The Celtic Church of the 6th and 7th centuries was mostly Irish (though with a large Northumbrian and 'Scottish' - which is to say the Irish Scots in the west - presence). It suffered a serious (fatal?) setback at the Synod of Whitby where the King of Northumbria, Oswy reluctantly accepted the tradition of St. Peter (ie. the Roman tradition). Now if the Synod had gone differently - and it was a close run thing, the Irish Bishops could and did appeal to the legacy of Columba and the legacy of Iona - or if it had never happened at all, then Northumbria and Ireland (and presumably Scotland) would have stayed different for the forseeable future. Any ideas what sort of affect this could have on later Irish, English and Scottish history?

Do chuid

Why have you singled out 'Scottish' for inverted commas?

Because Scotland (the country or nationality) did not exist at that time. The idea of 'Irishness' existed - that is to say Irishmen made a distinction between foreigners from abroad and foreigners from across the border - and much more arguably so did the idea of 'Englishness'. Also both Ireland and England had cultural and linguistic unity that what would become Scotland lacked, split as was into three distinct and mutally oppossed cultures (emigrant Irish/Gaels, Picts and Anglo-Saxons).

Do chuid

Originally posted by RNolan
Because Scotland (the country or nationality) did not exist at that time. The idea of 'Irishness' existed - that is to say Irishmen made a distinction between foreigners from abroad and foreigners from across the border - and much more arguably so did the idea of 'Englishness'. Also both Ireland and England had cultural and linguistic unity that what would become Scotland lacked, split as was into three distinct and mutally oppossed cultures (emigrant Irish/Gaels, Picts and Anglo-Saxons).

Do chuid

My feelings really is that 'Irish' should be in inverted commas because nothing like that word was used at the time, but "Scot-" was used to denote Gaels living both in Ireland and modern Scotland. The concept of Ireland existed in Ireland, but Latin writers did not call them 'Irish' ("Scot-" =Gael) because they came from the island of Ireland, but because of their Gens, which could be determined by tribal affiliation or language. The reason I asked you the question was because you were referring to the Dalriada Scots, and here 'Scottish' seems highly appropriate, since the king there took the title "Rex Scotorum" and the people there were referred to as Scotii.

Given the usage of both "Irish" and "Scottish" in modern English, the best word to use would be Gael. Unfortunately, medieval historians haven't quite grasped this yet.

I think Nail of the nine hostages (Ulster king) was the first to call Dal-Riada Scotia minor, refering to Ireland (or at least Ulster) as Scotia major (so i've read) The name of the country was changed around 1200 A.D. All writers up to the 12th century refer to the inhabitants of Hibernia as the Scottish Tribes.

St. Patrick in his "Confession" mentions the sons of the Scotti and the daughters of the chieftains, especially one blessed Irish princess that he baptized (una benedicta Scota)

Brian Boru has his name inscribed in the Book of Armagh as imperatoris Scotorum, (Emperor of the Scots.)

So I think we can safely say Ireland is the orginal Scotland and that Dal-Radia was an extension of Scotland.
The word Scot orginates from some milisian queen, she was called Scotia or something similiar. But then I read somewere else that It was the name that the Romans called the Irish, Scotti, and that it mean't something like 'raiders'.
I've read that the word Ireland comes from Ire (or something like that) Its the name the Vikings called......erm,.. Hibernia. (I'm getting confused now) But then I read somewere else that it was named 'Ir-land' after King Milesius of Spains youngest son. (That goes way back)
Who knows.

I think for the sake of argument and for geographical clarity, it better to call Alba/Caladonia/Dal-Radia- 'Scotland', and Hibernia/Eire/Scotia/-'Ireland'.
Give them both inverted commas, then everyones happy.:)

On topic:
I've know idea, don't know much about it.

Englishness didn't deveop until at least the 15 th century. There was a sense of not being Norman/French before then amongst the peasnts but thats not the same thing. In 7th and 8 the century "Britain" the lowland scots and northern english would have been indistinguishable.

