Stephen, J S (1936) The history of roads in the highlands of Scotland in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - contrasting the military roads (i.e. Those of Wade and Caulfield) with the parliamentary roads (i.e. Those constructed by Telford). PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
Too often the name of General Wade is the only one mentioned in the History of Military Road-making in Scotland. It is true that he was the originator of the scheme, but what is perhaps more important is the fact that he had the faculty of choosing the best men to carry out his purpose. It was indeed fortunate for Wade that Ireland produced such a fine organiser and administrator as William Caulfield at this time. Wade was a General with ideas; Caulfield a man of action. In reality the one was the complement of the other. Wade's fame to a large extent rests upon Caulfield's labour, and Caulfield was dependent upon Wade for the idea and the opportunity of putting that idea into practice. Together they were responsible for building up a system of Military Roads which played an important part in the pacification of the Highlands. All Wade Roads are Military Roads, but the converse is far from true. Wade himself was responsible for 245 miles, while the total mileage under Military control in 1779 was 1,103. The History of Scottish Military Roads may be divided into three periods: The Early Georgian or Pre-Rebellion Period - 1725-40 -- Wade. The Mid-Georgian or Post-Rebellion Period 1746-67 -- Caulfield. The Late Georgian or Peace Period 1770-1814 -- Skene - Anstruther. WADE. The work in the first period was definitely influenced by Wade who often inspected the roads. 1725 was an experimental year. The experiment was successful and as a result two great lines of road were laid down. The roads from Fort William and Dunkeld (with its Crieff-Dalnacardoch branch) converged at Inverness, while they were also connected by the mountain road between Fort Augustus and Ruthven Barrack called the Corrieyairack Pass. This scheme includes all the roads definitely known to have been made by Wade. Others, such as the Glen Roy Road, may have been made by him. CAULFIELD. William Caulfield became Inspector of Roads in 1732, and it is most important to note that in 1732 bridge building first became a prominent feature of Military Road-making. In that year St. George's Bridge - a double arched bridge - was constructed on the Corrieyairack Pass, and a new road made from Inverness to Fort Augustus. This route was only made possible by bridging the Faragaig. In the following year the famous Tay Bridge at Aberfeldy was begun and so on. Was it merely a coincidence that Caulfield was made Inspector in 1732, and that bridge building began in that year? Before he died in 1767, Caulfield had laid out all the remaining Military Routes in the Highlands - over 800 miles of road. SKENE-ANSTRUTHER. This was the period of repair and absorption of Military Roads by County Authorities. The absorption was almost completed by 1814, but a small mileage was kept in repair by the Government until 1864.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | government; Scotland; roads; history; civil engineering; military engineering |
| Index terms: | Ireland, experiment, history, repair, military engineering, Scotland |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, Geography, infrastructure engineering, maintenance engineering, architectural and construction history |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here