lol I didn't want to be the one to say it but if we're having this much angst over Scotland, just imagine when it sinks in that France exists in 867.
"The Trouble with Scotland is that it's Full of Scots! (And Here's How to Fix It)
- Thread starter unmerged(370476)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
lol I didn't want to be the one to say it but if we're having this much angst over Scotland, just imagine when it sinks in that France exists in 867.
Exactly In the year 1066 no france exist! Untill Philipp II 1180 the Ruler call hisself "King of the Franks". And the Byzantine Empire was never named like this! And untill 1076 Poland should be the Duchy of Poland and not the Kingdom.
I don't see this much problem wih the usage of Scotland... The must choose a name that fit the whole game time. And the Regnal Numbers of the Kingdom of the Picts and the Kingdom of Scotland are the same right? Constantine II of Scotland wasn't really the second of Scotland, because Constantine I was King of the Scots. They have the same regnal list, so why not give them the same Kingdom?
I'm with Innse again on this one, I wished they could've made it Pictland etc rather than keeping it fairly generic, along with the other controversies. I suppose they're not focusing on Scotland though, as it's an 'Old Gods' Expansion. I do hope CK2+ or another mod (Probably made by Innse himself) is done to correct this which I'm sure it will. 
A lot of other counties/provinces/kingdoms have modern english names in the english version. I don't see why Scotland should get a historically accurate one while they're all neglected, and the effort to change the map to native names/native names in latin, would be rather annoying and is somewhat addressed by mods, and probably will in the future.
My comment seems to be along the line of what Thure is saying, so yeah, what he said.
My comment seems to be along the line of what Thure is saying, so yeah, what he said.
I too must agree with Thure and Knives here. Besides what would be the alternative, making a set of 867 specific titles? Since Scotland isn't unique in this regard.
I'd really rather have a Kingdom of the Picts at game start, than of Scotland ( Keep in mind that Paradox uses "King of the" and "King of" as the same thing).
As far as I'm concerned if it was called the kingdom of the Picts at the time then that's what Paradox should name it. You don't look over at the geographic area of Russia and see THE EMPIRE OF RUSSIA over there do you? You see Rus and Novgorod and all the other states that were there at the time.
If you guys want an earlier start date that's completely inaccurate I suggest you simply change the files you have now so you can start with France in 1CE. You can have a super 1000 year long extra special expansion. You don't even need to pay any extra money.
The rest of us would like our historical grand strategy game to remain actually historical...
If you guys want an earlier start date that's completely inaccurate I suggest you simply change the files you have now so you can start with France in 1CE. You can have a super 1000 year long extra special expansion. You don't even need to pay any extra money.
The rest of us would like our historical grand strategy game to remain actually historical...
Well, I actually agree with you there. However, I do not see it as that simple. So many countries, even on our current start date, have misleading names according to history. This would be an example of, targetting one nation for a policy, but not applying it everywhere. So many kingdoms have names that are either incorrect by the standards of their actual natively used name, or by the name they've used for that historical period. If we're gonna go to Kingdom of the Picts, I feel this policy needs to be applied everywhere, rather then just a nitpick. Modders have tried to correct these things in the past, and probably will in the future, for historical accuracy thats where the community has looked. Thats actually why many mods gain popularity, for bringing paradox games more in line with history.
Thats a strawman. How about you look at the Basileia Rhōmaiōn. The greeks of Byzantine Empire, didn't call them Byzantine Empire, I actually doubt anyone referred to them as that in their time period. As far as I can tell the earliest reference was in 1557 by Hieronymus Wolf. This is just one example. Other examples have been given in this thread.
I feel you're grossly trying to simplify this thread so it has a clear answer, and thats dishonest to the arguments that have been put forward.