Originally posted by TheStinger
Englishness didn't deveop until at least the 15 th century. There was a sense of not being Norman/French before then amongst the peasnts but thats not the same thing. In 7th and 8 the century "Britain" the lowland scots and northern english would have been indistinguishable.

Non-sense :rolleyes:

That has to be the most inaccurate post I've ever read on the history forum. In reality, Englishness existed as a political and ethnic concept at least as early as Bede.

The Saxon vs Norman conflict is centuries later and the later idea of the English realm is merely another - not the first - expression of Englishness.

As for lowland Scotland being indistinguishable from northern England - firstly: "lowland Scotland" is a 18th century concept, which includes the central belt and the whole eastern coast. In the 600s and 700s, northern england (east coast) was politically and (probably) ethnically dominated by the English/Anglo-Saxons. "Lowland Scotland" on the other hand, was controlled by Pictish and Brythonic tribal confederacies. If you think Lothian was an exception at this point, as many used to believe, then you're wrong also. Predominantly, Lothian was ethnically Celtic until at least the 12th century.

Your train of thought and your knowledge that nationality concepts change over time are good, but in these instances, you are highly inaccurate in your description.

If you went back to the 8th century and asked a man living in Britain, what nationality he was, he would not have a clue what you were talking about. Attributing modern day nationalities to medevil society is a constrcut of 19th century historians who were trying to give historical credence to their countries territorial and political claims.

I will concede that there was a sense of being part of an anglo saxon culture, I do not think this is the same as englishness. The problem again is attributing modern day concepts to an era just doesn't allow those comparisons.

Yes the people who lived in ireland/scotland and england would have cobsidered themselves different to each other but that does not mean they had any sense of natioanl identity

Originally posted by TheStinger
If you went back to the 8th century and asked a man living in Britain, what nationality he was, he would not have a clue what you were talking about.

well i disagree.

people in wales knew they were welsh. they called themselves welsh as did the people across the very strict border.

they were welsh, spoke welsh and lived with the welsh flag.

WALES!!!

Originally posted by gael
I think Nail of the nine hostages (Ulster king) was the first to call Dal-Riada Scotia minor, refering to Ireland (or at least Ulster) as Scotia major (so i've read) The name of the country was changed around 1200 A.D. All writers up to the 12th century refer to the inhabitants of Hibernia as the Scottish Tribes.



I didn't know that, but I was searching for that information :goodjob:




St. Patrick in his "Confession" mentions the sons of the Scotti and the daughters of the chieftains, especially one blessed Irish princess that he baptized (una benedicta Scota)

Brian Boru has his name inscribed in the Book of Armagh as imperatoris Scotorum, (Emperor of the Scots.)

So I think we can safely say Ireland is the orginal Scotland and that Dal-Radia was an extension of Scotland.
The word Scot orginates from some milisian queen, she was called Scotia or something similiar. But then I read somewere else that It was the name that the Romans called the Irish, Scotti, and that it mean't something like 'raiders'.
I've read that the word Ireland comes from Ire (or something like that) Its the name the Vikings called......erm,.. Hibernia. (I'm getting confused now) But then I read somewere else that it was named 'Ir-land' after King Milesius of Spains youngest son. (That goes way back)
Who knows.

I think for the sake of argument and for geographical clarity, it better to call Alba/Caladonia/Dal-Radia- 'Scotland', and Hibernia/Eire/Scotia/-'Ireland'.
Give them both inverted commas, then everyones happy


