House Uí Ímair

[Sleight of Hand]

These guys (dynasty 20084) belonged to a great Norse-Gael dynasty who ruled parts of the British Isles around Mann, Dublin and the Hebrides. Currently they start with some weird cultural mixes, such as the grandfather, father and son in 1066 having different cultures. Some are Irish, some are Scots, some are Norwegian. Seems quite random, and pretty confusing. You could change their dynasty name to Ivarætten, the Norse name. That isn't too important, though, and Uí Ímair is certainly the better known version.

As they're only around at the start of the game and rule Norwegian culture provinces, I'd suggest making them Norwegian culture. As we don't have a proper way to represent the Norse-Gaels then I think this would be good; they certainly shouldn't be Scottish, and there are tons of Irish characters anyway. Arguably there are only two great Norse-Gael clans left by 1066 -- these and the Crovans -- so it seems an ideal solution. Also, these areas would likely have remained Norse had the Norse-Gaels not been assimilated or usurped and replaced with Anglo-Norman rulers. Gaelic and Old Norse names are used interchangeably for the most part, but it does seem a nice gameplay decision to go with Norwegian due to province culture (as I've mentioned) and the fact that the Irish and Scots will usually conquer the remaining Norse-Gael provinces quite quickly, after which they will tend to change culture. By having them as Norwegian, this will add a bit more flavor (which is not inaccurate) and also give the player something of a challenge as a nice alternative to the Crovans, who historically usurped the Uí Ímair and conquered Mann.

So, we'll start with the two characters in the Norwegian file and then work down.

norwegian.txt

5789 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Sigtrygg[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Sihtric Cáech[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=7
	diplomacy=7
	intrigue=7
	stewardship=7
	religion="catholic"
	culture="norwegian"
	880.1.2={
		birth="880.1.2"
	}
	927.1.2={
		death="927.1.2"
	}
}

5790 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Olav Kvåran[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Amlaíb Cuarán[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=7
	diplomacy=7
	intrigue=7
	stewardship=7
	religion="catholic"
	culture="norwegian"
	father=5789
	926.1.2={
		birth="926.1.2"
	}
	981.1.2={
		death="981.1.2"
	}
}[

irish.txt

131521 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Járnkné[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Glúniairn[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=4
	diplomacy=4
	intrigue=4
	stewardship=8
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=5790
	mother=131520
	960.1.2={
		birth="960.1.2"
	}
	989.1.2={
		death="989.1.2"
	}
}

131522 = {
	name="Gilla Ciaráin"
	# AKA: Gilla Ciarain
	dynasty=20084
	martial=5
	diplomacy=4
	intrigue=3
	stewardship=4
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=131521
	979.1.2={
		birth="979.1.2"
	}
	1014.1.24={
		death="1014.1.24"
	}
}

131523 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Sigtrygg[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Sihtric[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=3
	diplomacy=5
	intrigue=3
	stewardship=5
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=131521
	980.1.2={
		birth="980.1.2"
	}
	1014.1.24={
		death="1014.1.24"
	}
}

131526 = {
	name="Mac Congáil"
	dynasty=20084
	martial=7
	diplomacy=5
	intrigue=6
	stewardship=4
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=131525
	1039.1.2={
		birth="1039.1.2"
	}
	1098.1.1={
		death="1098.1.1"
	}
}

159291 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Sigtrygg[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Sihtric[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=6
	diplomacy=6
	intrigue=4
	stewardship=4
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	add_trait="bastard"
	father=1027
	mother=1028
	1015.1.1={
		birth="1015.1.1"
	}
	1040.1.1={
		[COLOR="#FF0000"]name="Swtrig" # ab Anlaff
		culture="welsh"[/COLOR]
		add_spouse=159290
	} 
	1080.1.5={
		death="1080.1.5"
	}
}

1025 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Sigtrygg[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Sihtric[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=5
	diplomacy=8
	intrigue=7
	stewardship=7
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="intricate_webweaver"
	father=5790
	970.1.1={
		birth="970.1.1"
	}
	1000.1.2={
		add_spouse=1026
	}
	1042.1.5={
		death="1042.1.5"
	}
}

1027 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Olav[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Amlaíb[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=6
	diplomacy=6
	intrigue=4
	stewardship=4
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=1025
	mother=1026
	1000.1.1={
		birth="1000.1.1"
	}
	1018.1.2={
		add_spouse=1028
	}
	1034.1.5={
		death="1034.1.5"
	}
}

