This post is an expansion upon my reply in the "Maps of the new starting date 867 ad." thread. Scotland in 867 is something of an enigma to historians, the central question being how did the Kingdom(s) of the Picts evolve into the Kingdom of Alba (Scotland, and possibly Scotland and Moray). Sources are scant, regnal lists don't always agree, and Victorian historians often took medieval chroniclers at face value, resulting in Myths that modern historians are still fighting to this day.
So without further Ado, let's examine some of the issues in relation to how they should be portrayed in game:
(1) How do we get from Pictland to Alba?
The largest Kingdom in the geographical area of Scotland was ruled by Constantine I. Traditionally he is regarded as a Scottish King, as his regnal number indicates. Contemporary chroniclers however, viewed him as a Pictish King. To illustrate the difficulty, I'll quote a bit from the Annals of Ulster (The Chronicles are also off slightly datewise for reasons too complex to properly explain succinctly, anything in brackets is my own):
So what do the contemporary Chronicles tell us? The transformation between Pictland and Alba occurred between 878 (Chronicle date 877) and 900 AD (Chronicle date 899). At least, from the perspective of the Irish Chroniclers. Also of Import, though they are called Kings of Pictland, they have Gaelic names. Does this imply they were cultural Gaels? If so can we extend this to the elite of the Kingdom? The lesser Nobility? The common people?
To use CK II terms, this implies the Nobility would be predominantly Gaelic, with a few Picts thrown in for fun. Culturally, Argyll should of course be Gaelic (Argyll means Coastline of the Gael, and it is during the time of the Norse invasions that it developed its name). Moray in the West would be Gaelic, and depending on how assimilation progressed there could be significant culturally Pictish populations in Eastern Moray, Buchan, Atholl, and Gowrie. Or they could be culturally predominantly Gaelic by 867, we just don't know. For Gameplay purposes I'd like to see at least a single province such as Buchan be Pictish, if only because it's plausible and increases player's choice.
As for the question of how we go from Pictland to Alba, it has been written about to death without achieving much in the way of consensus. Without delving too much into the Academia of the matter, I'll refer instead to Neil Oliver's History of Scotland Series. Though he's a bit sensationalist at times, he does explain history in an engaging if populist manner - the relevant portions are posted below, but I'd recommend anyone with the time to watch the entire episode. (The relevant portion begins near the 7 minute mark of the first video)
[video=youtube;BxEDmy9ZpSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxEDmy9ZpSY[/video]
[video=youtube;fqKPPmkOO4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqKPPmkOO4U[/video]
While not universally accepted, his explanation is one of the more popular solutions to the conundrum.
(2) How extensive was Norse settlement in Scotland at this time?
In CK II terms Caithness, Innse Gall, and Orkney certainly should be considered Norse ruled, with significant Norse populations. Ian Armit's The Archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles has a nice concise summary of the situation:
Further evidence is contained in one of the quotes from the Annals of Ulster that I mentioned earlier, that I'll repeat for good measure:
The foreigners (Norse) came from Ireland and Scotland, indicating that settlements were solidly established by this point. If you're able to leave your home to go raid, you probably have the belief that your home is reasonably secure from attack while you're gone.
What about other areas of Scotland, such as Galloway? Inse Gall means Isles of the Foreigners, and likewise Galloway, depending on how earlier names forms are interpreted, means either Land of the Foreigners, or Land of the Foreign Gaels. Foreign Gaels, or Norse-Gaels, were people who spoke the Gaelic language but adopted enough Norse customs to be regarded as foreigners by their Gaelic brethren. On the surface, that would appear then that in CK II terms the province of Galloway should be Norse ruled. History is unfortunately never quite that simple. This time the quote comes from Richard Oram's The Lordship of Galloway:
Long story short, Oram prefers to date the Norse control of Galloway to after the Irish conquest of Dublin in 902, and the subsequent resettlement of Hiberno Norse around the Irish sea. Nonetheless an argument can be made for Norse control of Galloway in 867 with the province as culturally Gaelic.
(3) What about Moray?
