contain subjective comments which are out of place in a factual account eg 'terrorism', 'heinous crimes' etc and information that is either simply wrong (eg only a 'sole survivor' was left alive to give evidence to the Inquiry) or unsubstantiated e.g. 'Hill had a grudge against' etc. There is also a lot more information available since this was written, so I'd like to provide these and make it more objective; I realise it's an emotive topic for many.
Robinvp11 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective on the events; Massacre and Inquiry Sections 

message: Does anyone object to replacing the current 'Edwardian painting' with Horatio McCulloch's 'Glen Coe;' that would tie into the reference in the article comparing perspectives between this one and Peter Graham's 'After the massacre.'
Robinvp11 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace JPEG of Painting 

message: As previously mentioned, there are a number of statements that impact the neutrality or balance of this article and are either subjective or unsourced.
who received them in the hospitable tradition of the Highlands
However, it was Colonel Hill who issued the orders to begin the massacre two weeks later, as he had a grudge against the MacIains for not marrying one of their daughters to his son, Robert Hill. 
Due to his role in ensuring MacIain was late in giving his oath, Drummond would not have been welcomed. 
who had experience with prior action of terrorism against the Scottish Clans 
The sole survivor of the disaster also provided evidence against the officers. 
...by the customary hospitality of neighboring clans, thus not wishing to fight other Scotsmen; it is equally possible that they simply did not want to play any part in what they knew to be a heinous crime. This contains three wholly subjective statements in one sentence :)
It's an interesting topic, I've learned a lot by expanding the other sections, so I'd just like to bring this into line.
Robinvp11 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand section on Massacre 

message: Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot (Clan Campbell & Lowland Scots) should be Argyll's Regiment of Foot muster rolls show the Argyll's were all recruited locally, regardless of name and Hamilton's detachment was part of Hill's Regiment of Foot.  	
Commanders and leaders Robert Campbell of Glenlyon should be Lt-Colonel Hamilton who commanded the northern detachment of 400 men from Hill's Regiment at Fort William, Major Duncanson, Glenlyon's immediate superior and who brought another 400 men from the Argylls as well as Glenlyon.  	
Strength 120	Should be 920 (estimated) ie Hamilton 400, Duncanson 400 and Glenlyon 120.
in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution and the Jacobite uprising of 1689 led by John Graham of Claverhouse it can't really be considered the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution and Dundee is mentioned several times below; 
as the massacre of Glencoe or Mort Ghlinne Comhann murder of Glencoe doesn't add anything to repeat it only slightly differently
by the guests who had accepted their hospitality technically, the soldiers were in Glencoe on 'free quarter' a term commonly used in place of taxes. This doesn't detract from the fact 38 people were killed but focuses on the wrong area, since it implies the violation of 'guest right' was the worst thing about it. It also places the burden on those who performed it when the decision was made at a much higher level. Evidence given to the 1695 Commission shows Glenlyon received his orders on the evening of 12th February but the soldiers themselves were unaware of it until shortly before it started. 
Makes it slightly less cynical ie spending two weeks, knowing you'll murder your hosts at the end of it versus kicked out of bed on a cold February morning at 4:00 am and told to get on with it.
The description of the killings is far more complicated than this; John MacDonald (MacIain's eldest son) actually told the Commission he heard shooting, went down to ask Glenlyon what was going on and then went back to bed. 
Robinvp11 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Information Box and Background; suggestions 

message: I haven't been able to find any confirmed number for subsequent deaths; the most common estimate is 40 but not sure where that comes from and most historians simply say Unknown. If anyone else has better information, please correct but it needs a source.
Robinvp11 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties  

message: During the final season of AMC's TV-Show "Mad Men" the Campbell/MacDonald feud is resason for a short fight between Peter 'Pete' Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) and the headmaster of an elite preschool who denies Pete's daughter the admission. Although Pete dismisses the grounds as absurd at first, the story seems well known to him, making him yell "The king ordered it!", as an automatic defense for the crimes his ancestors committed almost 300 years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.255.66 (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to 'In popular culture'