Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
[removed]
The Irish Myth about Scotland?
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
I'm familiar with the "Pictish Hegemony" theory. It's intriguing, and with the documentary evidence of the time being so slight it can't be discounted. However I think it's flawed- here's why....
The picture you're painting about the Picts prior to 685AD implies that they were an indomitable force, but that's not supported by some key points. True, the Romans never got the better of them, but the Northumbrians did. They were effectively vassals of Northumbria under Oswy, and in the early years of Egfrith's reign the Picts received at least one almighty kicking (it was in the wake of that defeat that Brude Mac Bili came to power). They certainly were in the ascendant following the Battle of Nechtansmere, though it must be remembered that the Northumbrian defeat was quite possibly due to a severe strategic error by Egfrith (matched by excellent strategies by Brude) rather than overwhelming military superiority by the Picts. OK- it's possible that the Picts may have been able to field superior forces, but coming as it does in the wake of crushing defeats I'm a little sceptical of this theory.
Angus (Oengus/Unuist) certainly defeated Dal Riata and set about annihilating the Dal Riatan royal family. He could well be considered the first king of the united Picts/Scots. However the fact that he was also enthusiastically slaughtering Pictish royals too suggests he wasn't exactly having a smooth ride, and some sources suggest that he lost control of his kingdom for a couple of years after a defeat by Strathclyde at the Battle of Mugdock. Admittedly, he certainly came back with a vengeance and shattered Strathclyde's ruling dynasty- but that was with a Northumbrian alliance. Plus, he promptly got horribly scragged by the Strathclyde Britons in the aftermath and in the closing years of his reign his power appeared to be waning.
After Angus (with the possible exception of Ciniod) we get a succession of brief reigns and weak rulers for the Picts, plus the signs of a serious power struggle after Ciniod's death. They also lose control of Dal Riata. Order gets restored under a stronger ruler- Constantine Mac Fergus in 789. Constantine appears to have to have done a good job, possibly leaving both the Picts and Scots receptive to the idea of unity.
So where's all this going? What I think it shows is a highly turbulent time, and though the Picts took control of Dal Riata more than once, the Scots were certainly capable of shaking them off at the first sign of weakness. Not enough evidence of overwhelming power to convince me. You also have to bear in mind that the Picts were not a single unit- the Northern Picts of Caledonii appeared to be strongly divided from the southern Picts of Fortrenn.
Right- 839 AD and the Battle of Forteviot. This is where it really goes wrong for the Picts after they got trashed by Vikings. There's what appears to be a power vacuum, and it's just ripe for a chancer like Kenneth Mac Alpin to make a move with Viking support. The resulting nascent state of Scotland bears Scottish and Pictish characteristics, but I'm far from convinced that the Pictish elements were dominant. If it was primarily Pictish, I'm left puzzled as to why the Mormaers of Moray seceded to form their own Pictish state.
Moray continues to throw up challenges to the notion of Pictish dominance. By the 10th century, it's being ruled by line of Loarn who were a collateral dynasty of the kings of Dal Riata (Macbeth traced his line to Ainbcellach, a Dal Riatan opponent of Kenneth Mac Alpin). Yet Moray was one of the seven Pictish sub-kingdoms so it's safe to assume that its population was predominantly Pictish. If the Picts were clearly politically dominant, I'm puzzled as to why a mainly Pictish kingdom would exist for 200 years with Dal Riatan rulers.
With Kenneth Mac Alpin and his brother Donald, we get the Scottish laws. They're drawn on those drafted by Aed Find and were imposed on the Picts. Given the weakened state of the already divided Pictish kingdoms I have no problem with believing that Dal Riata could defeat the Southern Picts, particularly with Viking backing.
Next up, we have the title of "Re Alba". Why so? Well there were large communities of Britons in Scotland (particularly in Strathclyde) and they had a reputation for being rebellious as hell. Kenneth Mac Alpin (and his successors) were cunning buggers if the stories are to believed, and I would have no problem in accepting their choice of title as being a sop to mollify the stroppy Brits who were right on their doorstep in Strathclyde.
So you see that I'm not ready to abandon the "classical" theory of Scottish dominance. I see too many holes in the Pictish theory. Ultimately it's similar to considering whether England is a Saxon or Norman nation, except that I feel the Scots achieved even greater cultural domination over the Picts than the Normans managed over the Saxons. I don't fully discount the Pictish theory, but if a number of Scottish historians are discounting the theory of Dal Riatan dominance then they need to answer a number of challenging questions.