Those familiar with medieval Scottish historiography will be familiar with the current debate surrounding Moray. Aside from the odd Saga mention, the recorded history of Moray during the 10th century is pretty empty, and what we do have from the 9th century doesn't help matters. The current thought is that Moray may be an evolution of the Pictish Kingdom of Fortriu after it was Gaelicised. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps? Our understanding of Moray, if we think of it as a Sub-Kingdom to Scotland or a largely independent Kingdom until Macbeth unifies the two crowns is a question two centuries removed from the 867 start date. If we accept that the primary Kingdom in Scotland should still be represented as Pictland, should there be two Pictish Kingdoms (Which to confuse matters further would be culturally Gaelic - history is fun!)?
One branch of historians believe that Kingdom in the South evolved into Alba, while the Kingdom in the North evolved into Moray. From a gameplay perspective, I like the idea of splitting the Kingdoms if only to shake things up a bit in the North. From a historical standpoint, it follows Bede who held that the Picts were for the most part of their history divided between Northern and Southern Picts. One issue then is what to call the Southern Pictish Kingdom (If we ignore Pictland and Pictavia) - Fotla would be the choice that initially stands out, and is the root of the province of Atholl (Ath-Fotla). The etymology of the word itself is generally Ath = New and Fotla = Ireland, meaning New Ireland, an evidence of its Gaelic past. Alternatively, some linguist argue that as a result of a transcription error the name was originally Athfochla, which would imply a pictish meaning of "North Pass." One aspect to take away from this is that historians still haven't settled what to properly call these areas, let alone what occurred within them during this time frame. In a roundabout way this leads us to . . .
(4) What do we call the North Kingdoms/Settlements? How should they be organised?
At this time Norse controlled Scotland was known as Laithlann or Laithlinn to the Gaels of Ireland, though this was more of a term of convenience to refer to the many Kinglets that popped in and out of existence at this time. These kingdoms were largely independent, and it wasn't until the annexation or Orkney by Harald Fairhair in 875 that this independence began to be curtailed. The Simple answer would be to have independent Kingdoms of Man, Sudreyar, Galloway, Orkney, Sutherland, etc. On the other-hand, this leaves them weak against people whom they were traditionally significant threats. A better solution may be Orkney, Sutherland (Caithness), and Possibly Ross as one unit, with Innse Gall broken into two provinces (Lewis the Uists and Skye as the first, Islay, Mull, Jura and Kintyre as the second) joined with the Isle of Man. This would put two Norse powers balanced with the two Gaelicised Pictish powers, and it would as fair of a guess as any to the geopolitical makeup of the North in 867. Also allows for some good old Crusader Kings internecine feuding.
For anyone interested in an academic overview of the Norse in Scotland and Ireland at this time, it's fortunate that Donnchadh Ó Corrain's article The Vikings in Scotland and Ireland in the Ninth Century is available online.
(5) What about Dal Riata?
The last recorded King of Dal Riata is mentioned in 792 (Chronicle Date 791):
While 867 is 75 years after the death of the last Dal-Riatic King, I'd be in favour of having a claimant or two floating about, maybe even being a 'Baron' in Argyll or something of that nature. Ideally it'd be fun to have some hijinks revolving around Cenel Loairn, Cenel Gabrain, and Cenel Oengusa, but I doubt there's a Paradox dev that devoted to Scottish history to flesh out that dynamic!
(6) What about Strathclyde (Alt Clut)?
For Starters, good thing the start date takes place in 867! Once again I'm going to quote the Annals of Ulster, one that was mentioned earlier:
One of the places they destroyed during their expedition was Alt Clut itself, Capturing Strathclyde's King. Sadly for this Royal, his fate did not end so well:
This has variously been interpreted as meaning that Constantine refused to pay the ransom requested (Which would imply a close alliance between Pictland and Alt Clut) or encouraged his execution in order to expand his influence over his ravaged Southern neighbour. At any rate, Artgha would be the leader of Strathclyde at the 867 start date. If you don't die in four years you'll have already been more successful than the character you're playing!
