The title of the post (borrowed from the Malleus Scotorum himself) refers to the current portrayal of Scotland in 867. By changing one of the files in the CK II directory we can take a look at how paradox has prepared the Northern part of Britain in advance of the Old Gods DLC. Since many titles on the map are unfinished and evidently in error, I should stress before my fellow historians freak out that this is likely just a testing map of sorts to play early builds of the DLC while they slowly research and implement the proper title holders.
Nonetheless, I feel it is worth my time to post the current Map, describe why it is wrong, and then follow up with some possible alternatives. There has already been some great discussion of the challenges faced in representing the geographic area of Scotland during this time-frame in an earlier thread. This is in part a result of that discussion, and since the previous thread was more about historical problems and this post is regarding concrete suggestions, I feel it warrants a new thread.
So without further delay, let's examine the current map:
Alright, not very accurate, but let's keep in mind the proper titles haven't been implemented yet, so if we imagine Scotland as Pictland, Galloway as Strathclyde (Alt Clut), and change the borders a bit, it could certainly be a lot worse.
First lets examine the problems as they stand currently:
(1) Scotland would not exist for another 30 years. If we imagine Paradox changing Scotland to Pictland upon release, then this qualm is easily addressed (Though in the recent PC Gamer Interview Chris King mentions playing as Scotland, which is unsettling if this wasn't a slip of the tongue - I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt)
(2) Galloway should be the Kingdom of Strathclyde (Alt Clut). Once again if we look at this simply as being the proper title not being added yet, the only real issues are potentially the borders.
(3) The map doesn't represent Norse influence in Pictland at this time. At the very least they should also control Caithness, and arguably Ross, and maybe even Moray (867 is right on the cusp of increased Norse settlement and control of Moray, though it's probably best to date Norse dominance of the province to after 875.)
(4) The distribution of Norse control in Scotland is problematic, especially considering the importance given to Ivar (currently in game he's the leader of Dublin, Man, Innse Gall, and Argyll). This better represents his position in 872 than 867. Up to 867 the only territories he held would have been in Ireland and possibly Man, and he shared these with his brothers. He's also not necessarily the same Ivar as the Ivar the Boneless of the Great Heathen army (for those that use wikipedia the current wikipedia article is an absolute mess, and is hardly worth consulting).
Irish sources consider 'Irish' Ivar to be the son of Godfraidh, King of Lochlan (Usually refers to Norse Controlled Scotland). Ivar the Boneless on the otherhand was said in saga literature to be descended from Ragnar Lodbrok (His sons leading the great heathen army being a response to Ragnar's death in 865 at the hands of a Saxon king - according to Krákumál, his death song, he was thrown into a pit of snakes). 'Irish Ivar' had two brother Auisle (who Ivar and Amlaib murder in 867 - if this is the same Ivar he should have been with the Great Heathen Army prior to this point) and Amlaíb Conung, Ivar the Boneless had two brothers Halfdan Ragnarsson and Ubbe Ragnarsson. After Ivar leaves the great heathen army there are a few possibilities (i) He's the same as Irish Ivar, so he retired to Dublin and Man, eventually recognised as 'chief' amongst the Norse kings in the British Isles, and died in 873. (ii) Irish Ivar is different, and he returned to Dublin and dominated his surviving brother, possibly warring with his father, becoming dominant in Northern Britain and Ireland before dying in 873. If the latter, it would explain why some sources have Ivar the Boneless returning to rule the lands in Scandinavia that he had left to lead the Great Heathen Army. This would make Irish Ivar the founder of the Ui Imar dynasty rather than Ivar the Boneless.
In the end this identification is largely academic since there will be no bookmarks after 867 until 1066, and up to 867 there is no substantial evidence that the Ivar of Irish sources controlled more than a few Longphorts in Ireland, and these he likely abandoned to his brother Amlaib Conung when he left to join the Great Heathen Army (Conung comes from the old Norse konungr and means King). What we can say is that King Amlaib would have been the dominant Norse leader in Ireland in 867, and the only reference to Ivar being his superior comes from the 873 annal entry.
