Scotland in 867: From Pictland to Alba

[riadach]

After looking at all the apologue subclasses, I see that only one could be considered Scottish, and in fact it is a reference to Fearchar Ó Maoilchiaráin's father's poem, Tugadh Oirne Easbhuidh Mhór, and a reference to a spider making a web which is reminiscent of the story of Robert de Brus on Rathlin. Other than that, the rest refer to Irish historical or mythological characters in an strongly Irish environment.

 

[HERC0]

Absolutely love this post, really hope Paradox pays attention to it. Clearly a lot of hard work gone into this, it's been a great read so far!

+1

 

[Hibernian]

So about the culture thing again, how would this work in-game?

Should there be only one culture for the Gaelic peoples of both Ireland and Scotland to start with in 867, or should they already be represented as separate? I mean clearly both groups were speaking the same language and had near-identical cultures at the time, but certain things were different. I mean, I'm not sure how people from that time would really identify themselves, but surely even at this early point the Gaels of Scotland would not refer to themselves as Eireannach (meaning Irish, or from the Island of Ireland), but as Albannach (meaning Scottish, or from Scotland). Or would they all just call themselves Gaels?

And if we have only one culture to start off with, how can that be made to evolve into two separate cultures by the High Middle Ages? (i.e. Where do Irish and Scottish come in).

Also, what about the Isle of Man at this time, was it still Gaelic or already Norse by 867? Of course, that leads on to other similar questions for the rest of Britain. Like should there be a common Briton culture to represent both Welsh and the other Brythonic groups in Cumbria and Western Scotland? Not to mention Cornish and Breton. Should these groups all start out the same culture and then somehow diverge, or already be separate?

 

[riadach]

I wouldn't separate them at this stage.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

But fenians may not be a great example, since Scotland was always a strong part of their poetry. Even in ostensibly Irish ossianic literature, Scotland is quite frequently mentioned.

Sure Scotland was occasionally mentioned in the Irish context, but Irish poetry certainly doesn't refer to Fionn, Diarmuid, or Conan as being Scottish themselves! (Though some may have wished that Conan was, I kid, I kid). The fact that they naturalised these mythological heroes is a pretty significant development. To have done so represents a strong sense of self identity, and considering how frequently Ossianic allusions and mentions appear within the Scottish context, it can't be dismissed out of hand. It's not just that they changed the birthplace and cultural milieu of their heroes, but they changed the location of their adventures as well.

Well, I've read other examples of arming in Irish Bardic poetry (they're are about four true instances afterall), and references to Irish places aren't necessarily common. But Maith an Chairt does indeed mention Irish charactars, such as Fearghus, Oscar and Fionn when referencing these weapons and armour, which is fairly typical .

The mention of Ossianic figures after they've been naturalised as Scottish rather reinforces my argument. In the context of Scottish Highland belief at the time they were solidly considered to be Scottish, as much as some of the Filidh may have wished otherwise. In the Irish context they remain as Irish, but it's a fairly significant cultural rift. Cú Chulainn as a point of contrast, was never naturalised, and possibly as consequence was never particularly popular in Scotland, at least compared to the heroes of the Fenian cycle.

Maith an Chairt is indeed a good example of what you describe, but I'm not sure it could be used to reflect Scots' tradition as a whole. It is, after all, mid-17th to late 17th century when the main division in Gaeldom had already occured.

Fair enough, honestly I just like the poem, that's the reason why it came to mind. The main issue is that when we're talking about the 867 start date . . . we're rather limited aren't we? We have elegies and praise poems from the likes of Dallan Forgaill, Adomnan, Beccan mac Luigdech, and other members of the Iona community. These are all largely about Colum Cille, someone who was in fact an exiled Gael from Ireland living in Scotland. We have a few fragments on other subjects, but nothing approaching completeness. One fragment is a Gaelic verse composed for Oengus, King of the Picts c. 761 the fragment is about him uniting the various Pictish Kingdoms and Dal Riata under his banner:

Good the day when Oengus took Alba,
hilly Alba, with its strong chiefs;
He brought battle to towns, with boards,
with feet hands and with broad shields

No really enough to go on is it?