Finally, returning to the title of the thread, it remains apt whether you subscribe to the theory of Dal Riatan dominance, or to Pictish dominance. The Pictish kings traced their ancestry back to Cruithne- an Irish invader, probably around 100 BC.
The picture you're painting about the Picts prior to 685AD implies that they were an indomitable force, but that's not supported by some key points. True, the Romans never got the better of them, but the Northumbrians did. They were effectively vassals of Northumbria under Oswy, and in the early years of Egfrith's reign the Picts received at least one almighty kicking (it was in the wake of that defeat that Brude Mac Bili came to power). They certainly were in the ascendant following the Battle of Nechtansmere, though it must be remembered that the Northumbrian defeat was quite possibly due to a severe strategic error by Egfrith (matched by excellent strategies by Brude) rather than overwhelming military superiority by the Picts. OK- it's possible that the Picts may have been able to field superior forces, but coming as it does in the wake of crushing defeats I'm a little sceptical of this theory.
Angus (Oengus/Unuist) certainly defeated Dal Riata and set about annihilating the Dal Riatan royal family. He could well be considered the first king of the united Picts/Scots. However the fact that he was also enthusiastically slaughtering Pictish royals too suggests he wasn't exactly having a smooth ride, and some sources suggest that he lost control of his kingdom for a couple of years after a defeat by Strathclyde at the Battle of Mugdock. Admittedly, he certainly came back with a vengeance and shattered Strathclyde's ruling dynasty- but that was with a Northumbrian alliance. Plus, he promptly got horribly scragged by the Strathclyde Britons in the aftermath and in the closing years of his reign his power appeared to be waning.
After Angus (with the possible exception of Ciniod) we get a succession of brief reigns and weak rulers for the Picts, plus the signs of a serious power struggle after Ciniod's death. They also lose control of Dal Riata. Order gets restored under a stronger ruler- Constantine Mac Fergus in 789. Constantine appears to have to have done a good job, possibly leaving both the Picts and Scots receptive to the idea of unity.
So where's all this going? What I think it shows is a highly turbulent time, and though the Picts took control of Dal Riata more than once, the Scots were certainly capable of shaking them off at the first sign of weakness. Not enough evidence of overwhelming power to convince me. You also have to bear in mind that the Picts were not a single unit- the Northern Picts of Caledonii appeared to be strongly divided from the southern Picts of Fortrenn.
Right- 839 AD and the Battle of Forteviot. This is where it really goes wrong for the Picts after they got trashed by Vikings. There's what appears to be a power vacuum, and it's just ripe for a chancer like Kenneth Mac Alpin to make a move with Viking support. The resulting nascent state of Scotland bears Scottish and Pictish characteristics, but I'm far from convinced that the Pictish elements were dominant. If it was primarily Pictish, I'm left puzzled as to why the Mormaers of Moray seceded to form their own Pictish state.
Moray continues to throw up challenges to the notion of Pictish dominance. By the 10th century, it's being ruled by line of Loarn who were a collateral dynasty of the kings of Dal Riata (Macbeth traced his line to Ainbcellach, a Dal Riatan opponent of Kenneth Mac Alpin). Yet Moray was one of the seven Pictish sub-kingdoms so it's safe to assume that its population was predominantly Pictish. If the Picts were clearly politically dominant, I'm puzzled as to why a mainly Pictish kingdom would exist for 200 years with Dal Riatan rulers.
With Kenneth Mac Alpin and his brother Donald, we get the Scottish laws. They're drawn on those drafted by Aed Find and were imposed on the Picts. Given the weakened state of the already divided Pictish kingdoms I have no problem with believing that Dal Riata could defeat the Southern Picts, particularly with Viking backing.
Next up, we have the title of "Re Alba". Why so? Well there were large communities of Britons in Scotland (particularly in Strathclyde) and they had a reputation for being rebellious as hell. Kenneth Mac Alpin (and his successors) were cunning buggers if the stories are to believed, and I would have no problem in accepting their choice of title as being a sop to mollify the stroppy Brits who were right on their doorstep in Strathclyde.
So you see that I'm not ready to abandon the "classical" theory of Scottish dominance. I see too many holes in the Pictish theory. Ultimately it's similar to considering whether England is a Saxon or Norman nation, except that I feel the Scots achieved even greater cultural domination over the Picts than the Normans managed over the Saxons. I don't fully discount the Pictish theory, but if a number of Scottish historians are discounting the theory of Dal Riatan dominance then they need to answer a number of challenging questions.