1029 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Ragnhild[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Rachel[/COLOR]
	female = yes
	dynasty=20084
	martial=6
	diplomacy=6
	intrigue=4
	stewardship=4
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="flamboyant_schemer"
	father=1027
	mother=1028
	1018.1.1={
		birth="1018.1.1"
	}
	1065.1.5={
		death="1065.1.5"
	}
}

Regarding ID 159291 above, I don't see any point in changing Sigtrygg's culture and dynasty when he gets married. He's a bastard and has already started his wife's line of sons, who are Welsh and of her dynasty. If he has any future children (which is unlikely anyway) they'll be of the dynasty of whomever he marries. You don't just stop being Norwegian and start being Welsh.

scottish.txt

131524 = {
	name="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]Gudrød[/COLOR]"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Godfrey[/COLOR]
	dynasty=20084
	martial=4
	diplomacy=4
	intrigue=5
	stewardship=8
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="patient"
	add_trait="charitable"
	add_trait="gluttonous"
	father=131523
	1004.1.2={
		birth="1004.1.2"
	}
	1074.1.1={
		death="1074.1.1"
	}
}

131525 = {
	name="Fingal"
	dynasty=20084
	martial=6
	diplomacy=5
	intrigue=8
	stewardship=3
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="charitable"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=131524
	1022.1.2={
		birth="1022.1.2"
	}
	1072.1.1={
		death="1072.1.1"
	}
}

This would seem consistent with House Crovan, as I think they were recently made Norwegian from being a funny mix of various cultures. Speaking of which, there is a single member of House Crovan who still isn't Norwegian. He's a Scot, and shouldn't be:

5794 = {
	name="Donald"
	[COLOR="#FF8C00"]# AKA: Donald Haraldsson[/COLOR]
	dynasty=556
	martial=7
	diplomacy=8
	intrigue=4
	stewardship=8
	religion="catholic"
	culture="[COLOR="#FF8C00"]norwegian[/COLOR]"
	add_trait="gluttonous"
	add_trait="tough_soldier"
	father=5793
	1053.1.2={
		birth="1053.1.2"
	}
	1103.1.2={
		death="1103.1.2"
	}
}

His parents and siblings are all Norwegian, as he probably ought to be.

Finally, it may be worth linking up Gudrød_Godfrey for Norwegian culture. I wasn't aware the two were cognates, but having done a bit of research into these families it seems that Gudrød, Godred, Gofraid and Godfrey are often interlinked and used as alternatives for one another, depending on which language is being used.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Isaios, do the honorable thing and connect these dynasties with the missing semi-legendary characters.

 

[A_Dane]

Interesting stuff for sure

What exactly you need help with?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

What exactly you need help with?

Basically, add loads of these missing semi-legendary characters and connect them to existing characters, and then hopefully use them to connect actual dynasties.

Probably better to start a new thread for your work, though.

 

[riadach]

By all means provide your suggestions.

We don't have a Norse-Gael culture, so I thought it better to represent them as Norwegians given that they're of Norse origin and rule Norwegian provinces, but if you can provide better names or ideas then please do so.

The problem as I see it, is that the provinces wouldn't have been Norwegian. There was a Norwegian ruling class with, very often, an Irish/Gaelic underclass.

 

[Isaios]

The problem as I see it, is that the provinces wouldn't have been Norwegian. There was a Norwegian ruling class with, very often, an Irish/Gaelic underclass.

Party, but the game does not represent such divisions, so TO represent a foreign ruling class (including Mayors etc) you need the County Culture to be Norwegian. I'm guessing it's representing the port rather than the entire County. And from all indications, there was extensive immigration going on.

Isaios, do the honorable thing and connect these dynasties with the missing semi-legendary characters.

Wilco!

 

[riadach]

Party, but the game does not represent such divisions, so TO represent a foreign ruling class (including Mayors etc) you need the County Culture to be Norwegian. I'm guessing it's representing the port rather than the entire County. And from all indications, there was extensive immigration going on.

Indeed, but except in the case of the towns themselves and the like of Orkney and Caithness, there is no evidence of a cultural shift. Not to mention the fact Norse kings were intermarrying with Irish princesses and vice versa. Norse power in Dublin involved the temporary overlordship of local polities such as the Uí Dhúnchadha, Fir Chualann, and Saithne. Direct overlordship woukd have onlt applied to Fine Gall, and this area seems to have remained thoroughly Irish until the Norman conquest. The point can very easily be overstated.