You would probably have to address the fact what John of Islay would try and assert his genealogy through Colla Uais in the first place. As far as I'm aware, Somhairle dna may contradict any actual connection to Colla Uais himself. But the fact that Ireland is mentioned, is still given it a central ideological significance in Scottish identity. I don't recall many of Collas descendants in Ireland needing to emphasise their patrons position in Scotland. It is an afterthought, an insignificance. Yet not so Ireland in the mind of John. The Irish link is (most like fraudulent), but it is prestigious. The very idea that such genealogies were forged with characters dating much later than any actual or even mythological migration is further indication that Ireland was viewed with much prestige and dominated the cultural relationship.

This opens up a pretty huge can of worms, which I'll try to digest without grimacing too much!

(1) The genealogy Somerled and his descendants are many things, but a descendant from Colla Uais they are not. David Sellar's The Origins and Ancestry of Somerled, Scottish Historical Review, Vol 45, No. 140 (Oct 1966) and Alex Woolf's The Origins and ancestry of Somerled: Gofraid mac Fergus and the Annals of the Four Masters are two excellent primers on the topic, and two works that stand directly in contrast to each other. Long story short, they faked their Genealogy because they either forgot what it was, or the truth wasn't particularly say, Gaelic of them.

(2) The history of the Gaels in Scotland includes their history before they arrived in Scotland. Referencing this historic past does not imply they express an exiled mentality. Unless of course the references to Mil Espania represent a sense of exile from Spain, Scota a sense of Exile from Egypt, or Goidel Glas a sense of Exile from Greece (though Goidel Glas is one of the reasons why Greece is mentioned with what to an outsider might appear an unusual frequency).

It should also be noted that the poem continues past Colla, and goes straight back to Adam!

If I were to enumerate all the forebears
of Gaelic nobles,
a blight on any generation back to Adam
no man has found.

I'm being a bit facetious here on purpose, but this certainly can't be taken as a reference to a true exiled mentality regarding exile from the garden of Eden!

(3) Gaels were quite proud of their ability to trace back their ancestry to the time of Adam (which needless to say required quite a bit in the way of fabrication). There's really no reason for them to stop and say, "well this is the first Ancestor to arrive in Scotland, I think we can stop here." In terms of the Macdonalds and the other MacSorleys, they have a few keynote figures they like to highlight.

Somhairle who Earned his reputation,
leader of heroes.

Sommerled is the biggest, then it's Colla Uais or Conn Cétchathac (and hey, it's Conn of the Hundred Battles, who wouldn't like to bring that guy up in conversation?).

I should also point out that of the 12 people mentioned by name in the poem, 1 is John, 1 is Adam, 1 is Colla, the rest are Scottish Gaels. Also after Somerled the poet starts skipping generations, mentioning only one person by name before getting to Colla. Not quite a rousing example of Irish fixation.

At the end of the day this is a discussion at best tangentially linked to the topic at hand, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree? I must admit I've found it quite enjoyable though, there aren't too many people with whom you can have a conversation regarding medieval Gaelic poetry.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

So about the culture thing again, how would this work in-game?

Should there be only one culture for the Gaelic peoples of both Ireland and Scotland to start with in 867, or should they already be represented as separate? I mean clearly both groups were speaking the same language and had near-identical cultures at the time, but certain things were different. I mean, I'm not sure how people from that time would really identify themselves, but surely even at this early point the Gaels of Scotland would not refer to themselves as Eireannach (meaning Irish, or from the Island of Ireland), but as Albannach (meaning Scottish, or from Scotland). Or would they all just call themselves Gaels?

Since all the other cultures are given their English names, Gaels would work for both.

And if we have only one culture to start off with, how can that be made to evolve into two separate cultures by the High Middle Ages? (i.e. Where do Irish and Scottish come in).

Also, what about the Isle of Man at this time, was it still Gaelic or already Norse by 867? Of course, that leads on to other similar questions for the rest of Britain. Like should there be a common Briton culture to represent both Welsh and the other Brythonic groups in Cumbria and Western Scotland? Not to mention Cornish and Breton. Should these groups all start out the same culture and then somehow diverge, or already be separate?

These are all great questions, none of which have easy answers. The culture of the Lordship of the Isles for instance had more in common culturally with Ireland by the High middle ages than it did with the rest of Scotland and the Irish annals continue to refer to them as Kings of Innse Gall well into the 16th century (after the 'official' fall of the Lordship). At then end of the day we're trying to simplify a complex historiography for game play purposes, and that will likely be the most important decision made by the developers.