Finally, returning to the title of the thread, it remains apt whether you subscribe to the theory of Dal Riatan dominance, or to Pictish dominance. The Pictish kings traced their ancestry back to Cruithne- an Irish invader, probably around 100 BC.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Originally posted by Kafka2
The Picts, IMHO, were never "vassals" of the Northumbrians. Oswald and Oswy actually took refuge among them, which probably led to good relations amongst the elites of both peoples, but the idea that they were "vassals" is totally preposterous: not one piece of evidence for it. It's not like Pictish kings are taking Anglo-Saxon names, or Pictish kings are going south to their respects or representatives of the Northumbrians monarch are telling the Picts what to do.
Originally posted by Kafka2
No, certainly not. Ungus came to grief when, as you said, he and his Northumbrian allies failed in a second attack on Strathclyde. The Pictish high kingship was always a tenuous thing...fortunately for its neighbours. Ungus himself had toppled the apparently successful king Nechtan. However, this hardly makes it much different from its neighbours.
Constantine is of the same dynasty as Ungus. Maybe it's just me, but you seem on the verge of contradicting yourself here. You're admitting that Constantine may have further unified Picts and Scots. The disappearance of Dal Riadan kings from the sources after 792 seems to support you. This, however, all supports the "Pictish hegemony" theory.
It doesn't show this. How did the Scots "shake" the Picts "off."?
And yes, Pictland was not unified in anything other than a vague form of high kingship, hence my excessive use of Fortriu!
The lack of evidence leaves large room for argument here. However, I don't think that Moray seceded. It seems to have alway been there....the old kingdom of the "Northern Picts", the main rival with Fortriu for the High kingship, as it continued to be even into the "Rex Scotiae" period. What happens in the 9th century is the Moray Picts, like their southern brethren, take a Scottish dynasty...from the Dalraidan Cenel Loarn.
It's not clear that Dalriada even existed as a sepearate kingdom at this point, never mind lauching a takeover of Pictland.
And there is already a syncretism of Pictish and Scottish traditions going back deep into the 8th century, which is why Pictish kings take Scottish names, and interfere in the politics of Iona. These "Scottish laws" (I incidentally don't know what you're referring to) would hardly indicate a military conquest by Dalriada, since Pictland is already Scottisizing. The situation is comparable to the later Gaelic kings who introduced and adopted Anglo-Norman customs, names and language, without even being threatened by the Anglo-Norman state!
They do indeed, I agree. However, the Dalriadan conquest theory just looks ridiculous. If Kenneth was a Dalriadan conqueror, why then did he rule from Fortriu? More fundamentally, Pictland as a whole was totally unconquerable in the short term, in any real sense, for any truly foreign invader - simply because no-one in the region had the technology or resources to do it. Nothing is mentioned of Pictish resistance...if they "get conquered" (i.e. if a foreign army defeats their current king and tries to establish a permanent presence), then it's not as if the rest of the Picts will simply lie down and take a new foreign ruler. No way! Kenneth's success was as a dynast of the Fortriu kingdom, who had Scottish origins in a kingdom probably already highly Scotticized. There is no evidence either way, but I suspect his warband included more "Picts" than any other element, even if it had Scots from the conquered kingdom of Dalriada.
My opinion, which when I started this thread was "sceptical" has mutated slightly to "subscribing", in that it seems pretty close to certain that Alba was at least an expanded Fortriu with a Scottish dynasty, not a super-gigantic Dalriadan Empire.
PS: forgive me, I am in a rush, no time to check typos
EDIT: some typos fixed
samildanach
Necrophile
I thought I would take the liberty of bumping this thread as it looked liked turning into a highly informative ( and entertaining) clash between two of the history forum heavyweights. Let the punches fly gentlemen and don't mind me I won't faint at the first sign of blood...I'll just stand over here though, out of the way. Close enough so I can see but not get covered in gore, woad and other gunk.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Interesting debate.
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
Bloodshed? Certainly not. I see real merits to both sides of the debate.