I probably don't know as much as you about Irish writing, but I know that "Scot-" is used by Roman, English and continental to describe the Irish and Dalriadic Scots. I should point out that "Scot-" is a foreign word to the Irish, and reflects how foreigners viewed them rather than how they viewed themselves. The Scotii themselves, were probably originally a nation of viking-like raiders based on the northern coast of Ireland and western coast of Scotland. If anywhere is, then this
is the "original scotland". Remember, the Romans tend to give names based on what they encounter rather than after systematic study. "Scots and Picts attack Hadrians Wall".
Thus, Scotii was just a name for these raiders. Later, it came to mean Gael because then Church opened up Ireland and Scotland to the rest of western europe and it seemed appropriate to use an older term. Anna Comnena called the Russians "Scythians" and Latin Christians "Celts".
Brian Boru is trying to state his kingship in Roman terms, and thus he employs Roman terminology. This doesn't mean that Scotland = Ireland. Boru lives centuries after the word is first employed by citizens of the late Roman Empire, the same citizens who used Hibernia to talk of Ireland. Why a difference if they are the same? It's pretty safe to say, that "Scotii" did not mean "the inhabitants of Ireland".

Thus, it would be safer to employ either two modern terms, or two Latin terms or two Celtic terms, but not to mix them. i.e.
Ireland/Scotland, Hibernia/Caledonia or Eire/Alba without using the term Scotia unless referring to either High Medieval Scotland and after, or to early medieval Ulster-Dalriada, or the Gaeltacht of any period.

Originally posted by TheStinger
If you went back to the 8th century and asked a man living in Britain, what nationality he was, he would not have a clue what you were talking about. Attributing modern day nationalities to medevil society is a constrcut of 19th century historians who were trying to give historical credence to their countries territorial and political claims.

I will concede that there was a sense of being part of an anglo saxon culture, I do not think this is the same as englishness. The problem again is attributing modern day concepts to an era just doesn't allow those comparisons.

Yes the people who lived in ireland/scotland and england would have cobsidered themselves different to each other but that does not mean they had any sense of natioanl identity



You're correct to a certain extent, but even if you see nationality as a purely 18th/19th century invention, identity has been shaped by language and social institutions since the time of the Old Testament. The latter constitutes a major part of any definition of nationality, so there is a parallel.

And yes, the inhabitants, except maybe the warriors and the aristocracy, would not have had any strong national identity. But they had, as every human always has, a concept of strangeness, which could be manipulated for political or social purposes if necessary.

Sorry :eek:

I don't think nationalism was invented in the 19th/18th century I just think that it was from then that it was distorted. There was a common identitiy among the peoples of europe that they were part of "Christendom" Your average man in the street(or mud track) was often a feudal vassal so to him the distinction about who oredred him about was fairly irrelevant. Language and social institutions obviously play a part in forming a peoples identity. There must be more than coincidence that the germanic speaking people of nortehrn europe tend to be protestant whereas the romance speekers are catholic. (I know this is gross over simplification but you get my point.)

Howeve It still annoys me when peeople talk about historical events from 1000 or more years ago and use them to justify or explain the actions(usually negative)of their government/country today.

X-post, not sure what you said sorry for though

To Calgacus:

The Scots are refered to to by the Roman poet, Claudian, when praising the Roman general, Stilicho, he says Britain was protected by this bold general:

"When Scots came thundering from the Irish shores,
And ocean trembled stuck by hostile oars".

This line, (if it has been interperated correctly), draws a clear distinction between Scot and Irish. The scot part meaning raiders. It would also suggest that the Irish were refered to as scots beyond hadrains wall. Although these could have been raiders from Ulster, who were pretty prolific along the British west coast and even Gaul.

When I said that Ireland was Scotland, I mean't it losely speaking as in it was the land were the scotti came from.
The whole romantisation of every thing latin latter on has sort muddied the waters a bit, and the word Scot and all its variants were probably boosted up beyond thier orginal meaning for the same and only reason that they were latin references of the Irish.

Ps. What was the point of all this again.;) :)

Originally posted by phoenix_night


well i disagree.

people in wales knew they were welsh. they called themselves welsh as did the people across the very strict border.

they were welsh, spoke welsh and lived with the welsh flag.

WALES!!!

I don't really know much on Wales, but I know the name Welsh comes from the Anglo/Saxon word Weilsc or wealhas, wich means foreigners. I think the welsh only started to give themselves a the collective name of 'Cymru' (United or comrades) when faced with this outside threat.