As for the Isle of Man, Norse ruled, Norse culture. The pre-existing population was likely wiped out by 867. (Ok, I guess this one did have an easy answer)

In regards to the Britons, there's so much variation in terminology that you could plausibly argue to call them all Britons, or have Cumbric, Welsh, Cornish, etc as variations under the Briton umbrella.

I wouldn't separate them at this stage.

I concur.

 

[riadach]

Sure Scotland was occasionally mentioned in the Irish context, but Irish poetry certainly doesn't refer to Fionn, Diarmuid, or Conan as being Scottish themselves! (Though some may have wished that Conan was, I kid, I kid). The fact that they naturalised these mythological heroes is a pretty significant development. To have done so represents a strong sense of self identity, and considering how frequently Ossianic allusions and mentions appear within the Scottish context, it can't be dismissed out of hand. It's not just that they changed the birthplace and cultural milieu of their heroes, but they changed the location of their adventures as well.

The mention of Ossianic figures after they've been naturalised as Scottish rather reinforces my argument. In the context of Scottish Highland belief at the time they were solidly considered to be Scottish, as much as some of the Filidh may have wished otherwise. In the Irish context they remain as Irish, but it's a fairly significant cultural rift. Cú Chulainn as a point of contrast, was never naturalised, and possibly as consequence was never particularly popular in Scotland, at least compared to the heroes of the Fenian cycle.

But when does the period occur? At which point in the tradition are Fionn and Diarmuid identifiably Scottish? It's certainly not a vanity accorded them in Bardic poetry, and I'd imagine that it was a much later period. I'm not sure the comparison with Cú Chulainn was adequate, as unlike the Fianna, he was not itinerant but fixed to a peculiar place. Indeed, his connection to Ulaidh is an important point of the narrative.

Fair enough, honestly I just like the poem, that's the reason why it came to mind. The main issue is that when we're talking about the 867 start date . . . we're rather limited aren't we? We have elegies and praise poems from the likes of Dallan Forgaill, Adomnan, Beccan mac Luigdech, and other members of the Iona community. These are all largely about Colum Cille, someone who was in fact an exiled Gael from Ireland living in Scotland. We have a few fragments on other subjects, but nothing approaching completeness. One fragment is a Gaelic verse composed for Oengus, King of the Picts c. 761 the fragment is about him uniting the various Pictish Kingdoms and Dal Riata under his banner:



No really enough to go on is it?

No, but the lack of cultural products of the Scottish Gaels would be a reason why Ireland would be viewed as the superior in the Cultural relationship. In my mind I'm still thinking of how early American colonists would have viewed Britain, and with good reason, since they had not built up enough of a cultural tradition themselves. They had few roots in the place and as yet there were fewer reference points from which they could establish a cultural independence.

This opens up a pretty huge can of worms, which I'll try to digest without grimacing too much!

(1) The genealogy Somerled and his descendants are many things, but a descendant from Colla Uais they are not. David Sellar's The Origins and Ancestry of Somerled, Scottish Historical Review, Vol 45, No. 140 (Oct 1966) and Alex Woolf's The Origins and ancestry of Somerled: Gofraid mac Fergus and the Annals of the Four Masters are two excellent primers on the topic, and two works that stand directly in contrast to each other. Long story short, they faked their Genealogy because they either forgot what it was, or the truth wasn't particularly say, Gaelic of them.

(2) The history of the Gaels in Scotland includes their history before they arrived in Scotland. Referencing this historic past does not imply they express an exiled mentality. Unless of course the references to Mil Espania represent a sense of exile from Spain, Scota a sense of Exile from Egypt, or Goidel Glas a sense of Exile from Greece (though Goidel Glas is one of the reasons why Greece is mentioned with what to an outsider might appear an unusual frequency).

It should also be noted that the poem continues past Colla, and goes straight back to Adam!

I'm being a bit facetious here on purpose, but this certainly can't be taken as a reference to a true exiled mentality regarding exile from the garden of Eden![/quote]

Don't we all still have such an exiled mentality?