Wilco! [/QUOTE]

 

[Calgacus]

The game does the best it can just now in relation to culture, with Dublin Norwegian and all the other regions Irish. There were numerous other Norse areas in the country that are not represented at all (Cork, Limerick, Wexford, and so on). And incidentally, the Norse population probably did not have any higher status than Irish population; middling merchant and freeholding farmer types with a minority slave population, like in the rest of Ireland. Sure many of the Norse slaves would have been Irish, but many of the Irish slaves would have been English, Norse, etc etc.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The game does the best it can just now in relation to culture, with Dublin Norwegian and all the other regions Irish. There were numerous other Norse areas in the country that are not represented at all (Cork, Limerick, Wexford, and so on). And incidentally, the Norse population probably did not have any higher status than Irish population; middling merchant and freeholding farmer types with a minority slave population, like in the rest of Ireland. Sure many of the Norse slaves would have been Irish, but many of the Irish slaves would have been English, Norse, etc etc.

I tend to agree with this synopsis.

An additional advantage to having Mann and Dublin as Norwegian culture (representing Norse-Gael in this case) is that it allows a successful player to spread that culture across Ireland, whereas in most cases those provinces will fall to Gaelic or Anglo-Norman rulers who will convert them.

So yes, the status quo is a pretty good balance. Besides, everyone knows that playing as vikings is cool.

 

[Calgacus]

Indeed, an entirely Un-Norse Ireland would be both a historical and gameplay abomination!

The islands btw are definitely Norse. Hebridean place-names are more than 90% Norse (though entirely Gaelic in speech into the middle of the 20th century); that the inhabitants are still called Gaill in the thirteenth century probably means Gaelicization is middle or late CK era.

 

[riadach]

The islands are definitely Norse. Hebridean place-names are more than 90% Norse (though entirely Gaelic in speech into the middle of the 20th century); that the inhabitants are still called Gaill in the thirteenth century probably means Gaelicization is middle or late CK era.

They could be called Fionn-Lochlannaigh up to the 16th centuries in Irish poetry, but they used the term to refer to patrons who understood and commissioned that poetry. Gall/Lochlannach will refer more to origin than culture. Very few, if any, of the recorded Gallóglaigh had Norse names. Indeed, the Gallóglaigh had forged Irish pedigrees for themselves, but it still didn't cause the Gall moniker to be removed.

 

[Calgacus]

They could be called Fionn-Lochlannaigh up to the 16th centuries in Irish poetry, but they used the term to refer to patrons who understood that Poetry. Gall will refer more to origin than culture. Very few, if any, of the recorded Gallóglaigh had Norse names. Indeed, the Gallóglaigh had forged Irish pedigrees for themselves, but it still didn't cause the Gall moniker to be removed.

That the Galloglas is coined in the 1200s for Hebrideans is a good argument for dominant Norse culture in the era; but yes, Norse rulers employed Irish poets from at least the 900s. A good model for this is the use of French poets by Germans and English in the same era. It indicates the culture had prestige, not that it was the common one. Place-name evidence shows the Hebrides must have been Norse until very late.

 

[riadach]

That the Galloglas is coined in the 1200s for Hebrideans is a good argument for dominant Norse culture in the era; but yes, Norse rulers employed Irish poets from at least the 900s.

You wouldn't suggest that Gallóglaigh were Norse speakers, even though they are still referred to as Gaill up till the 17th century. I wouldn't assume that because they were called gallóglaigh that it meant they were Norse cultured. It could merely have referred to their origins in Inse Gall, or a recognition of their Norse origin. Most Gallóglaigh, as I said before, claimed Irish descent.

A good model for this is the use of French poets by Germans and English in the same era. It indicates the culture had prestige, not that it was the common one. Place-name evidence shows the Hebrides must have been Norse until very late.

It can, unless we consider that it may reflect Norse political dominance rather than cultural dominance. Gaelic from the Isles shows much Norse influence but not the sort that would imply a massive language shift like the one necessary to make a Norse speaking Island group a Gaelic speaking island group.

 

[Calgacus]

You wouldn't suggest that Gallóglaigh were Norse speakers, even though they are still referred to as Gaill up till the 17th century. I wouldn't assume that because they were called gallóglaigh that it meant they were Norse cultured. It could merely have referred to their origins in Inse Gall, or a recognition of their Norse origin. Most Gallóglaigh, as I said before, claimed Irish descent.