(5) It's worth pointing out, for those who missed the earlier thread, that the sources we have for this period are scant, we need to use proxy evidence for any hypothesis, we need to deal with the possibility of later interpolators in the Irish sources and that most saga sources weren't written down until centuries after the events in questions, and are of questionable historic reliability. What this means is that while there might be a debate as to who the ruler(s) in Norse Scotland were, we can be reasonably certain of whom they weren't - in this case neither Ivar the Boneless or Irish Ivar fit the bill.
(6) How Pictland is portrayed is complex, and it depends on what we know about Pictland before 867 and what we know about Moray after 867. As I mentioned in the Celtic Druidism thread, anything written about the Picts from 2005 and earlier is fundamentally flawed because of our present understanding of the Kingdom of Fortriu being located in the North rather than the South. Bede and others refer to a distinction between the Northern Picts and the Southern Picts. Arguably this can be carried forward until the time of MacBeth with a distinction between Moray and Alba. Required reading for anyone wishing to understand the interplay between the two is Alex Woolf's The 'Moray Question' and the Kingship of Alba in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. Keeping in mind that it was published in 2000, Woolf ultimately concludes that an independent Moray was primarily a later phenomenon. This would mean that one Pictish Kingdom rather than two in 867 would be the preferable choice (and it should be further pointed out that Pictland was mostly Gaelic in culture and in language by 867).
Another thing to keep in mind is that at this time the Kings of Pictland and later Scotland practiced a form of Alternating succession - on a regular basis Kingship jumps between the descendants of two branches of Kenneth MacAlpine's sons, and it's a succession system that is not adequately explained by tanistry, the only parallel being the early succession pattern to the Kingship of Tara.
(A few things to explain the table for those unfamiliar with Scottish history - at the time the article was written Fortriu was considered to be in the South so analogous to Alba (Scotland) rather than Moray (Mureb). Also note that Woolf follows the chroniclers in not considering the first generation of Kings after Kenneth Mac Alpin to be Scottish Kings, Kings of Alba are in bold. And if it's not clear from the table, one branch had their power base in the north, while the other had their power base in the south).
Further complicating matters is we have people like Findlaech mac Ruaidri (not usually included in regnal lists) listed as ri Alban (King of Scotland) in the annals of Ulster, and we know from earlier references that he was considered Mormaer of Moray. This points to struggle between Clann Ruaidri as the sucessors of Clan Aeda meic Cinaeda and Clan Custantin meic Alpin. even further complicating matters is that in the irish annals the term ri mureb (King of Moray) only occurs once in 1085 referring to Mael Snechta, son of Lulach. the only other reference comes from 1130 where we have the entry "War between the men of Scotland and the men of Moray, wherein fell four thousand of the men of Moray around their king, namely Oenghus, son of the daughter of Lulach; one thousand also of then men of Scotland fell in the contest."
What this all means in relation to 867 is that portraying Pictland is complicated. Two separate Pictish kingdoms doesn't really work with the mechanics of CK II (and may not be an accurate portrayal anyway), and the best representation (in game terms) may be that currently in game, where the ruler of Moray (Fortriu) is a vassal of the King of Scotland (if we assume Scotland will be changed to Pictland).
Ok, I've tried to keep the history section succinct and as simplistic as I reasonably could, but anyone who's still with me is probably falling asleep - so here's another couple of maps, this time demonstrating some potential ways the geographic area of Scotland could be represented in game:
The above image represents the minimum Kingdoms approach, (Strathclyde suffers from CK II borders not being very representative for the time - the next map will offer a 'maximum Strathclyde,' if you will).
The following map represents a maximum Kingdoms approach:
Something in between would likely work the best - but I think these images represent how different our views of Scotland in 867 can be depending on what evidence we follow - and also a reason why textbooks will show you maps of Scotland in 800, Scotland in 900, but rarely will they attempt at map of 850 (or 867), as the history is, as always, shall we say, complicated.