This isn't really about the DLC. Sure, the dlc is making the time period backwards, making the names even less likely to be the modern variants we use in our language, but since Scotland had not been conquered, and did not speak a germanic language (outside of norwegian parts) Scotland was not really an accurate even by the current start date. This issue isn't DLC related, but related to the game as a whole
If anything, what is being asked in this thread is, 'We want it to be more historically accurate' which is somewhat legitimate, I mean I would like it that way too. However the thread appears to be nitpicking Scotland specifically, and blurring things with the DLC.
Last edited:
I'm with Innse again on this one, I wished they could've made it Pictland etc rather than keeping it fairly generic, along with the other controversies. I suppose they're not focusing on Scotland though, as it's an 'Old Gods' Expansion. I do hope CK2+ or another mod (Probably made by Innse himself) is done to correct this which I'm sure it will.
Again, nothing is finalized >.> We're still many months away from a released DLC, and everything is in a very early development stage. King gave a vague statement, everyone blew it out of proportion, and now we have this humongous thread about the origins of the name "Scotland."
This isn't quite a good comparison you're offering. Most of the written material from this time is provided to us by church chroniclers, thus (moreso in the west) the language we're working with from the sources is Latin, and in regards to Scotland we can add some Gaelic with a dash of Saxon and Brythonic as well. Alba is a term we anglicise to Scotland, as is Scotia (except when it refers to Ireland in the early period) and Albania (when it's in reference to Scotland, and not the other Albania). Pictavia and Fortrenn we either anglicise as Pictland or Fortriu. Regardless of what you may think, if you look up any modern academic work that addresses the period, moving from Pictland to Alba is actually a pretty big deal (and this is from the perspective of historians who like to make mountains out of molehills). There is a disctinction that is present, and moving between the two, while in all likelyhood evolutionary rather than revolutionary, represents a fundamental shift in identity, and subsequent affinity with language, customs and culture.
In terms of your examples, France is not a particularly good one unless it can similarly be proven that the term Frank or Francia at this time period were not used to refer to the people in question, and that's clearly not the case. Greek sources use the term Phrangoi, and we have Louis the Pious for instance (or Ludivocus Pius if you prefer) in Irish sources called 'Imperator Francorum' or Emperor of the Franks in 840. France is at least something of an acceptable cognate, whereas Scotland and Pictland are mutually exclusive. As for Polish history, I admit I only have a passing knowledge, but whether you call it Kingdom or Duchy, it's still Poland - and not ziggy ziggy funland.
The regnal number issue isn't actually an issue in 867 . . . since no one at the time would have thought they'd ever be known as Kings of Scots in myths and legend, or Paradox forum posts.
That's a fair point, if we assume that Paradox is just going to say 'screw it' and not bother changing any of the titles (by way at least of cultural names) for the 867 start day. As far as I'm aware that's not the case. To use a Scottish example, already we have Innse Gall as norwegian = "Søreyar" danish = "Søreyar" swedish = "Söröarna" and Caithness norwegian = "Katanes" danish = "Katanæs" swedish = "Katanäs" - so it does seem to be a policy that's being somewhat applied, albeit slowly.
Knives said:
The title of the thread is "The Trouble with Scotland is that it's Full of Scots! (And Here's How to Fix It)" wouldn't that seem to indicate that it was set-up to nitpick Scotland specifically?
Which is fun and informative while simultaneously impatient and nerdy. I love it. :happy:
Oh, no doubt. Innse Gall raises many good points that have much validity. But I don't care much for all of the people screaming "LAAAWL PDOX DUN CURR 4 HISTORICITY N E MOAR CUZ TEH ALPHA BELD RNT 100% ACUR8!" At least wait a few months to scream your lungs out.
Great OP.
Using duchies to represent the kingdoms mentioned by Innse Gall (as we have for the Kingdom of the Isles in the 1066 start date) with an unformed Scotland at start seems to me preferable to including an ahistorical Kingdom of Scotland with dejure claims and all. It will be especially galling if we see an ahistorically unified Scotland in the 867 start -- not only because of the ahistoricity, but also because it would deprive the player of a unique gameplay experience when playing in that part of the world. Nomenclature is less important to me than modelling the political and social situation, and it will be disappointing if Paradox does not live up to its high standards in this regard.