It can, unless we consider that it may reflect Norse political dominance rather than cultural dominance. Gaelic from the Isles shows much Norse influence but not the sort that would imply a massive language shift like the one necessary to make a Norse speaking Island group a Gaelic speaking island group.

No I would suggest that they were Norse speakers. At best Norse speakers recently adopting Gaelic through Scottish or Irish influence. That's precisely what the name implies. The sort of later usage afterwards that you're talking about is obviously different and the context indicates archaicizing. Place-name evidence from the Isles, like I said, shows total Norse usage in the Isles, more than 90% of non-minor place-names. Unlikely that Gaelic was dominant when parochial system introduced late 12th/early 13th century. Also Icelandic sagas of 13th century + seem to regard inhabitants as Scandinavian, unlike Scots and Irish.

 

[riadach]

No I would suggest that they were Norse speakers. At best Norse speakers recently adopting Gaelic through Scottish or Irish influence. That's precisely what the name implies. The sort of later usage afterwards that you're talking about is obviously different and the context indicates archaicizing.

My point would be when could you pinpoint when that archaicing begin. If you allow for archaizing then you have to admit that it was possible that in the 13th century they were considered Norse in an archaic sense, not in a contemporary cultural sense.

Place-name evidence from the Isles, like I said, shows total Norse usage in the Isles, more than 90% of non-minor place-names.

What's the significence of non-minor in this instance?

Unlikely that Gaelic was dominant when parochial system introduced late 12th/early 13th century.

The parochial system would also have been top down, so it could be argued it reflected the language of the elite as opposed to the language of the ordinary speakers.

Also Icelandic sagas of 13th century + seem to regard inhabitants as Scandinavian, unlike Scots and Irish.

Could the icelandic sagas of the 13th century be reflecting an archaic situation? Furthermore, could have have been referring to the elite rather than the ordinary? I'm trying to get my head around the fact that majority Norse speaking islands turned completely Gaelic Speaking. Given Gaelic was losing ground in Scotland, and to an extent in North East Ireland due to De Courcey's settlement, I'm finding it difficult to see where the social pressure/prestige pressure came from. I'm also finding it difficult to understandthat in a pre-modern period a minority language on the island managed to reverse the trend and become dominant. In my head it makes sense if there was significant Norse settlement, with a Norse upper class, who eventually went native due to the fact Gaelic was still the major spoken language on the island, very similar to what happened with English and French in England.

 

[Calgacus]

My point would be when could you pinpoint when that archaicing begin. If you allow for archaizing then you have to admit that it was possible that in the 13th century they were considered Norse in an archaic sense, not in a contemporary cultural sense.

What's the significence of non-minor in this instance? The parochial system would also have been top down, so it could be argued it reflected the language of the elite as opposed to the language of the ordinary speakers. Could the icelandic sagas of the 13th century be reflecting an archaic situation? Furthermore, could have have been referring to the elite rather than the ordinary? I'm trying to get my head around the fact that majority Norse speaking islands turned completely Gaelic Speaking. Given Gaelic was losing ground in Scotland, and to an extent in North East Ireland due to De Courcey's settlement, I'm finding it difficult to see where the social pressure/prestige pressure came from. I'm also finding it difficult to understandthat in a pre-modern period a minority language on the island managed to reverse the trend and become dominant. In my head it makes sense if there was significant Norse settlement, with a Norse upper class, who eventually went native due to the fact Gaelic was still the major spoken language on the island, very similar to what happened with English and French in England.

It's the combination of evidence that makes the conclusion difficult to avoid. Non-minor excludes ephemeral naming for trees, ditches, and so on. Place-name evidence is quite unambiguous, more than 90% in the Hebrides. By comparison the fragmentary survival of Gaelic poetry and use of some Gaelic names in the leading dynasties (drawn from the Moray and Scottish royal families they had bred with) constitute very poor evidence; and it certainly doesn't look good if you have to postulate that Icelanders of the 1200s + were superimposing aspects of a past they really had very little access to. Those introducing the parochial system were probably Gaelic Scots like Andrew bishop of Caithness and family of the abbots of Brechin, as well perhaps as some of the familiar Anglo-Norman types, but doing so with existing terminology. The pressure comes from things like the increased economic power of the Scottish east coast from Anglo-Continental immigration (detrimental to Gaelic long-term but beneficial in the short-), the reconquest of the isles in the 13th century, and perhaps most importantly the service of so many Hebridean males in Irish military households as mercenaries (we're talking perhaps a majority of Hebridean men were trying to make their fortunes)

 

[riadach]

It's the combination of evidence that makes the conclusion difficult to avoid.