What the debate boils down to is what national identity really amounts to. Whenever you get power changing hands in a nation it's invariably a fallacy to assume that the "defeated" faction simply ceases to exist. Take post-1066 England as an example- you've got an overwhelming victory by the Normans who impose their laws and social structure on the defeated Saxons. However 1000 years on there's a strong case for asserting that England is a Saxon nation with just residual traces of the Normans in our laws and (vaguely) our monarchy. The Normans were always a tiny minority in the nation's ethnic make-up, and it's almost as if they were simply swallowed up by the Saxon majority, just leaving their legacies here and there.
In short, the presence of a certain jumped-up cattle rustler wearing a crown on the throne tends to matter little to a nation as a whole, which is just as it should be.
So what's the relevance to Scotland? Well what is Scotland anyway? Which faction's culture proved to have the greatest cultural vigour and stayed the course? It's not an easy question to address because the evidence is so slight and confused, far more so than the case in England.
At the top (at least until the pro-Norman kings arrived in the 11th century) in the heart of what is now Scotland you had Dal Riatan Scots in the wake of Kenneth Mac Alpin, Scottish laws, etc. Yet it's safe to assume that as far as ethnic make-up is concerned the Picts were the majority, followed by Scots and Britons. A similar position to Norman/Saxon/Danish England, but with the significant caveat that Scots had been present in the area for for longer than the Normans had in England, and in far greater numbers. Therefore it's a safe assumption that their legacy ran deeper than that of the Normans.
Then, of course, you have to consider that after MacBeth and Lulach in the mid 11th century, the Scottish kings were desperately trying to become Normans. Confusing, isn't it? This is the sort of thing that keeps Historians in jobs. Yet in the resulting mongrel state (and mongrels are the survivors, remember) it's the Scots and notion of "Scottishness" that survived. Who wants to be a Norman or a Pict?
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
Digression over, though I think it was relevant to this thread's subject.
At this point our sources clearly disagree (not unusual, given the subject matter). Mine state that Oswald and Oswy took refuge with Eochaid Buide, not Nechtan II- it was Eanfrith that was sheltered by Nechtan's court.
Eochaid Buide is another puzzle. A Dal Riatan, closely linked with St Columba- yet he was styled "King of the Picts" at his death despite appearing on no Pictish king-lists. Bravado on his part? Or was it at least partially backed up with some degree of incursion into Pictish territory? Whatever....
So what we have from this account are links with both the Scots and the Picts by the ruling Northumbrian family. However it was with the Scots that Oswald and Oswy grew to manhood under Eochaid's protection, and it was they who can to rule from Northumbria as (for a time) the greatest power in England.
Meanwhile, over at Nechtan's court we have Eanfrith. He marries a Pictish princess, but never appears to hold any real power himself. Yet his son Talorcen Mac Enfret becomes Pictish king on the death of Talorc. Where did that come from? Perhaps he was popular. Perhaps he was powerful, but it's an appetising one to ponder- the half-Angle princeling who became king of the Picts.
Enter the family connection. Who's Talorcen's uncle? It's Oswy, now king of Northumbria and seriously powerful. How many strings were being pulled?
Of the Pictish kings before Talorcen, Gartnait and Brude Mac Gwid had short reigns and they were quite posibly killed in border skirmishes against Dal Riata, Strathclyde or Northumbria. In Talorc's reign we have encroachment on Pictish land by Dal Riata and Strathclyde, while Northumbrian forces besieged Edinburgh and were heading north until Oswald's death.
So Oswy takes the Northumbrian throne at this point. The Picts of Fortrenn are facing oppenents on three fronts and may not have been able to rely on the Northern Picts. Oswy's got a different agenda to Oswald and is more concerned about Mercia so he cuts a forceful bargain- "take my nephew as king and behave yourselves, or you'll get a slap". The Picts get face saved because young Talorcen is half-Pictish and vaguely royal.
That's my interpretation of the events. Perhaps describing the Picts as "vassals" was too strong, but I certainly see convincing signs of subservience sufficient to consider the Picts not to be the dominant power in the region. That came later.
The Scots lose ground badly under Domnall Brecc (629-642). However they start regaining ground in the West Highlands and Isles under Domangart (660-673) which certainly demonstrates a degree of resistance and vigour. Then it all goes a bit pear-shaped for 30 years, though more due to civil war than Pictish pressure, and the domination of Angus in the 8th century. Yet Aed Find came back strongly and ruled Dal Riata without dynastic strife. The one major military clash with the supposedly dominant Picts (768) was inconclusive, and the Pictish king Ciniod accepts Aed Find's authority over Dal Riata. So it looks like the Scots are at least able to hold their own at that point.