One question that needs to be addressed in regards to Alt Clut revolves around culture. They're referred to as Brythonic in modern Academia, though in gameplay terms 'Briton' would likely suffice, it's also the term used by contemporary Chroniclers. It also raises the question of whether the Goidelic and Brythonic cultures should be separated culturally. Gaelic Ireland and Scotland would be Goidelic, with Alt Clut, the Welsh Kingdoms and Cornwall being Brythonic. While it is more fitting than both being under a generic Celtic umbrella, they probably shouldn't receive the same relations hit as they have with the Norse and Saxon peoples.
Provincewise it would make sense for them to have Clydesdale and Carrick, and arguably Teviotdale and Galloway. That would leave Lothian and Dunbar for Northumbria. The awkward province size of Teviotdale is an issue as it would have been fairly evenly split between Northumbria and Alt Clut at this time. Shaving off the easternmost part of Teviotdale and giving it to Dunbar, renaming the remainder of Teviotdale to Annandale would be a solution if necessary. One solution would be splitting the baronies, but that is less than ideal.
Summary:
In light of the above, here's a rough first look at one of the ways Scotland could be represented - multiple colours on the same province indicate they could arguably go either way:
*****
I'll likely edit this post at a later date to add a few more points and summarise any further discussion.
*Edit* Also turns out I unintentionally titled my post after Alex Woolf's Book of the same name, unfortunately I don't have a copy but from what I remember it's a great read if you like the subject matter.
*****
Here's a provisional culture map crafted by Hibernian:
In addition, I compiled a list of Norse related events from the Annals of Ulster, between Annal dates of 793-870 to give a sense of what was happening in relation to Norse affairs in Ireland, and to a lesser extent Scotland, at this time.
Here's a list of entries from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Chronicle dates 860-870.
Riadach posted a nice excerpt from the Fragmentary Annals discussing some of the key characters in Ireland at this time.
Inspired by a post by Hardradi, I discuss some of the issues with Ui Imair dynasty identification and the allotment of Norse controlled provinces in Ireland and Scotland.
Excerpts from a Miscellanea of Sources Related to Scotland
Riadach has an excellent post of the potential distribution of Irish provinces.
Also there are currently excellent discussions forming around Celtic Druidism and Viking Dublin.
So without further Ado, let's examine some of the issues in relation to how they should be portrayed in game:
(1) How do we get from Pictland to Alba?
The largest Kingdom in the geographical area of Scotland was ruled by Constantine I. Traditionally he is regarded as a Scottish King, as his regnal number indicates. Contemporary chroniclers however, viewed him as a Pictish King. To illustrate the difficulty, I'll quote a bit from the Annals of Ulster (The Chronicles are also off slightly datewise for reasons too complex to properly explain succinctly, anything in brackets is my own):
Annals of Ulster said:
So what do the contemporary Chronicles tell us? The transformation between Pictland and Alba occurred between 878 (Chronicle date 877) and 900 AD (Chronicle date 899). At least, from the perspective of the Irish Chroniclers. Also of Import, though they are called Kings of Pictland, they have Gaelic names. Does this imply they were cultural Gaels? If so can we extend this to the elite of the Kingdom? The lesser Nobility? The common people?
To use CK II terms, this implies the Nobility would be predominantly Gaelic, with a few Picts thrown in for fun. Culturally, Argyll should of course be Gaelic (Argyll means Coastline of the Gael, and it is during the time of the Norse invasions that it developed its name). Moray in the West would be Gaelic, and depending on how assimilation progressed there could be significant culturally Pictish populations in Eastern Moray, Buchan, Atholl, and Gowrie. Or they could be culturally predominantly Gaelic by 867, we just don't know. For Gameplay purposes I'd like to see at least a single province such as Buchan be Pictish, if only because it's plausible and increases player's choice.
As for the question of how we go from Pictland to Alba, it has been written about to death without achieving much in the way of consensus. Without delving too much into the Academia of the matter, I'll refer instead to Neil Oliver's History of Scotland Series. Though he's a bit sensationalist at times, he does explain history in an engaging if populist manner - the relevant portions are posted below, but I'd recommend anyone with the time to watch the entire episode. (The relevant portion begins near the 7 minute mark of the first video)
[video=youtube;BxEDmy9ZpSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxEDmy9ZpSY[/video]
[video=youtube;fqKPPmkOO4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqKPPmkOO4U[/video]
While not universally accepted, his explanation is one of the more popular solutions to the conundrum.
(2) How extensive was Norse settlement in Scotland at this time?
In CK II terms Caithness, Innse Gall, and Orkney certainly should be considered Norse ruled, with significant Norse populations. Ian Armit's The Archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles has a nice concise summary of the situation:
Ian Armit said:
Further evidence is contained in one of the quotes from the Annals of Ulster that I mentioned earlier, that I'll repeat for good measure:
Annals of Ulster said:
The foreigners (Norse) came from Ireland and Scotland, indicating that settlements were solidly established by this point. If you're able to leave your home to go raid, you probably have the belief that your home is reasonably secure from attack while you're gone.
What about other areas of Scotland, such as Galloway? Inse Gall means Isles of the Foreigners, and likewise Galloway, depending on how earlier names forms are interpreted, means either Land of the Foreigners, or Land of the Foreign Gaels. Foreign Gaels, or Norse-Gaels, were people who spoke the Gaelic language but adopted enough Norse customs to be regarded as foreigners by their Gaelic brethren. On the surface, that would appear then that in CK II terms the province of Galloway should be Norse ruled. History is unfortunately never quite that simple. This time the quote comes from Richard Oram's The Lordship of Galloway:
Richard Oram said:
Long story short, Oram prefers to date the Norse control of Galloway to after the Irish conquest of Dublin in 902, and the subsequent resettlement of Hiberno Norse around the Irish sea. Nonetheless an argument can be made for Norse control of Galloway in 867 with the province as culturally Gaelic.
(3) What about Moray?
Those familiar with medieval Scottish historiography will be familiar with the current debate surrounding Moray. Aside from the odd Saga mention, the recorded history of Moray during the 10th century is pretty empty, and what we do have from the 9th century doesn't help matters. The current thought is that Moray may be an evolution of the Pictish Kingdom of Fortriu after it was Gaelicised. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps? Our understanding of Moray, if we think of it as a Sub-Kingdom to Scotland or a largely independent Kingdom until Macbeth unifies the two crowns is a question two centuries removed from the 867 start date. If we accept that the primary Kingdom in Scotland should still be represented as Pictland, should there be two Pictish Kingdoms (Which to confuse matters further would be culturally Gaelic - history is fun!)?
One branch of historians believe that Kingdom in the South evolved into Alba, while the Kingdom in the North evolved into Moray. From a gameplay perspective, I like the idea of splitting the Kingdoms if only to shake things up a bit in the North. From a historical standpoint, it follows Bede who held that the Picts were for the most part of their history divided between Northern and Southern Picts. One issue then is what to call the Southern Pictish Kingdom (If we ignore Pictland and Pictavia) - Fotla would be the choice that initially stands out, and is the root of the province of Atholl (Ath-Fotla). The etymology of the word itself is generally Ath = New and Fotla = Ireland, meaning New Ireland, an evidence of its Gaelic past. Alternatively, some linguist argue that as a result of a transcription error the name was originally Athfochla, which would imply a pictish meaning of "North Pass." One aspect to take away from this is that historians still haven't settled what to properly call these areas, let alone what occurred within them during this time frame. In a roundabout way this leads us to . . .
(4) What do we call the North Kingdoms/Settlements? How should they be organised?
At this time Norse controlled Scotland was known as Laithlann or Laithlinn to the Gaels of Ireland, though this was more of a term of convenience to refer to the many Kinglets that popped in and out of existence at this time. These kingdoms were largely independent, and it wasn't until the annexation or Orkney by Harald Fairhair in 875 that this independence began to be curtailed. The Simple answer would be to have independent Kingdoms of Man, Sudreyar, Galloway, Orkney, Sutherland, etc. On the other-hand, this leaves them weak against people whom they were traditionally significant threats. A better solution may be Orkney, Sutherland (Caithness), and Possibly Ross as one unit, with Innse Gall broken into two provinces (Lewis the Uists and Skye as the first, Islay, Mull, Jura and Kintyre as the second) joined with the Isle of Man. This would put two Norse powers balanced with the two Gaelicised Pictish powers, and it would as fair of a guess as any to the geopolitical makeup of the North in 867. Also allows for some good old Crusader Kings internecine feuding.
For anyone interested in an academic overview of the Norse in Scotland and Ireland at this time, it's fortunate that Donnchadh Ó Corrain's article The Vikings in Scotland and Ireland in the Ninth Century is available online.
(5) What about Dal Riata?
The last recorded King of Dal Riata is mentioned in 792 (Chronicle Date 791):
Annals of Ulster said:
While 867 is 75 years after the death of the last Dal-Riatic King, I'd be in favour of having a claimant or two floating about, maybe even being a 'Baron' in Argyll or something of that nature. Ideally it'd be fun to have some hijinks revolving around Cenel Loairn, Cenel Gabrain, and Cenel Oengusa, but I doubt there's a Paradox dev that devoted to Scottish history to flesh out that dynamic!
(6) What about Strathclyde (Alt Clut)?
For Starters, good thing the start date takes place in 867! Once again I'm going to quote the Annals of Ulster, one that was mentioned earlier:
Annals of Ulster said:
One of the places they destroyed during their expedition was Alt Clut itself, Capturing Strathclyde's King. Sadly for this Royal, his fate did not end so well:
Annals of Ulster said:
This has variously been interpreted as meaning that Constantine refused to pay the ransom requested (Which would imply a close alliance between Pictland and Alt Clut) or encouraged his execution in order to expand his influence over his ravaged Southern neighbour. At any rate, Artgha would be the leader of Strathclyde at the 867 start date. If you don't die in four years you'll have already been more successful than the character you're playing!
One question that needs to be addressed in regards to Alt Clut revolves around culture. They're referred to as Brythonic in modern Academia, though in gameplay terms 'Briton' would likely suffice, it's also the term used by contemporary Chroniclers. It also raises the question of whether the Goidelic and Brythonic cultures should be separated culturally. Gaelic Ireland and Scotland would be Goidelic, with Alt Clut, the Welsh Kingdoms and Cornwall being Brythonic. While it is more fitting than both being under a generic Celtic umbrella, they probably shouldn't receive the same relations hit as they have with the Norse and Saxon peoples.
Provincewise it would make sense for them to have Clydesdale and Carrick, and arguably Teviotdale and Galloway. That would leave Lothian and Dunbar for Northumbria. The awkward province size of Teviotdale is an issue as it would have been fairly evenly split between Northumbria and Alt Clut at this time. Shaving off the easternmost part of Teviotdale and giving it to Dunbar, renaming the remainder of Teviotdale to Annandale would be a solution if necessary. One solution would be splitting the baronies, but that is less than ideal.
Summary:
In light of the above, here's a rough first look at one of the ways Scotland could be represented - multiple colours on the same province indicate they could arguably go either way:
*****
I'll likely edit this post at a later date to add a few more points and summarise any further discussion.
*Edit* Also turns out I unintentionally titled my post after Alex Woolf's Book of the same name, unfortunately I don't have a copy but from what I remember it's a great read if you like the subject matter.
*****
Here's a provisional culture map crafted by Hibernian:
Hibernian said:
In addition, I compiled a list of Norse related events from the Annals of Ulster, between Annal dates of 793-870 to give a sense of what was happening in relation to Norse affairs in Ireland, and to a lesser extent Scotland, at this time.
Here's a list of entries from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Chronicle dates 860-870.
Riadach posted a nice excerpt from the Fragmentary Annals discussing some of the key characters in Ireland at this time.
Inspired by a post by Hardradi, I discuss some of the issues with Ui Imair dynasty identification and the allotment of Norse controlled provinces in Ireland and Scotland.
Excerpts from a Miscellanea of Sources Related to Scotland
Riadach has an excellent post of the potential distribution of Irish provinces.
Also there are currently excellent discussions forming around Celtic Druidism and Viking Dublin.
Last edited:
Thank you so much for posting.