Perhaps I'm still being skeptical, but I think the combination of evidence might still point to a Norse upper strata and a Gaelic substrate.

Non-minor excludes ephemeral naming for trees, ditches, and so on. Place-name evidence is quite unambiguous, more than 90% in the Hebrides.

Place-name evidence could still be attributed to an active aristocracy, especially if they engaged in a bit of social reorganisation, which is likely.

By comparison the fragmentary survival of Gaelic poetry and use of some Gaelic names in the leading dynasties (drawn from the Moray and Scottish royal families they had bred with) constitute very poor evidence;

Don't forget, I mainly brought up poetry to illustrate the use of the term Gall or even Lochlannach does not necessarily carry cultural connotations. It may be sparse, but it is important.
Such poetry didn't come cheap, and it served a social function, proclaiming such kings were rightful, justified, martial, elements that were targetted as much towards their subjects as they were towards their contemporaries. It was quite an investment if they had no target audience.

and it certainly doesn't look good if you have to postulate that Icelanders of the 1200s + were superimposing aspects of a past they really had very little access to.

It would depend on the nature of the Saga records. Were they composed in the 13th century or recorded in the 13th century? If it is the latter, it is quite likely they were superimposing aspects of the past. IIRC later Icelandic Sagas could produce accounts of 11th battles, so I'm not sure how you can claim that had very little access to such history.

Those introducing the parochial system were probably Gaelic Scots like Andrew bishop of Caithness and family of the abbots of Brechin, as well perhaps as some of the familiar Anglo-Norman types, but doing so with existing terminology.

But they would of course have been exploited existing political divisions which would have been primarily Norse derived, so likely they would have reflected this onomastically.

The pressure comes from things like the increased economic power of the Scottish east coast from Anglo-Continental immigration (detrimental to Gaelic long-term but beneficial in the short-),

Can you expand on this?

the reconquest of the isles in the 13th century,

Which involved the replacement of one distant overlord with another? The actual basic leadership of the Isles was still in the hands of the descendents of Somhairle, who tried to claim Irish descent, but were a product of that cultural sphere.

and perhaps most importantly the service of so many Hebridean males in Irish military households as mercenaries (we're talking perhaps a majority of Hebridean men were trying to make their fortunes)

This one remove one of the most attractive aspects of Hebridean service to Irish rulers, that they were in fact Early Modern Irish speaking. Fiven these were organised in bands under Hebridean captains, and given this service was not seasonal but for the most part permanent, it is difficult to see how it could have lead to a cultural change in the Hebrides. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical, but I remain unconvinced.

 

[Calgacus]

Perhaps I'm still being skeptical, but I think the combination of evidence might still point to a Norse upper strata and a Gaelic substrate.

Place-name evidence could still be attributed to an active aristocracy, especially if they engaged in a bit of social reorganisation, which is likely.

Don't forget, I mainly brought up poetry to illustrate the use of the term Gall or even Lochlannach does not necessarily carry cultural connotations. It may be sparse, but it is important.
Such poetry didn't come cheap, and it served a social function, proclaiming such kings were rightful, justified, martial, elements that were targetted as much towards their subjects as they were towards their contemporaries. It was quite an investment if they had no target audience.

It would depend on the nature of the Saga records. Were they composed in the 13th century or recorded in the 13th century? If it is the latter, it is quite likely they were superimposing aspects of the past. IIRC later Icelandic Sagas could produce accounts of 11th battles, so I'm not sure how you can claim that had very little access to such history.

But they would of course have been exploited existing political divisions which would have been primarily Norse derived, so likely they would have reflected this onomastically.

Can you expand on this? Which involved the replacement of one distant overlord with another? The actual basic leadership of the Isles was still in the hands of the descendents of Somhairle, who tried to claim Irish descent, but were a product of that cultural sphere.

An elite changing the place-names so totally is utterly implausible. You're imagining something like the French domination in England. Are English place-names 90%+ French? Also Hebridean society didn't have elites in the sense you are thinking of. Social divisions in the islands were within households rather than between them; between them there were flexible patron-client accommodations subject to political fortune. The Somerled guys had relatively small territorial bases and relied on the consent and enthusiasm of subject kindreds (if they didn't have it there was no rebellio, they would just be weaker).