When did Wales start to be called Wales?

Originally posted by gael


I don't really know much on Wales, but I know the name Welsh comes from the Anglo/Saxon word Weilsc or wealhas, wich means foreigners. I think the welsh only started to give themselves a the collective name of 'Cymru' (United or comrades) when faced with this outside threat.

When did Wales start to be called Wales?

yes, that's where the term Wales comes from. the term Cymru, comes from the word cymro, as in fellow welshman. this is obviously a welsh word and the term that the people themselves used.

outside threat was a factor, yes. because before then - we were all just celts.

as for when wales was first called wales, well obviously - with it being an anglo-saxon word, not until they arrived.

as for exactly when this term for the country came into being, i'm not exactly sure. 7th century at the latest, though the term Cymru was born much earlier, along with the flag, language and national identity.

We were'nt just Celts. The whole Celtic identity thing came about around the 14th century (not sure if thats the right date) when national langauge and identity amoung the Irish, welsh and Cornish and Scots was being treatened by England.

Before then, as far as i know, none of those people ever refered to themselves as Celtic. Then again, I don't think the continental Celts refered to them selves as Celtic either until they were faced with the same threat (if ever). Celtic was again another outside name from the Greek Kelti that the Romans used to discribe similiar peoples and tribes.

Their apparently is big debating going on amoung Celtic historains about the true Celticness of the Islands. How you could ever come to any real conclusion in that argument is beyond me. They can't even paint a solid picture of the continental celts, and they had more ancient writings on them.

Rome has poisons the wells of history, but the many similaritys in many different things say we are pretty close to what is refered to as Celtic.

The word 'Irish' is an anglicisation of the Gaelic word Eireannach, itself derived from the name of the country. Latin writers would doubtless have reffered to country as Hibernia and the inhabitants as Scots but they are entirely irrelevant to the disscussion. True the later Irish term Ghaedal has it's roots elsewhere but the concept certainly existed. I was simply using the corrupted translation of a term that existed back in the day and is entirely approriate (see below). If this was a disscussion about the Civic War (for instance) I think you would let me use a term like 'Italians' after all; why not here?

I am wary of those who try and force the Irish 'Gaels' and their Scottish counterparts together into a single culture. Certainly one had evolved from the other and they had in general a similar culture and language, but in classical Irish literature (Adamnan etc.) Scotland is very much foreign in a way that Ireland is not. The term 'Gael' fails to recognise this in the same way as 'Gaul' used to describe everything from Galatia to Brittany fails. It is probably best to abbandon the term, at least in the overview of this disscussion.

I deliberately used 'Scottish' in its modern usage, because I feel that the terms 'irish' and 'english' apply in a way 'Scottish' doesn't. Scotland the name might exist but the Scots people did not.

Do chuid

Originally posted by RNolan
The word 'Irish' is an anglicisation of the Gaelic word Eireannach, itself derived from the name of the country. Latin writers would doubtless have reffered to country as Hibernia and the inhabitants as Scots but they are entirely irrelevant to the disscussion. True the later Irish term Ghaedal has it's roots elsewhere but the concept certainly existed. I was simply using the corrupted translation of a term that existed back in the day and is entirely approriate (see below). If this was a disscussion about the Civic War (for instance) I think you would let me use a term like 'Italians' after all; why not here?

I am wary of those who try and force the Irish 'Gaels' and their Scottish counterparts together into a single culture. Certainly one had evolved from the other and they had in general a similar culture and language, but in classical Irish literature (Adamnan etc.) Scotland is very much foreign in a way that Ireland is not. The term 'Gael' fails to recognise this in the same way as 'Gaul' used to describe everything from Galatia to Brittany fails. It is probably best to abbandon the term, at least in the overview of this disscussion.

I deliberately used 'Scottish' in its modern usage, because I feel that the terms 'irish' and 'english' apply in a way 'Scottish' doesn't. Scotland the name might exist but the Scots people did not.