Hopefully, this is an issue that will be addressed by the time the DLC rolls out.
Using duchies to represent the kingdoms mentioned by Innse Gall (as we have for the Kingdom of the Isles in the 1066 start date) with an unformed Scotland at start seems to me preferable to including an ahistorical Kingdom of Scotland with dejure claims and all. It will be especially galling if we see an ahistorically unified Scotland in the 867 start -- not only because of the ahistoricity, but also because it would deprive the player of a unique gameplay experience when playing in that part of the world. Nomenclature is less important to me than modelling the political and social situation, and it will be disappointing if Paradox does not live up to its high standards in this regard.
Hopefully, this is an issue that will be addressed by the time the DLC rolls out.
Actually, while yeah, Boleslaw wasn't a king until 1076, Poland's status was a more complicated matter. It can be interpreted so that Poland was a kingdom ever since 1025 but the princes who ruled it still needed papal assent for each individual coronation, which seems to be the interpretation Poles are inclined to hold. At any rate, by 1138 the idea that Poland was a kingdom ruled by an uncrowned prince (he was duke of smaller holdings but the title in virtue of all of Poland war "princeps Regni Poloniae") was firmly put on paper in Boleslaw III's last will. Thus I don't really think it's such a big problem. On the other hand, a stable father-to-son kingdom of Poland between 1138 and 1296 is rather disturbing. The way I see things, Casimir the Just, who is the "king" in the 1187 Third Crusade scenario was closer to a high duke than a king in character.
As for France, I think that's a relatively minor thing, mostly limited to the ruler's title, and those weren't set in stone. Alternating between a land-based name and a people-based name wasn't really limited to the Franks/France.
De iure claims of false-start kingdoms are somewhat of a problem.
Otherwise I think I could tolerate the name of Scotland being extended onto the predecessor Pictish organisation or the earliest stages of Alba but I guess if I were Scottish or at least from the British Isles, I could react more strongly to it.
Last edited:
@Innse Gall, great to see other people are thinking about early Scotland in CK! I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, I'll list the latter here.
I don't think you should make a big deal of this. The later "Pictish" kingdom is almost certainly the same as the early "Scottish" kingdom. Neither kingdom was of course actually called "Pictland" or "Scotland" -- these are both just exonyms used by convention in modern English. Both the Pictish and Scottish kingdoms, if you notice some of the work of Dauvit Broun, appear to have been called Alba. So while I agree the modern term "Scotland" is not ideal, it would be more wrong the treat them as different kingdoms simply because their most popular exonym changes around 900.
Certainly, unless they take the game into the early 8th century, we probably should not be urging the devs to devote time to introducing any Picts/Scots distinction in northern Britain.
I really wouldn't like them using Galloway as Strathclyde, since the two are geographically and culturally distinct, and worst of all, overlap chronologically.
You should read Thomas O. Clancy, "The Gall-Ghàidheil and Galloway", Journal of Scottish Name Studies 2: 19–50; he shows that before the 12th century "Galloway" referred to Ayrshire and the Firth of Clyde region and was DIFFERENT from the area later to be the sheriffdoms of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright. In the early 11th at the very least, kingdoms of Gall-gaidel (Galloway), Na Renna (Wigtownshire) and Strathclyde (Lanarkshire) existed simultaneously!
We have no idea what the Norse ruled in northern Scotland. Orkneyinga Saga accounts before 11th century are just fantasy, and there is a difference between raiding and control (for instance the army there in the 870s came from Ireland, and returned there).
Indeed, Ivar should not control Dublin. Ivar is head of the Great Army until his death; Olaf is the one based in Ireland, like you say.