No, but you have not addressed the question about why Colla was singled out as a genealogical ancestor of significance, despite the fact the Aírgíalla are allotted no strong tradition in the Irish migration to Scotland. Similar with the Mac Suibhne's claim to be descended from Aodh Athlamhan, an Ulster dynast. But this reference to colla is not isolated. We have Eireochar fos le Clainn gColla, when the reference to Colla is also emphasised in the title. Alba gan díon a ndiaigh Ailín also calls the Meic Dhomhnaill Clann Colla, as does Beid mar do bhádar roimhe, as does Bí id mhosgaladh, a mheic Aonghais, as does Clú a oirbheart uaisligheas neach, as does Creach Gaoidheal i reilig Rois to name but a small percentage of examples. Colla is not to be dismissed, he is repeatedly used to shore up the legitimacy of Clann Domhnaill, when other Scottish examples, such as Somhairle could have served just as well. References to Síol or Meicne Colla seem to outnumber references to a Síol Somhairle, of which I can only find two. Clearly link to Ireland is valued as more prestigious even than the link that justifies MacDonald rule over the isles. Ireland clearly has a pre-eminent place is the cosmology of the Scottish Gaelic rulers.

(3) Gaels were quite proud of their ability to trace back their ancestry to the time of Adam (which needless to required quite a bit in the way of fabrication). There's really no reason for them to stop and say, "well this is the first Ancestor to arrive in Scotland, I think we can stop here." In terms of the Macdonalds and the other MacSorleys, they have a few keynote figures they like to highlight.

Sommerled is the biggest, then it's Colla Uais or Conn Cétchathac (and hey, it's Conn of the Hundred Battles, who wouldn't like to bring that guy up in conversation?).

I should also point out that of the 12 people mentioned by name in the poem, 1 is John, 1 is Adam, 1 is Colla, the rest are Scottish Gaels. Also after Somerled the poet starts skipping generations, mentioning only one person by name before getting to Colla. Not quite a rousing example of Irish fixation.

Yes, but the existence of these scottish keynote figures doesn't seem to be enough. They could emphasise Somhairle, as you say, a great man in his own right, yet still they go back much further and I can only think this is because they see a link to Ireland as granting more legitimacy.

At the end of the day this is a discussion at best tangentially linked to the topic at hand, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree? I must admit I've found it quite enjoyable though, there aren't too many people with whom you can have a conversation regarding medieval Gaelic poetry.

I think that's the best we can manage, before we both tire eachother out. Hunting these references hasn't been easy.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

I think that's the best we can manage, before we both tire eachother out. Hunting these references hasn't been easy.

Here's to that! As one last sidetrack, if you don't mind my asking, who's your favourite Gaelic poet? Personally I'm partial to Iain Lom, his work is a bit late to be relevant to the current discussion, but his verses are quite poignant and wonderfully descriptive of a past that is now lost.

 

[riadach]

Here's to that! As one last sidetrack, if you don't mind my asking, who's your favourite Gaelic poet? Personally I'm partial to Iain Lom, his work is a bit late to be relevant to the current discussion, but his verses are quite poignant and wonderfully descriptive of a past that is now lost.

Oh, I did a bit of Iain Lom in College as part of a Scots Gaelic 18th century literature course, I had to say I loved him. Outside that my knowledge of Gaelic as in Scots Gaelic poetry is limited. If I'm allowed include Irish poets, in a modern context, there really is no beating Máirtín Ó Díreáin, though I'm also an admirer of Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill. Dáibhi Ó Bruadair and Aogán Ó Raithile would be my favourite accented poetry composers. As for Bardic Poetry, I can't help but admire Muireadhach Albanach Ó Dálaigh, Gofraidh Fionn Ó Dálaigh, Eochaidh Ó hEódhusa and Tadhg Dall Ó hUiginn. They write so effortlessly in strict metre, you'd scarcely notice. And the way they mix and manipulate imagery and metaphor seems sublime. I particularly like Muireadhach and Gofraidh in so much as they actually used stylised verse to create genuinely touching poetry about their lost loved ones.

 

[vyshan]

Here is a question, how christianized was Scotland in the year 867? I know Ireland was christianized by this point, but not sure on Scotland.

 

[Nuril]

Here is a question, how christianized was Scotland in the year 867? I know Ireland was christianized by this point, but not sure on Scotland.

*Holds thumbs for a region of Celts*

C'mooon baby, mama needs more pagans!

 

[unmerged(370476)]

Phew, finally finished updating the Norse events from the Annals of Ulster. Annal dates 793-870.