Do chuid

But the "Scottish" (you were referring to the Dalriatic Scots) did exist every bit as much as the "English" and "Irish". Your post is quite long, but you don't explain this :confused:

What I'm saying is that those Scots have few links to the later Kingdom of Scotland and fewer still to modern Scotland. Ethnicity, language, culture, aristocracy of these and so on of these Scots ceased to control the destiny of the kingdom they created and though the people continued to exist later Scotland only really got the name (which was invented by latin speakers). Their name aside the Scots of Dalrida did not become Scotland, or rather didn't manage to keep it. The vast majority of modern Scots are not their descendents unlike the other three countries. Scotland in any recognisable form other than the name did not exist.

Do chuid

Originally posted by RNolan
What I'm saying is that those Scots have few links to the later Kingdom of Scotland and fewer still to modern Scotland. Ethnicity, language, culture, aristocracy of these and so on of these Scots ceased to control the destiny of the kingdom they created and though the people continued to exist later Scotland only really got the name (which was invented by latin speakers). Their name aside the Scots of Dalrida did not become Scotland, or rather didn't manage to keep it. The vast majority of modern Scots are not their descendents unlike the other three countries. Scotland in any recognisable form other than the name did not exist.

Do chuid

They have just as more links to the later Kingdom of Scotland than those Irish had to the later Republic of Ireland.
And the Scots of Dalriada did become the Kingdom of Scotland, according to the traditional account. The king of Dalriada takes over the Picts and forms Alba - the kingdoms of Scots and Picts.

Before the artificial nationalist culture revival of the late 19th/ early 20th century, the "Irish" were much more English than the Scots. There were more Gaelic speakers in Glasgow than Dublin. And according to my uni lecturer, names surveys reveal a higher proprtion of Celtic surnames in Scotland than Ireland. One has to wonder then, why exactly you feel able to assert "the vast majority of modern Scots are not their descendents unlike the other three countries":confused:

You should be aware that while Irish historians have tended to emphasize their Celtic roots rather than their Anglo-Saxon roots, Scottish historians since the union until quite recently have tried to downplay them.

Originally posted by gael
We were'nt just Celts. The whole Celtic identity thing came about around the 14th century (not sure if thats the right date) when national langauge and identity amoung the Irish, welsh and Cornish and Scots was being treatened by England.

Before then, as far as i know, none of those people ever refered to themselves as Celtic. Then again, I don't think the continental Celts refered to them selves as Celtic either until they were faced with the same threat (if ever). Celtic was again another outside name from the Greek Kelti that the Romans used to discribe similiar peoples and tribes.

Their apparently is big debating going on amoung Celtic historains about the true Celticness of the Islands. How you could ever come to any real conclusion in that argument is beyond me. They can't even paint a solid picture of the continental celts, and they had more ancient writings on them.

Rome has poisons the wells of history, but the many similaritys in many different things say we are pretty close to what is refered to as Celtic.

i was simply referring to the fact that back then split nationality in the islands really didn't exist.

i am well aware of the orings of the word 'celt' and indeed the history of my country.

I was just saying that their was never a notion of Celtic unity, or any unity, between the areas that make up the modern celtic countrys on the Islands until fairly late in history.

"i am well aware of the orings of the word 'celt' and indeed the history of my country."

Chill.;) :)

Originally posted by calgacus


They have just as more links to the later Kingdom of Scotland than those Irish had to the later Republic of Ireland.
And the Scots of Dalriada did become the Kingdom of Scotland, according to the traditional account. The king of Dalriada takes over the Picts and forms Alba - the kingdoms of Scots and Picts.

Before the artificial nationalist culture revival of the late 19th/ early 20th century, the "Irish" were much more English than the Scots. There were more Gaelic speakers in Glasgow than Dublin. And according to my uni lecturer, names surveys reveal a higher proprtion of Celtic surnames in Scotland than Ireland. One has to wonder then, why exactly you feel able to assert "the vast majority of modern Scots are not their descendents unlike the other three countries":confused:

You should be aware that while Irish historians have tended to emphasize their Celtic roots rather than their Anglo-Saxon roots, Scottish historians since the union until quite recently have tried to downplay them.


