New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[ParkCungHee]

I think it's strictly "Emperor of the Irish", I just took the liberty of mangling it a little to stress my point.

Well that just opens up whole loads of identity issues, doesn't it? I mean sure he's appropriating a title made up by some guy from Connacht, and "Gael" doesn't translate into Irish but still, Emperor of the Irish is a very...fuzzy, term to be claiming in the 14th Century.

 

[Flying Pig]

Oh good, FlyingPig is here.

Is Imperator Scottorum Emperor of Ireland or Emperor of the Irish?

Of the Irish; '-orum' denotes genetive plural. Imperator Scotiae would be 'Emperor of Ireland' although 'Imperator Hibernae' would have been more usual: 'Scottus' denoted the Gaelic race (I'm trying hard not to say 'nation') so 'Scotia' was 'the land where the Gaels live', which originally meant most of Ireland, but since it was an ethnic term its meaning shifted - it was held in the early Middle Ages that Scotland and Ireland were populated by the same ethnic group, and so Ireland remained 'Scotia Maior' (the nuance of the term is hard to translate, but it really means 'the main land of the Gaels') while Scotland became 'Scotia Minor' ('the lesser land of the Gaels'). However, by about the 11th Century, Scotland was by a long way the most significant of the Gaelic political entities, and so 'Scotia' became synonymous with 'Alba'; that is, Scotland: the Pope, of all people, formalised this in the 15th Century.

So, to be honest - definitely 'Emperor of the Irish' rather than 'Emperor of Ireland', but it really means anything between that, 'Emperor of the Hiberno-Scottish Gaels', and 'Emperor of the Scots' - which in itself meant 'Britain north of the Forth' for quite some time - depending on the time in which it was used. One can understand why they chose the Latin title.

EDIT: If it's being used in the 14th Century, strictly it ought to be 'the Scots', but one can imagine it being used anachronistically to appeal to Gaelic ethnic identity (again, not saying nationalism!) and therefore to mean 'Emperor of the Gaels'. What makes things more complicated is that in the 11th Century we had the High King of Ireland using the Imperator Scottorum title to mean 'Emperor of the Irish People' rather than of the Island of Ireland, but the English consistently used 'Hibernia' in their own titles, so in the 16th Century they established the King of England as 'Rex Hiberniae'.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ah, so Emperor of the Gaels, maybe?

See that is interesting to me because that does seem to indicate some vague proto-nationalist identity, especially if the usual would be Imperator Hibernae, considering when the title was created, there was all kinds of Danes mucking about.

Also fits in with the Identity Bruce was trying to appeal to.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well that just opens up whole loads of identity issues, doesn't it? I mean sure he's appropriating a title made up by some guy from Connacht, and "Gael" doesn't translate into Irish but still, Emperor of the Irish is a very...fuzzy, term to be claiming in the 14th Century.

Oh, certainly, reading it as "Irish" is also totally contrary to the nationalist interpretation of the Declaration, I just couldn't really be arsed to go into the details. Anyone who cares is plenty acquainted with them, and anyone who doesn't isn't going to stop and read a four paragraph untangling of what was supposed to be an analogy to something happening on the other side of Europe.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, so Emperor of the Gaels, maybe?

See that is interesting to me because that does seem to indicate some vague proto-nationalist identity, especially if the usual would be Imperator Hibernae, considering when the title was created, there was all kinds of Danes mucking about.

Also fits in with the Identity Bruce was trying to appeal to.

Yes, except that it's not nationalist. People have had ethnic identities since the dawn of time, he was just trying to claim leadership of one such ethnicity. As I've said, nationalism would have required him to be claiming to do so 'for the good of the Gaelic nation' rather than for his own benefit, or even for the benefit of the specific people who happened to make up the Gaelic nation. Am I being clear?

EDIT: To be blunt, the main reason why geographical titles (Imperator Hiberniae and so on) were relatively rare was because there wasn't much scope for a monarch to enforce his authority on those who didn't already have some ingrained thought that he ought to be ruling them. Crushing rebels was one thing, but there would have been remote communities in Ireland who had never heard of the man, and had he turned up on their doorstep would have been polite to him and paid him respect, but would not have seen him as their ruler because they didn't feel at all connected to those other people who happened to live on the same island as them; small autonomous communities would have existed all over the place. In other words, calling yourself 'King of all Ireland' was asking to be contradicted.