Oh, I did a bit of Iain Lom in College as part of a Scots Gaelic 18th century literature course, I had to say I loved him. Outside that my knowledge of Gaelic as in Scots Gaelic poetry is limited. If I'm allowed include Irish poets, in a modern context, there really is no beating Máirtín Ó Díreáin, though I'm also an admirer of Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill. Dáibhi Ó Bruadair and Aogán Ó Raithile would be my favourite accented poetry composers. As for Bardic Poetry, I can't help but admire Muireadhach Albanach Ó Dálaigh, Gofraidh Fionn Ó Dálaigh, Eochaidh Ó hEódhusa and Tadhg Dall Ó hUiginn. They write so effortlessly in strict metre, you'd scarcely notice. And the way they mix and manipulate imagery and metaphor seems sublime. I particularly like Muireadhach and Gofraidh in so much as they actually used stylised verse to create genuinely touching poetry about their lost loved ones.

I'm not as well versed with modern Irish poets as I would like, but I'm definetly going to take a look at Máirtín Ó Díreáin's work. Muireadhach Albanach Ó Dálaigh certainly has some powerful stuff, and I have to admit I'm a big fan. M'Anam do Sgar Riomsa A-Raoir gets me everytime.

Here is a question, how christianized was Scotland in the year 867? I know Ireland was christianized by this point, but not sure on Scotland.

In Ireland, the game's start in 867 would be about 400 years since St. Patrick began his mission to convert Ireland, with a lot of the groundwork already having been done by Palladius. To put it another way, it's about the same amount of time between Samuel de Champlain's first settlement and today. Think of all that has transpired in North America and the world during that time - by the time 867 rolled around the last follower of Celtic Polytheism in Ireland had likely been dead for centuries.

Scotland was similar, with a delayed start. Lots of influence is placed on Colum Cille, St. Columba, but much of this has to do with Adomnan, his personal biographer and propaganda machine. St. Ninian's likely more responsible for the early missionary work, though if he's given a date that precedes Patrick, then his converts were referred to as "apostate Picts" by the mid 5th century. I think I'm derailing myself, but the last near contemporary references to followers of Celtic Polytheism (as far as I'm aware) are in Adomnan's Life of Saint Columba. Colum Cille died in 597, and when Adomnan was writing a century later, any references to Celtic polytheism are shrouded in the past.

While it's not strictly impossible for there to be a few Celtic Polyteists kicking about in 867, it is is highly unlikely. That being said, I'm not opposed to having it as an option to choose from in the Character creator for people who'd like to challenge themselves to bring it back.

Not surprisingly, Celtic Christianity incorporated a whole slew of Celtic Polytheist practices into their Christian lifestyle, remnants of which you can still see in some parts of Ireland and Scotland today. One of the things I've always found fascinating was how the Ollamh (Master Poet, or King's poet) supplanted the role and took on many of the duties formerly held by the 'High Druid' (for lack of a better term). For instance, in the Brehon laws we have references to such things as "It is the poet's duty to be with the king at Samhainn and to protect him from enchantment." There are tons of these little pagan holdovers that give us some inkling of what life would have been like in Celtic Polytheistic Ireland and Scotland, but unfortunately except for maybe a hidden hermit community sequestered in a secret grove somewhere, Celtic Polytheism was likely extinct by 867.

*Holds thumbs for a region of Celts*

C'mooon baby, mama needs more pagans!

I have to admit, it'd be great fun - if they do put it in as a ruler designer option, it'll probably be one of the first games I play.

 

[vyshan]

that brings up another question. What form of christanity should ireland and scotland follow at the begining of the game? Should it be roman catholic or Celtic christian?

I am also wondering how paradox is going to repersent the High king of ireland in game.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

that brings up another question. What form of christanity should ireland and scotland follow at the begining of the game? Should it be roman catholic or Celtic christian?

I am also wondering how paradox is going to repersent the High king of ireland in game.

More great questions, more lack of easy answers!

Christianity in Ireland and Scotland, often referred to as the Irish or Celtic church (I'll use the term Irish church in preference to the generic term), was as you imply quite distinct from its Roman counterpart. By 867 the Irish church was slowly but steadily moving more in step with Rome. The Synod in Whitby in c.664 had more or less arrested its expansion into other territories, and suffered a prompt reversal in Northumbria.

It's also something that's difficult to explain with broad generalisations. When mentioning the differences between the two, they'll often refer to things such as differences in calculating the date of Easter - but by 664 most of the church in Ireland already followed the Roman method, and those who didn't were followers of the cult of Columba (Colum Cille), sometimes referred to as the Ionan church. By the early 8th century, with the exception of a few holdouts, the Ionan church largely followed the Roman method of calculation.