The Kingdom of Scotland certainly initially lasted as a culturally Dalriadan but by the end of the 13th century it was a country largely of Norman/Saxon culture and indeed ethnicity in the Lowlands. This was an internal matter (unlike the conquest and colonisation of Ireland for example) which in my opinion is sufficent to say the relationship Scotland of Dalridia and that of James I is about as close as the Roman Republic of Scipio and the Roman Empire of Alesius.

What on Earth do you mean 'artificial'?? The Nationalist revival was nothing of the kind - rather it was the inevitable, organic result of the opening up of opportunities and education for Catholics. Certainly Ireland (or at least Irish Ireland) in 1692 was Irish speaking, Catholic and more 'Irish' than the Scots since the proportion of native of aristocrats who had become Anglicised was hardly as high. We have very little to go on for over a century of hideously oppressive laws until the middle class attempts at proving their Englishness in the 1780's which produced pretty barren fruit. The destruction of the native nobility and intellectual movement was a terrible blow to native Irish culture but I would hardly say we inflicted it on ourselves - as your tone seems to suggest. The great disaster happened during the 1840's and I take it there is no need to mention that but suffice to say by as early as 1840 O'Conell was leading a Catholic Nationalist movement which had definitely grown organically and had the support of the Irish speaking peasant. All of this was a Nationalism that though terribly battered had survived from the 16th century.

Naturally Dublin had few Irish speakers - until the 18th Century they had not been allowed to live there and it was hardly possible to recover from that. It was only in the 19th century that it became an Irish city again.

Irish historians have only been emphasising their so-called Celtic roots in English since the mid-19th Century. Prior to this historians where either themselves Anglo-Saxon (and writing in English) or Irish (and writing in Irish). Indeed there is extensive scholarship on the Anglo-Saxon element and if it has been downplayed for political reasons it is because the part of the population it applied to was a distinct and often seperate one that rotuinely trampled over the majority. Hardly the case in Scotland!

I am seriously sceptical about your lecturers claim. Does this refer to the island as a whole or the Republic? After all the rather severe ethnic cleansing of the North and the plantation of tens of thousands of Galls was a bit of a factor.

In the end if Ireland is less 'Irish' than it was it was because it was raped continuously for centuries. Scotland seems to be less 'Scottish' by choice.

Do chuid

Originally posted by RNolan


The Kingdom of Scotland certainly initially lasted as a culturally Dalriadan but by the end of the 13th century it was a country largely of Norman/Saxon culture and indeed ethnicity in the Lowlands. This was an internal matter (unlike the conquest and colonisation of Ireland for example) which in my opinion is sufficient to say the relationship Scotland of Dalriada and that of James I is about as close as the Roman Republic of Scipio and the Roman Empire of Alexius.

I am seriously sceptical about your lecturers claim. Does this refer to the island as a whole or the Republic? After all the rather severe ethnic cleansing of the North and the plantation of tens of thousands of Galls was a bit of a factor.


Do chuid

The Roman parallel is good. The explanation for the Anglification of Scotland was not choice, but the fact that the kingship of the Mac Malcolm dynasty much more highly developed in Scotland than Ireland. It began with Malcolm III (1053-93), who married the Anglo-Hungarian princess St Margaret of England. He began the process by using Saxon refugees and Anglo-Norman knights to increase his power over the high nobles and to protect his kingdom. This process, however, was part of a general expansion of the new "Frankish" (i.e. Norman) military culture happening all over Western Europe, in England, Wales, Ireland, Brittany, Sicily and the Holy Land through conquest, and in Spain, Scandinavia and Scotland through adoption. The difference was that these Normans and their English followers didn't abandon their language over time and the crown began to depend on them, until one of them, Robert the Bruce (who was half Gaelic) took the kingship. There had been native reactions against this trend, particularly under Donald Bane and in the isolation of the Morays, but it meant that by about the late 14th century, most of the aristocracy spoke Anglo-Scots (not English). The movement of the capital to the most anglicised part of Scotland, in the Lothians, helped this. Some actually hold the Black Death as the Turning Point, as it accelerated the decline. But even by the reign of James IV (1488-1513), who spoke Gaelic fluently, most Scots would still have been Gaelic speakers and the "Scots" speakers were confined to the south-east and the more northerly burghs, like Aberdeen, Perth and Dundee. By the 17th century, Gaelic speakers were confined to the Highlands and Galloway, but there was now lowland/highland division until the 18th century when Union enthusiasts would emphasize this division and create the myth that it was the way it always had been.