Typically (for Scotland) this gets followed by a reversal and we see the Pictish Domnall ruling Dal Riata. Yet he appears to have real problems, and a son of Aed Find by the name of Eochaid rules Kintyre. Eochaid (the Poisonous) is other fascinating snippet- he's the sharp-tongued rebel equated with the legendary Achaius, instigator of the "Auld Alliance" with Charlemagne and founder of the Order of the Thistle.
Scottish thistles are wonderful weeds. They throw down very deep roots and keep coming back despite what you throw at them. You think you've got you lawn in great shape, but if you turn your back on it for a bit you'll find a 5-foot tall prickly monster has miraculously re-appeared in it. They're a great metaphor for the Scots history, in fact. Battered, but apparently indestructible.
Yes- you get Pictish kings ruling the Scots in the 8-9th century. However the claims of Drust Mac Constantine and Talorc Mac Uuthoil are tenuous, and there may well have been an interregnum until Eoganan Mac Angus managed to establish himself in 836. Then from 839-847 it's clear that the Picts are hurting. How many kings did the Picts have in that period? I make it 6, and that's a sign of trouble. Just ripe for a really big Kenneth Mac Alpin-shaped thistle to spring up from those deep roots in the West....
At this point our sources clearly disagree (not unusual, given the subject matter). Mine state that Oswald and Oswy took refuge with Eochaid Buide, not Nechtan II- it was Eanfrith that was sheltered by Nechtan's court.
Eochaid Buide is another puzzle. A Dal Riatan, closely linked with St Columba- yet he was styled "King of the Picts" at his death despite appearing on no Pictish king-lists. Bravado on his part? Or was it at least partially backed up with some degree of incursion into Pictish territory? Whatever....
So what we have from this account are links with both the Scots and the Picts by the ruling Northumbrian family. However it was with the Scots that Oswald and Oswy grew to manhood under Eochaid's protection, and it was they who can to rule from Northumbria as (for a time) the greatest power in England.
Meanwhile, over at Nechtan's court we have Eanfrith. He marries a Pictish princess, but never appears to hold any real power himself. Yet his son Talorcen Mac Enfret becomes Pictish king on the death of Talorc. Where did that come from? Perhaps he was popular. Perhaps he was powerful, but it's an appetising one to ponder- the half-Angle princeling who became king of the Picts.
Enter the family connection. Who's Talorcen's uncle? It's Oswy, now king of Northumbria and seriously powerful. How many strings were being pulled?
Of the Pictish kings before Talorcen, Gartnait and Brude Mac Gwid had short reigns and they were quite posibly killed in border skirmishes against Dal Riata, Strathclyde or Northumbria. In Talorc's reign we have encroachment on Pictish land by Dal Riata and Strathclyde, while Northumbrian forces besieged Edinburgh and were heading north until Oswald's death.
So Oswy takes the Northumbrian throne at this point. The Picts of Fortrenn are facing oppenents on three fronts and may not have been able to rely on the Northern Picts. Oswy's got a different agenda to Oswald and is more concerned about Mercia so he cuts a forceful bargain- "take my nephew as king and behave yourselves, or you'll get a slap". The Picts get face saved because young Talorcen is half-Pictish and vaguely royal.
That's my interpretation of the events. Perhaps describing the Picts as "vassals" was too strong, but I certainly see convincing signs of subservience sufficient to consider the Picts not to be the dominant power in the region. That came later.
The Scots lose ground badly under Domnall Brecc (629-642). However they start regaining ground in the West Highlands and Isles under Domangart (660-673) which certainly demonstrates a degree of resistance and vigour. Then it all goes a bit pear-shaped for 30 years, though more due to civil war than Pictish pressure, and the domination of Angus in the 8th century. Yet Aed Find came back strongly and ruled Dal Riata without dynastic strife. The one major military clash with the supposedly dominant Picts (768) was inconclusive, and the Pictish king Ciniod accepts Aed Find's authority over Dal Riata. So it looks like the Scots are at least able to hold their own at that point.
Typically (for Scotland) this gets followed by a reversal and we see the Pictish Domnall ruling Dal Riata. Yet he appears to have real problems, and a son of Aed Find by the name of Eochaid rules Kintyre. Eochaid (the Poisonous) is other fascinating snippet- he's the sharp-tongued rebel equated with the legendary Achaius, instigator of the "Auld Alliance" with Charlemagne and founder of the Order of the Thistle.