I look forward to your thoughts, and I wouldn't mind (but do not expect) a Dev stopping by to make a brief comment on how they're planning on portraying the geographic makeup of Scotland in the Old Gods DLC. There's a lot of malleability present, within certain restrictions imposed on us by our sources. And as always I trust that Paradox will strive to be as historically accurate as possible when taking game balance into account.
Nonetheless, I feel it is worth my time to post the current Map, describe why it is wrong, and then follow up with some possible alternatives. There has already been some great discussion of the challenges faced in representing the geographic area of Scotland during this time-frame in an earlier thread. This is in part a result of that discussion, and since the previous thread was more about historical problems and this post is regarding concrete suggestions, I feel it warrants a new thread.
So without further delay, let's examine the current map:
Alright, not very accurate, but let's keep in mind the proper titles haven't been implemented yet, so if we imagine Scotland as Pictland, Galloway as Strathclyde (Alt Clut), and change the borders a bit, it could certainly be a lot worse.
First lets examine the problems as they stand currently:
(1) Scotland would not exist for another 30 years. If we imagine Paradox changing Scotland to Pictland upon release, then this qualm is easily addressed (Though in the recent PC Gamer Interview Chris King mentions playing as Scotland, which is unsettling if this wasn't a slip of the tongue - I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt)
(2) Galloway should be the Kingdom of Strathclyde (Alt Clut). Once again if we look at this simply as being the proper title not being added yet, the only real issues are potentially the borders.
(3) The map doesn't represent Norse influence in Pictland at this time. At the very least they should also control Caithness, and arguably Ross, and maybe even Moray (867 is right on the cusp of increased Norse settlement and control of Moray, though it's probably best to date Norse dominance of the province to after 875.)
(4) The distribution of Norse control in Scotland is problematic, especially considering the importance given to Ivar (currently in game he's the leader of Dublin, Man, Innse Gall, and Argyll). This better represents his position in 872 than 867. Up to 867 the only territories he held would have been in Ireland and possibly Man, and he shared these with his brothers. He's also not necessarily the same Ivar as the Ivar the Boneless of the Great Heathen army (for those that use wikipedia the current wikipedia article is an absolute mess, and is hardly worth consulting).
Irish sources consider 'Irish' Ivar to be the son of Godfraidh, King of Lochlan (Usually refers to Norse Controlled Scotland). Ivar the Boneless on the otherhand was said in saga literature to be descended from Ragnar Lodbrok (His sons leading the great heathen army being a response to Ragnar's death in 865 at the hands of a Saxon king - according to Krákumál, his death song, he was thrown into a pit of snakes). 'Irish Ivar' had two brother Auisle (who Ivar and Amlaib murder in 867 - if this is the same Ivar he should have been with the Great Heathen Army prior to this point) and Amlaíb Conung, Ivar the Boneless had two brothers Halfdan Ragnarsson and Ubbe Ragnarsson. After Ivar leaves the great heathen army there are a few possibilities (i) He's the same as Irish Ivar, so he retired to Dublin and Man, eventually recognised as 'chief' amongst the Norse kings in the British Isles, and died in 873. (ii) Irish Ivar is different, and he returned to Dublin and dominated his surviving brother, possibly warring with his father, becoming dominant in Northern Britain and Ireland before dying in 873. If the latter, it would explain why some sources have Ivar the Boneless returning to rule the lands in Scandinavia that he had left to lead the Great Heathen Army. This would make Irish Ivar the founder of the Ui Imar dynasty rather than Ivar the Boneless.
In the end this identification is largely academic since there will be no bookmarks after 867 until 1066, and up to 867 there is no substantial evidence that the Ivar of Irish sources controlled more than a few Longphorts in Ireland, and these he likely abandoned to his brother Amlaib Conung when he left to join the Great Heathen Army (Conung comes from the old Norse konungr and means King). What we can say is that King Amlaib would have been the dominant Norse leader in Ireland in 867, and the only reference to Ivar being his superior comes from the 873 annal entry.