Another difference was the methods of tonsure in the Irish church, and that preferred by Rome. I've always found it a bit humorous how what amounts to 'different hairstyles' could cause such a ruckus. Admittedly it was used as a bit of a proxy to become symbolic for certain theological issues, but a large part was a quest to instill unity and conformity in the church at a time where regional beliefs could vary quite wildly. One of the reasons why tonsure was important was that it immediately identified you as a man of the church, offering all the privileges, safeties, and responsibilities that entails within the Christian world. This became an issue in part because Irish monks were spreading themselves and their learning across Europe, and their influence, as well as their idiosyncratic practices, were seen by Rome as a potential/real threat to Christian unity.

Probably the key divergence was in terms of structure, while monasteries were important and had power within the rest of Christian Europe, in the Irish church this was taken to a whole new level. While the episcopal nature of the Roman Church existed, and in theory was of a 'higher rank' than the Abbots, reality was a little more complex. Monasteries, Abbeys, and Priories developed high degrees of secular authority and influence, which coupled with that of the spiritual realm, meant they were forces to be reckoned with indeed. Abbots were in practice more powerful than the Bishops who were technically their superiors. An excellent example is the monastery of Iona itself, which at this time had its own Bishophric, the holder of the office was rarely considered worthy of mention by church chroniclers, whereas the abbots are properly recorded right up until the arrival of the Benedictines. One of the reasons is that the Abbots were considered to be the spiritual successors of their founder, much the in same way that the pope is considered to be the successor of Peter. So the Abbot of Iona was the spiritual successor of Colum Cille, and this greatly magnified his influence, which only really declined after a series of viking raids which split its influence amongst the other Columban churches and monasteries. They also followed the rule of St. Columba, which has been partially reconstructed.

Saints Cults were quite powerful, and achieved a greater degree of popularity and acceptance in the Irish church than it did elsewhere. The world cult has a lot of modern baggage, but at this time it's better to think of having a high degree of veneration for, and to follow in their footsteps as much as possible. Arguably a reason for this popularity is that as the early Gaels were christianised, their nature of personal worship switched from their local land goddesses to the worship of local saints, and this is one reason for their relatively rapid conversion. Colum Cille was the most important in Scotland, and after him in say, the Hebrides and West Highlands it was Maol Rubha. Today a lot of names that seem to be a reference to Mary, are actually etymologically linked to Maol Rubha - Tobermory for instance is often given the etymology of meaning "Mary's Well," but anciently it was known as Maol Rubha's well. Same with Kilmarie on Skye, it comes from Cille Maol Rubha.

In the end, the members of the Irish church were adherents to Rome, and would likely be poorly represented as a heresy or separate branch of Christianity. A better implementation would be to have an emphasis on Monasteries instead of Bishophrics coupled with a robust event system, but that's probably a fair bit outside of the scope of the current DLC. Hopefully we'll get a 'Celtic' DLC at some point in the future to help flesh things out a bit.

As for the High Kingship, unless someone gets to it before me, I'll expand on that in a later post.

*******************

*edit* Another thing I should mention is that these Saint's Cults could often be sources of conflict. Think of the scene in Monty Python's the Life of Brian "Follow the Gourd! No, follow the Shoe!." Petty differences in belief, or even over which Saint to venerate, frequently lead to brawling in the same way that occurs with some people arguing over sports teams. In the annals these are referred to usually as Familia, or monastic communities. The word gets translated usually as 'family' so when we encounter something like:

AD 806 ... A battle between the 'family' of Corcach and the 'family' of Cluain-ferta-Brendain among whom there was a countless slaughter of ecclesiatical men, and of the noblest of the family of Corcadh.

It means that two monastic communities pretty much declared war on one another. I suppose another difference is that certain Monastic communities in Ireland were, shall we say, less peace loving than others, and weren't opposed to picking up a club or a spear to 'drive the point home' as it were.

 

[riadach]

that brings up another question. What form of christanity should ireland and scotland follow at the begining of the game? Should it be roman catholic or Celtic christian?