The difference with Ireland was that there could always be a distinction between the incomers and the natives; in Scotland this was not he case. The newcomers were a native tool, as in Ireland to a certain degree, but they were never a tool of the expansionist Anglo-Norman monarchy in England. During the wars of independence, Scottish based Normans and Scots fought together against the English successfully, cementing a common idea of nationhood NOT based on ethnicity.

Knowing my lecturer, I doubt that he would lie. Scottish-Celtic names like MacDonald, MacGregor, MacMillan, Campbell, Buchanan, etc are as common in Scotland as names like Smith and Jones are in the British Isles in general. It might have a lot to do with the fact that Highland (as well as Irish and Scotch-Irish) immigrants to Glasgow and the other cities bred faster than Lowlanders. But it's probably as much to do with the fact that "voluntary Anglicisation" preserved unessential cultural features like names. There is also the fact that Celtic social concepts like kinship were not replaced, even in the Lowlands, by land-based feudal concepts as in England and the Pale.

Naturally Dublin had few Irish speakers - until the 18th Century they had not been allowed to live there and it was hardly possible to recover from that. It was only in the 19th century that it became an Irish city again.

Was Dublin ever an Irish city?

Irish historians have only been emphasising their so-called Celtic roots in English since the mid-19th Century. Prior to this historians where either themselves Anglo-Saxon (and writing in English) or Irish (and writing in Irish). Indeed there is extensive scholarship on the Anglo-Saxon element and if it has been downplayed for political reasons it is because the part of the population it applied to was a distinct and often separate one that routinely trampled over the majority. Hardly the case in Scotland!

I've got to admit that I find your underplaying of Scottish suppression slightly offensive, since I am descended from Highland families that were victims of forced eviction and clearances during the 19th century. On the one hand, Anglicisation was more voluntary in Scotland than Ireland (it had always been encouraged by certain native lords in Ireland), the annexation of 1707 allowed the less accommodating English/British govt to engage in a period of cultural extermination, ethnic cleansing and genocide, which, in terms of temporal concentration, was never paralleled in Ireland and only paralleled by the Spanish in the Americas before the 20th Century.


However, all this leaves us widely off-topic, even if this related topic is very interesting.;)

Originally posted by gael
I was just saying that their was never a notion of Celtic unity, or any unity, between the areas that make up the modern celtic countrys on the Islands until fairly late in history.

"i am well aware of the orings of the word 'celt' and indeed the history of my country."

Chill.;) :)

no prob ;) .

Yis really know your stuff lads, very interesting.
:)

Getting back to the topic, I don't think the Whitby Synod made much difference in the long run. I'm convinced that just about all the Saxon lands would have been dominated by Rome, while the Celtic church would have been foremost in what is now Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

It might have given the Saxons/Celts another reason to fight. As if they needed another one, that is.

Like i said earlier in this thread, (before it got wildly off topic but still interesting), I don't know much about this.

My limited knowledge tells me that the Irish/Celtic church did not conform to the constant reforms that Rome was making to fit its growing political power. I think it had a lot to do with date changes.

This was latter used as a go ahead for the English to invade Ireland by adrian IV (first and only Saxon/English pope).

This is probably completly off the mark on dates and this topic.