 

[TheLastOne36]

But I'm sure a five minute read in this subforum would've already told you that nobody was their own nation in medieval Europe.

Poland was pretty close in that regard.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, except that it's not nationalist. People have had ethnic identities since the dawn of time, he was just trying to claim leadership of one such ethnicity. As I've said, nationalism would have required him to be claiming to do so 'for the good of the Gaelic nation' rather than for his own benefit, or even for the benefit of the specific people who happened to make up the Gaelic nation. Am I being clear?

Well, the problem is that as much as it wasn't nationalist, it wasn't purely monarchical, either: the Bruce had no claim of any sort in Ireland, either through the de Brus, whose lands were in Annandale, Essex and Yorkshire, or through the mac Fearghuis, whose lands were in Carrick and Ayrshire. The claim to an "Irish Imperium" was an appeal to a shared Gaelic identity, even if what the Bruce was doing was positioning himself as the leader of a coalition rather than of a nation-state, this was coalition was still conceived of being at least in some sense "Gaelic".

The trick, I think, is that just because the category of "nation" doesn't apply to the Medieval period, it doesn't mean that everything therefore simply falls under the category of "not-nation". That itself represents the anachronistic imposition of contemporary conceptual frameworks, simply blacking part of them out; it's a bit like saying that the Bruce wasn't a liberal, because liberals didn't exist, so therefore he must have been a conservative.

 

[Flying Pig]

The trick, I think, is that just because the category of "nation" doesn't apply to the Medieval period, it doesn't mean that everything therefore simply falls under the category of "not-nation". That itself represents the anachronistic imposition of contemporary conceptual frameworks, simply blacking part of them out; it's a bit like saying that the Bruce wasn't a liberal, because liberals didn't exist, so therefore he must have been a conservative.

Ah, I see what you mean, and that is a good point. In other words, we can recognise some aspects of what would go on to become nationalism while still recognising that the movement didn't have some of the key aspects neccessary to be considered nationalistic. At least, you're right, it is progress from 'I'm in charge and these people who follow me are my men'.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, except that it's not nationalist. People have had ethnic identities since the dawn of time, he was just trying to claim leadership of one such ethnicity. As I've said, nationalism would have required him to be claiming to do so 'for the good of the Gaelic nation' rather than for his own benefit, or even for the benefit of the specific people who happened to make up the Gaelic nation. Am I being clear?

Oh yeah, when I mean proto-nationalist the emphasis is definitely on the proto aspect of this. Obviously Irish nationalism, especially Gaelic Irish Nationalism is a 19th century phenomenon. That said, I think Boru might have been making a stab into the ethnic politics of 11th century Ireland.

EDIT: To be blunt, the main reason why geographical titles (Imperator Hiberniae and so on) were relatively rare was because there wasn't much scope for a monarch to enforce his authority on those who didn't already have some ingrained thought that he ought to be ruling them. Crushing rebels was one thing, but there would have been remote communities in Ireland who had never heard of the man, and had he turned up on their doorstep would have been polite to him and paid him respect, but would not have seen him as their ruler because they didn't feel at all connected to those other people who happened to live on the same island as them; small autonomous communities would have existed all over the place. In other words, calling yourself 'King of all Ireland' was asking to be contradicted.

Well yes, but simple Geographic distance can't explain the title. At this point, that would mean he was theoretically staking a claim to Scotland and Mann. On the other hand, he's leaving out people in his own back yard. There were certainly enough "Danes" settled in Connacht for the distinction to be meaningful even for local politics.

Obviously this is no "Brian Boru was a great Irish Patriot" spiel, since I usually dismiss that rot, besides, I hate Boru. Simply that ethnic politics might already have been a thing in 11th Century Ireland, and one that Boru partially sought to exploit with his title.
...That or maybe he planned to invade Scotland. Wouldn't put it past him.

 

[dutchfire]

Not to put you all totally off topic, but how is this different from the Rex Iudaeorum title that appears in the Bible? Grammaticaly, it seems to be the same. Doesn't that indicate a similar sort of "proto-nationalism"?

 

[Flying Pig]

It's impossible not to see the Jews as a seperate people from Roman eyes; it's just the same. The Romans were saying that he was the leader of these wiry-haired long-nosed folk with strange religious practices. Nationalism might be a product of the French Revolution, but ethnicity most definitely was not.

Obviously this is no "Brian Boru was a great Irish Patriot" spiel, since I usually dismiss that rot, besides, I hate Boru. Simply that ethnic politics might already have been a thing in 11th Century Ireland, and one that Boru partially sought to exploit with his title.

Yes - but then ethnic politics have always been a thing. See above.

 

[Domen]

But I'm sure a five minute read in this subforum would've already told you that nobody was their own nation in medieval Europe.

I've got a friend who's uncle (and then also other family members) has researched & compiled a genealogy tree of their family dating back to the Middle Ages. The first identified progenitor of their clan was knight Vestko Rogalita, owner of villages Galezewo & Kopaszyce, who lived in the middle of the 13th century:

http://paruszewscy.pl/index.htm

So yes, that family lived in Poland for the last 750+ years.

Vestko himself was one of decendants of a Swiss clan of Bibersteins - sources mention a knight from this clan in Poland in early 12th century, participating in a Polish-organized "crusade" against Pomerelian pagans under command of duke Boleslaw Krzywousty in years 1108 - 1109. For his merits during that expedition Biberstein was granted a coat of arms (Rogala) and 5 villages in Mazovia - and so he settled in Poland.

 

[sophie]

I've got a friend who's uncle (and then also other family members) has researched & compiled a genealogy tree of their family dating back to the Middle Ages. The first identified progenitor of their clan was knight Vestko Rogalita, owner of villages Galezewo & Kopaszyce, who lived in the middle of the 13th century:

http://paruszewscy.pl/index.htm

So yes that family lived in Poland for the last 750 years.

Vestko himself was one of decendants of a Swiss clan of Bibersteins - sources mention a knight from this clan in Poland in early 12th century, participating in a Polish-organized "crusade" against Pomerelian pagans, under command of duke Boleslaw Krzywousty. For his merits during that expedition Biberstein was granted a coat of arms and 5 villages in Mazovia - and so he settled in Poland.

...What the hell does this have to do with anything?

 

[Domen]

It shows that not everybody "was not their own nation" in medieval Europe.

Plus it is an interesting story.

I would like to have such knowledge about the history of my own family.

Impressive work to research family history back to 13th century.

But what can Americans know about this if your country is just over 200 years old?

 

[sophie]

It shows that not everybody "was not their own nation" in medieval Europe.

Plus it is an interesting story.

I would like to have such knowledge about the history of my own family.

Impressive work to research family history back to 13th century.

But what can Americans know about this if your country is just over 200 years old?

...what? Because someone has a Polish family that goes back a ways that means that Poland was a nation? How does that make any sense?

And just because my family was only in America for 250 years, doesn't mean we haven't traced it back to well before then. They do keep records in Germany and Britain, you know.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think Domen believes that Americans grow out of the soil wherever people get together to be patriotic and eat apple pie.

 

[Traitorfish]

My surname appeals in Irish church records as early as the 12th century. That doesn't mean that there existed an Irish nation in that period, just that some of the people lived in the geographical area that their descendent would later identify as constituting an Irish nation. Primordialism is, in a word, crap.

 

[TheLastOne36]

It shows that not everybody "was not their own nation" in medieval Europe.

Plus it is an interesting story.

I would like to have such knowledge about the history of my own family.

Impressive work to research family history back to 13th century.

But what can Americans know about this if your country is just over 200 years old?

Someone in my family did the research as well. My first known ancestor was some body-guard turned knight of one of the Polish Piast kings during the fragmentation of Poland. For his years of service he was given land and title.

 

[Traitorfish]

Less Poland-based derails more Ireland-based derails.

 

[History_Buff]

So, the English: best thing to happen to the Irish, or does that title go to the Scottish?