It should, theoretically, be Roman Catholic. The Roman party won at the start of the 8th century, and the Irish church conformed to Roman practice in regards to fixing the date for Easter. However, as regards organisation, as opposed to doctrine, it would have been quite different. The Irish church, like the English church in a way, was not divided into parishes, or even dioceses, pastoral care being maintained by collegiate churches (or ministers as they were known in England), with bishops only having a nominal status. These collegiate churches, monasteries in fact, were dominated by airchinnigh, which was a hereditary position frequently held by a non-celibate in minor orders. These airchinnigh in turn were subject to the larger comharb (of which there were several) which literally meant heir. These comharba claimed succession from the original patron founder of the primary church. The abbot of Armagh considered himself the Comharb of Patrick, Clonmacnoise the Comharb of Ciarán, Derry/Iona the Comharb of Colmcille, Killaloe Comharb of Flannan, Tuaim the Comharb of Iarla, and Lismore, the Comharb of Declan. These comharb had a large number of airchinnigh subject to them with no geographic unity, often based solely on the claim that their patron had founded these subject churches also. These groups of airchinnigh under a Comharb were generally known as a paruchia or familia. I'm not sure that this could be represented in game.

I am also wondering how paradox is going to repersent the High king of ireland in game.

Me too. Personally, I think it's fair to give it to Aed Finnlaith in game, and have all the Uí Néill (Cenel Conaill, Síl nAedo Sláine, Clann Cholmáin, Cenel Eoghain) represented as one Dynasty, and give them Tanistry succession. I would like there to be a new Crown Authority, perhaps called overlordship or hegemony, where you had to call for arms and secure tribute through the diplomacy window, and vassals can contribute as much as they please. Add to that, random defections, factions for pretenders, numerous claimants, raiding, loss of control of duchies on death, and a few high king perogatives in the decisions menu and I thinkyou would have a fair representation of the Irish political scene.

Of course, there should be a usurper option. A leader of another province can usurp the high kingship if they reach high enough prestige and control all constituent provinces in their duchy. These leads however to immediate war for the high-kingship against all other contenders. If they succeed though, they will lose it on their deaths. Only by the same dynasty succeeding in the war of for the high-kingship with three successive candidates can it be monopolised again. Seems like a lot of effort for a marginal faction though.

 

[Pte Baldrick]

Interesting thread. Scotland has been one region I often like to play as in the game as it is, and I'd really like to see how it's represented in 867. Incidentally, at this very moment, I'm on holiday in Scotland right now.

 

[unmerged(370476)]

I would like there to be a new Crown Authority, perhaps called overlordship or hegemony, where you had to call for arms and secure tribute through the diplomacy window, and vassals can contribute as much as they please. Add to that, random defections, factions for pretenders, numerous claimants, raiding, loss of control of duchies on death, and a few high king perogatives in the decisions menu and I thinkyou would have a fair representation of the Irish political scene.

Of course, there should be a usurper option. A leader of another province can usurp the high kingship if they reach high enough prestige and control all constituent provinces in their duchy. These leads however to immediate war for the high-kingship against all other contenders. If they succeed though, they will lose it on their deaths. Only by the same dynasty succeeding in the war of for the high-kingship with three successive candidates can it be monopolised again. Seems like a lot of effort for a marginal faction though.

I like this idea, at a basic level it'd be great to expand on diplomacy in general, but as you mention, properly reflecting the High Kingship at this time involves a lot of dickering and shifting alliances with the Irish sub-kings and the Norse arrivals.

 

[c01mhth10ch]

Thumbs up for the idea, I love as much historical accuracy as possible for a simple game (compared to reality). Also, I watched 2 episodes of that BBC documentary you linked, I loved it, and I'll probably watch all of it when I get time.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

Not sure how much this will help, but I remember reading that the Gaels referred to the "Danes" as 'black foreigners' to distinguish them from the fair-haired "Norwegians" who arrived in this area first.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Also, what about the Isle of Man at this time, was it still Gaelic or already Norse by 867? Of course, that leads on to other similar questions for the rest of Britain. Like should there be a common Briton culture to represent both Welsh and the other Brythonic groups in Cumbria and Western Scotland? Not to mention Cornish and Breton. Should these groups all start out the same culture and then somehow diverge, or already be separate?

Cumbrians are by their name, Cymru, just like the modern Welsh. Northern Britons don't need their own culture and it really doesn't matter if they go by the same exonym that's used for them in 1066 vanilla.

The Cornish are more complicated but I'd make them Welsh like in older versions because despite their kinship with the Bretons they lack that French influence.