Scottish thistles are wonderful weeds. They throw down very deep roots and keep coming back despite what you throw at them. You think you've got you lawn in great shape, but if you turn your back on it for a bit you'll find a 5-foot tall prickly monster has miraculously re-appeared in it. They're a great metaphor for the Scots history, in fact. Battered, but apparently indestructible.
Yes- you get Pictish kings ruling the Scots in the 8-9th century. However the claims of Drust Mac Constantine and Talorc Mac Uuthoil are tenuous, and there may well have been an interregnum until Eoganan Mac Angus managed to establish himself in 836. Then from 839-847 it's clear that the Picts are hurting. How many kings did the Picts have in that period? I make it 6, and that's a sign of trouble. Just ripe for a really big Kenneth Mac Alpin-shaped thistle to spring up from those deep roots in the West....
As far as know the Irish were the only ones to call britian Alba, from the old Greek Albion, which came from the white cliffs of dover. (Albino)
I think it was more of a boast than anything else, like the Ui Neill's claiming successive high kingship over Ireland, when all they really had was power over the north.
(Just a quick 2 cents, i'll let you two lads argue on. Interesting stuff
)
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
I'll correct one error in my last post. In it I said that Eanfrith never held any real power himself. He actually did rule Northumbria for a couple of years, but was killed (I was getting him confused with somebody else). However that doesn't really change anything as far as Talorcen and Oswy are concerned.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Sorry, I wasnt even aware you had responded! 
OK. Im not sure the Anglo-Saxon sources discriminate too much. My source just said they took refure amongst the Scots and Picts. Id be interested to see what the English sources themselves say not that itd have any bearing on the thread
I congratulate you for your creativity But even this would, at its very best, amount to no more than the dependence of one warlord on another, rather than the vassalhood of a Kingdom.
Isnt this telling you that the distinction between the two kingdoms is disappearing?
Its not just ignorant Anglo-Saxon sources, the Irish sources cease to distinguish as well.
All leading to one conclusion Im afraid.
OK. Im not sure the Anglo-Saxon sources discriminate too much. My source just said they took refure amongst the Scots and Picts. Id be interested to see what the English sources themselves say not that itd have any bearing on the thread
I congratulate you for your creativity
But even this would, at its very best, amount to no more than the dependence of one warlord on another, rather than the vassalhood of a Kingdom. Isnt this telling you that the distinction between the two kingdoms is disappearing?
Its not just ignorant Anglo-Saxon sources, the Irish sources cease to distinguish as well.
All leading to one conclusion Im afraid.
Originally posted by Kafka2
Scottish thistles are wonderful weeds. They throw down very deep roots and keep coming back despite what you throw at them. You think you've got you lawn in great shape, but if you turn your back on it for a bit you'll find a 5-foot tall prickly monster has miraculously re-appeared in it. They're a great metaphor for the Scots history, in fact. Battered, but apparently indestructible.
[/QUOTE
Reminds me of Hugh MacDiarmid:
But why in this huge ineducable
Heterogeneous hotch and rabble,
Why am I condemned to squabble?
A Scottish poet maun assume
The burden o his peoples doom
And die to brak their livin tomb.
Mony hae tried, but aa hae failed,
Their sacrifice has nocht availed.
Upon the thistle they're impaled.
- A Drunk Man Looks At the Thistle
Love it
Thats not too many. By this point, as I said before, the Picts have already swallowed up the Scots.Both the Picts and the Scots are hurting but is there a difference by this point?
However, just a little aside. The Scots do re-emerge they may have been nominally swallowed up by Pictland/Alba/Scotia, but they do retain their most of the Dalriadan state structure, which explains the emergence of the semi-legendary Somerled and then of Clan Donald.
I wont be able to respond for a while, because Im off on holiday. But youre an interesting poster, so I hope well have future discussions.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Just reading the great Anglo-Welsh historian Norman Davies. His opinion is that Alba was used by the Gaels in pre-Roman times to refer to all of Britain, but that it came to refer to the unoccupied area only within the Roman period.
He parallels this with "Caledonia" (they mean the same thing). The Caledonians, he says, were the first tribe to be encountered when the Romans went north of the river Clota (Clyde. They later extended the name to all tribes further north. He also compares this with "Siberia", named after the Khanate of Sibir at the foot of the Urals, they extended the term to mean all of north-eastern Eurasia.
Sorry for the digression.
Similar threads
- Locked