I think btw we both recognize the claims of Irish descent of the descendents of Somerled to be fictitious. Basically, the Hebrides were poor warrior farms for Irish and Scottish rulers; Norse culture had no writing and no literary class at the time; almost all of their neighbours spoke Scottish or Irish Gaelic. Gaelicization was inevitable.

This one remove one of the most attractive aspects of Hebridean service to Irish rulers, that they were in fact Early Modern Irish speaking. Fiven these were organised in bands under Hebridean captains, and given this service was not seasonal but for the most part permanent, it is difficult to see how it could have lead to a cultural change in the Hebrides. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical, but I remain unconvinced.

I don't think language had much to do with their attractiveness (if anything similarities between the two languages would have been bad!). The tradition of Hebridean mercenaries is just a continuation of use of soldiers from Norse forts in Ireland.

 

[A_Dane]

[...]
I don't think language had much to do with their attractiveness (if anything similarities between the two languages would have been bad!). The tradition of Hebridean mercenaries is just a continuation of use of soldiers from Norse forts in Ireland.

And well, if i remember correctly, weren't the entire Hebridean mercenary society based on the fact, that they were considered some sort of foreigners, Gallowglass in english?

 

[Calgacus]

And well, if i remember correctly, weren't the entire Hebridean mercenary society based on the fact, that they were considered some sort of foreigners, Gallowglass in english?

Indeed. As riadach said, at some stage use of Gaill for Hebrideans becomes etymological/purely about ancestry, but as I was saying this is unlikely to be before the early 13th century when the term emerged.

 

[riadach]

An elite changing the place-names so totally is utterly implausible. You're imagining something like the French domination in England. Are English place-names 90%+ French?

No, but I'm allowing for a large degree of influence on Norse on the Isles, just pulling back from the claim that it was total or majority. I don't think then that French in England would be an adequate comparison. But French has had an impact on how many English place-names were pronounced and spelt. I'm just considering that Norse social organisation would have been different, and that many new settlements would have been established by the Norse which would explain the need for new toponyms. This is why I asked about non-minor placenames, as they may have reflected Gaelic social organisation which was still, as in Ireland, remarkably rural.

Also Hebridean society didn't have elites in the sense you are thinking of. Social divisions in the islands were within households rather than between them; between them there were flexible patron-client accommodations subject to political fortune. The Somerled guys had relatively small territorial bases and relied on the consent and enthusiasm of subject kindreds (if they didn't have it there was no rebellio, they would just be weaker).

What if we were to consider warriors vs tillers, or even sea-goers versus tillers? That could easily replace an elite model once we accept that the former was likely to hold political power.

I think btw we both recognize the claims of Irish descent of the descendents of Somerled to be fictitious. Basically, the Hebrides were poor warrior farms for Irish and Scottish rulers; Norse culture had no writing and no literary class at the time; almost all of their neighbours spoke Scottish or Irish Gaelic. Gaelicization was inevitable.

I'd prefer contentious. I doubt Somerled knew in truth who his ancestors were. But it is still rather an interesting point that his forgery was believed. I think an interesting comparison would be the survival of Norn in the North, which would have been put under similar pressure, yet there are significant different factors though. Historical accounts exist of Norn, it survived 400 years after being subjected to foreign-cultured rule, so it had to contend with educational reforms, which Norse on the Norse Isles wouldn't. I can only imagine that the reason one survived so late and the other didn't, is because the latter was never so dominant. Norse culture indeed had a literary class of skalds and writing by the 13th century, so there must some other reason why it didn't survive, and I think the logical suggestion is the weakness of Norse in the Western Isles at the time. I accept your arguments are illustrative, but I still cannot view them as convincing.

I don't think language had much to do with their attractiveness (if anything similarities between the two languages would have been bad!). The tradition of Hebridean mercenaries is just a continuation of use of soldiers from Norse forts in Ireland.

Similarities wouldn't have been bad at all. We're talking about early modern Irish when both languages would have still been remarkably similar. I don't think you can say the tradition was just a continution of use of soldiers from Norse forts without recognising the argument that most of those Norse forts could speak Irish or at the very least a Norse-Irish pidgin (gíc-goc the annalists delighfully called it). The lack of a cultural barrier would have been one of the reasons why the preferred them over the readily available Norman mercenaries who were common in the early 13th (and of which there is evidence from the early 12th century). I doubt they could have so readily integrated into the Irish social system were they Norse cultured, and I would doubt their genealogical claims from the three Collas, or from Aodh Athlamhan, would have even been considered were they Norse speaking.