(5) It's worth pointing out, for those who missed the earlier thread, that the sources we have for this period are scant, we need to use proxy evidence for any hypothesis, we need to deal with the possibility of later interpolators in the Irish sources and that most saga sources weren't written down until centuries after the events in questions, and are of questionable historic reliability. What this means is that while there might be a debate as to who the ruler(s) in Norse Scotland were, we can be reasonably certain of whom they weren't - in this case neither Ivar the Boneless or Irish Ivar fit the bill.
(6) How Pictland is portrayed is complex, and it depends on what we know about Pictland before 867 and what we know about Moray after 867. As I mentioned in the Celtic Druidism thread, anything written about the Picts from 2005 and earlier is fundamentally flawed because of our present understanding of the Kingdom of Fortriu being located in the North rather than the South. Bede and others refer to a distinction between the Northern Picts and the Southern Picts. Arguably this can be carried forward until the time of MacBeth with a distinction between Moray and Alba. Required reading for anyone wishing to understand the interplay between the two is Alex Woolf's The 'Moray Question' and the Kingship of Alba in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. Keeping in mind that it was published in 2000, Woolf ultimately concludes that an independent Moray was primarily a later phenomenon. This would mean that one Pictish Kingdom rather than two in 867 would be the preferable choice (and it should be further pointed out that Pictland was mostly Gaelic in culture and in language by 867).
Another thing to keep in mind is that at this time the Kings of Pictland and later Scotland practiced a form of Alternating succession - on a regular basis Kingship jumps between the descendants of two branches of Kenneth MacAlpine's sons, and it's a succession system that is not adequately explained by tanistry, the only parallel being the early succession pattern to the Kingship of Tara.
(A few things to explain the table for those unfamiliar with Scottish history - at the time the article was written Fortriu was considered to be in the South so analogous to Alba (Scotland) rather than Moray (Mureb). Also note that Woolf follows the chroniclers in not considering the first generation of Kings after Kenneth Mac Alpin to be Scottish Kings, Kings of Alba are in bold. And if it's not clear from the table, one branch had their power base in the north, while the other had their power base in the south).
Further complicating matters is we have people like Findlaech mac Ruaidri (not usually included in regnal lists) listed as ri Alban (King of Scotland) in the annals of Ulster, and we know from earlier references that he was considered Mormaer of Moray. This points to struggle between Clann Ruaidri as the sucessors of Clan Aeda meic Cinaeda and Clan Custantin meic Alpin. even further complicating matters is that in the irish annals the term ri mureb (King of Moray) only occurs once in 1085 referring to Mael Snechta, son of Lulach. the only other reference comes from 1130 where we have the entry "War between the men of Scotland and the men of Moray, wherein fell four thousand of the men of Moray around their king, namely Oenghus, son of the daughter of Lulach; one thousand also of then men of Scotland fell in the contest."
What this all means in relation to 867 is that portraying Pictland is complicated. Two separate Pictish kingdoms doesn't really work with the mechanics of CK II (and may not be an accurate portrayal anyway), and the best representation (in game terms) may be that currently in game, where the ruler of Moray (Fortriu) is a vassal of the King of Scotland (if we assume Scotland will be changed to Pictland).
Ok, I've tried to keep the history section succinct and as simplistic as I reasonably could, but anyone who's still with me is probably falling asleep - so here's another couple of maps, this time demonstrating some potential ways the geographic area of Scotland could be represented in game:
The above image represents the minimum Kingdoms approach, (Strathclyde suffers from CK II borders not being very representative for the time - the next map will offer a 'maximum Strathclyde,' if you will).
The following map represents a maximum Kingdoms approach:
Something in between would likely work the best - but I think these images represent how different our views of Scotland in 867 can be depending on what evidence we follow - and also a reason why textbooks will show you maps of Scotland in 800, Scotland in 900, but rarely will they attempt at map of 850 (or 867), as the history is, as always, shall we say, complicated.
I look forward to your thoughts, and I wouldn't mind (but do not expect) a Dev stopping by to make a brief comment on how they're planning on portraying the geographic makeup of Scotland in the Old Gods DLC. There's a lot of malleability present, within certain restrictions imposed on us by our sources. And as always I trust that Paradox will strive to be as historically accurate as possible when taking game balance into account.
Last edited:
