Posted by FunkyPlaid | Filed under Meta
My course is clear for the time being. With the help of a couple of really talented, brainy, creative friends, I’ve set up my first real webpage, which just so happens to contain the proposal for my MSc dissertation. Who knew that Dreamweaver could be so fun?
If you’re inclined and/or interested, I beseech you to take a gander HERE.
The topic is controversial, inflammatory, and exceedingly fun to hack over. It could easily be misconstrued by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, but a more careful reading might glean a notion of accuracy and truth. Of course, it depends on your disposition, your objectivity, and your nation of origin. If you’d care to discuss anything within, there’s a link to my e-mail on the page.
13 Responses to “The Beginning of the Final Product.”
May 19th, 2004 at 7:53 am
So is this for your Masters, and is a separate paper than for your Ph.D. dissertation?
I truly, really enjoy the line: "… there is a valid point to be made that conjures a significant historical irony: the use of despotic recruitment tactics within an army ostensibly dedicated to freedom from foreign oppression and repressive governmental jurisdiction." Did the Jacobite cause rally behind the Declaration of Arboath?
I hadn't thought of fencibles as part of the same group as feudal levies. I'm curious into your reasoning for separating the feudal levies from others forced into service. Are you differentiating based upon rationale?
(Just a side note, the entire paragraph listing the types of men in the army is kind of convoluted. I had to read it a few times to glean the punctuatory nuances. The semi colons, colons, and parenthesis are a little rough. Maybe you could expand this into a full paragraph and have each of the three groups be a seperate sentence? Just a thought from an undergrad…) 😀
Also, are you incorporating the small Irish and French input into manpower and funds? Or are these irrelevant?
I'm curious if there are any documents enumerating the 18th century interpretation of feudal rents and services, especially in the light of who they consider King being in exile?
Damn it Darren!! Now you've got me all distracted! I'm supposed to be obsessing over China, or California, or the Middle Ages, but not Jacobite Scotland! You are such a bad influence on my studies… at least during finals week!
May 19th, 2004 at 8:05 am
Hehe. Should I wait, then, to respond to your questions? 🙂
I will address all of these as soon as my departmental presentation is over tomorrow. Promise.
And thanks for reading.
May 19th, 2004 at 10:27 am
This dissertation is for my MSc. I'm not doing a doctorate yet, though if I choose to do so, it will undoubtedly be on some aspect of Jacobitism, as there are many avenues not yet explored, especially in the fields of social and cultural history.
I have found no evidence to show that the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) was any great factor of cohesion within the Jacobite ranks. I imagine that it might have been more of an icon of old to hearken back to, as any 400-year old treasured document of state might be. That's a very long time, even for an obstinate people's memory. As I'm trying to demonstrate in my thesis, as well, I don't think a majority of Jacobites in the Forty-five had an awareness of 'national identity', but perhaps more of what Robertson calls a 'martial identity'. This may or may not have been a factor in 1745-6, but it certainly opens up the floor for further research!
More than one military historian of the period has defined Jacobite recruitment in these terms, but of course the lines may blur depending on which angle you take. Since this is just a proposal at the moment, I'm still forming my actual product and viewpoint. I would comfortably say that fencibles and militia were sometimes – but not always – volunteers, and many clansmen and 'feudalistic' tenants were also fine with coming out for their chief or laird. After all, they had a contract, yes? It is the levies that were actually pressed into service, rather than those accepting the call to arms, that I'm choosing to put the spotlight on here, and for that, I think the three-tiered designation works well. Your point is understandable, though, and my plan might see some revision depending on how the statistics go.
You're right – the list is convoluted. But semicolons are perfectly acceptable punctuation marks separating items in a list. And I only have 3000 words to work with. See how stubborn I am? 🙂
I tried to be clear that I was examining the Scottish element alone of the Forty-five, while acknowledging a very international makeup of the army itself. Since the Irish and French regiments were paid regular army troops, there was less need for any draconian tactics within their recruiting measures.
There are plentiful documents from this period illustrating exactly what you posit. Some are commonplace among certain families and areas, and some are actually put into effect during the martial actions of the Forty-five. We certainly know that Charles had little trouble obtaining funds while on his march through England, because he – supposing his father as true King – was able to extract taxes upon British citizens, just as the Hanoverian government would have done in the same areas. The public didn't seem to care who they paid excise to; as long as they had a receipt, they were insured!
So glad that you have an interest in this, D. I hope to be questioned more in the near future, and I'm sure we can squeeze some good discussions and parlays from this subject. Good luck with your finals!
May 19th, 2004 at 9:07 am
It all looks very interesting, and as you say likely to ruffle a few feathers in the romantic view camp. Good luck! I must arrange to read some of your stuff….
BTW, it looks like you've tried to use an image as a bullet at the start of your sub paragraphs on that page, but the image isn't loading. I think the link is to the hard drive of the computer you designed it on rather than to the server.
May 19th, 2004 at 10:33 am
Thanks, AJ. I posted it with you specifically in mind.
Regarding the faulty loading, I've checked the pages with multiple friends running multiple systems, and I have confirmation that all the headings are present and linked correctly. They are Flash text, however, so are you able to view that okay with your current browser?
There should be four headings: Intro, Sources, Organisaton, and Conclusion.
May 19th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
I see the headings, it's the start of subparas that's missing. Evry para after the first in each section has a placeholder for a missing image at the start of the first line ( before "What follows is an overview " at the start of the second para of the introduction for example>)
I'm not getting them under Mozilla or IE. The file doesn't seem to exist, and the link is as follows:
If it's a gif I shouldn't have any problem viewing it, and that address doesn't look right to me, but I'm not an HTML expert.
In IE it doesn't look so bad, it's just a space, but in Mozilla it shows an empty box which looks odd.
I'm not trying to not-pick, just to help improve the overall look of the document! I should perhaps point out that I used to proof-read as part of my job so little things do tend to rather leap out at me. However I didn't have any problem with the semicolons – it was quite clear to me.
Feel free to leave it if you're happy with how it looks.
May 19th, 2004 at 7:36 pm
Ah, gotcha. I checked it again in IE, and saw exactly what you were talking about.
I think they're fixed now; would you be able to check for me and report back?
I don't think you're nit-picking at all. Quality control is a big help and always much appreciated, so feel free to help me perfect it any way you see fit!
And glad you could handle the semicolons! 🙂
May 20th, 2004 at 2:50 am
Yep, looks fine in Mozilla now.
Some people don't respond well to what are meant as helpful comments; I try to be careful how I make them these days! Spotting typos is very different from saying "This is a pile of crap" but sometimes people take it as personal criticism. I always get someone else to look over anything I do, 'cos once you've worked on something for a while you can't see the mistakes which a fresh pair of eyes will spot. It was part of our training to check each other's work so we got used to not being defensive about it.
May 20th, 2004 at 6:45 am
Rock. Again, thanks for the head's up.
Well, I got plenty of criticism on the way up the academic ladder, so I'm pretty well inured to it and also quite receptive to better ways of looking at things, especially concerning my own research. I mean, it's not artwork or anything – it's just an educated opinion. In that sense, any feedback is good feedback.
And even if there *is* heavy criticism, I know that I'd better be able to defend my work or get right out of the business immediately!
May 20th, 2004 at 8:48 am
Glad to be of service.
That's definately the way to deal with criticism – if you can argue your case, do. THe critic needs to be able to argue theirs too. Sometimes one or the other will be convinced; sometimes you agree to differ. So long as both parties are sensible about it you can remain friends even if you disagree. And even if they agree people will try to find holes, so you had better be able to justify what you say. But that's how knowledge evolves, so it's a good thing.
May 20th, 2004 at 2:19 am
Very interesting, D. It's so cool to see this in print-ish. And I want to complement you on your style, which has gotten even more streamlined and tight since I last read one of your academic papers. The site looks good, too. It's all falling into place: Are you sure this stuff doesn't approximate a home stretch? xoxo
May 20th, 2004 at 6:40 am
Thank you for saying so, Kit. It means a lot to me.
Yeah, there's no home stretch yet; still lots to go, and the worst of it, I'm afraid.
Good news is that I gave a brief seminar presentation to my department today, including most of the prof in Scottish History and some esteemed visitors, to boot. I think it was received pretty well, but we'll see in the long run if it gets on as I'd like it to in print.
Best quote of the lecture: "I believe I have a helpful 'Yank' view. I'm not a nationalist…hell – I'm not even a national!"
May 20th, 2004 at 8:27 am
This site looks awesome. Very pro. congrats!