Fortriu is the subkingdom which creates the Kingdom of Pictland/Scotland/Alba, and did not exist in parallel. As you say, we now know this was in the north, but possibly in the 9th century it could be used synonymously with the greater kingdom (and indeed one abbot of Dunkeld is also "bishop of Fortriu"). You are right to identify the two branches of the Alpinids however. The dynasty appears to be based in Moray, Perthshire and Mearns, and as you identified, Woolf suggested one branch was based in the south in Gowrie and the other in the north in Moray. Woolf doesn't related this to northern and sourthern Picts (no evidence these were separate unitary kingdoms), but does say collapse of the Alpinid houses led to the family of Macbeth to fill their void in Moray. Also, check out the recent Alasdair Ross book. The failure to reunite the two kingdoms is a more likely expanation for Alba/Moray distinction of the 11th and 12th centuries rather than continuity from Pictish-era divisions.
There is no reason not to think that in 867 Galloway and Carrick were not still in Northumbria. The border of English settlement in the east was probably around where Inveresk/Musselburgh is today, so Lothian would probably go better in Strathclyde as a way of boosting its power. If there were a Lennox province Strathclyde could grab that, but it's not there.
It's possible like you say that Lochlann was "Norse Scotland", but really that's just one of many theories. The Kingdom of the Isles however is really something that begins in the late 10th century with Maccus, the first ruler of such a kingdom identified in reliable contemporary sources (as opposed to saga fantasy). There is some evidence that Ross and Cat (the old Pictish/Scottish name for Caithness and Sutherland) had some existence in the Viking Age as Celtic powerbases under the influence of the Alpinids, but it isn't secure.
I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, I'll list the latter here. I don't think you should make a big deal of this. The later "Pictish" kingdom is almost certainly the same as the early "Scottish" kingdom. Neither kingdom was of course actually called "Pictland" or "Scotland" -- these are both just exonyms used by convention in modern English. Both the Pictish and Scottish kingdoms, if you notice some of the work of Dauvit Broun, appear to have been called Alba. So while I agree the modern term "Scotland" is not ideal, it would be more wrong the treat them as different kingdoms simply because their most popular exonym changes around 900.
Certainly, unless they take the game into the early 8th century, we probably should not be urging the devs to devote time to introducing any Picts/Scots distinction in northern Britain.
I really wouldn't like them using Galloway as Strathclyde, since the two are geographically and culturally distinct, and worst of all, overlap chronologically.
You should read Thomas O. Clancy, "The Gall-Ghàidheil and Galloway", Journal of Scottish Name Studies 2: 19–50; he shows that before the 12th century "Galloway" referred to Ayrshire and the Firth of Clyde region and was DIFFERENT from the area later to be the sheriffdoms of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright. In the early 11th at the very least, kingdoms of Gall-gaidel (Galloway), Na Renna (Wigtownshire) and Strathclyde (Lanarkshire) existed simultaneously!
We have no idea what the Norse ruled in northern Scotland. Orkneyinga Saga accounts before 11th century are just fantasy, and there is a difference between raiding and control (for instance the army there in the 870s came from Ireland, and returned there).
Indeed, Ivar should not control Dublin. Ivar is head of the Great Army until his death; Olaf is the one based in Ireland, like you say.
(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).
Fortriu is the subkingdom which creates the Kingdom of Pictland/Scotland/Alba, and did not exist in parallel. As you say, we now know this was in the north, but possibly in the 9th century it could be used synonymously with the greater kingdom (and indeed one abbot of Dunkeld is also "bishop of Fortriu"). You are right to identify the two branches of the Alpinids however. The dynasty appears to be based in Moray, Perthshire and Mearns, and as you identified, Woolf suggested one branch was based in the south in Gowrie and the other in the north in Moray. Woolf doesn't related this to northern and sourthern Picts (no evidence these were separate unitary kingdoms), but does say collapse of the Alpinid houses led to the family of Macbeth to fill their void in Moray. Also, check out the recent Alasdair Ross book. The failure to reunite the two kingdoms is a more likely expanation for Alba/Moray distinction of the 11th and 12th centuries rather than continuity from Pictish-era divisions.
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:
There is no reason not to think that in 867 Galloway and Carrick were not still in Northumbria. The border of English settlement in the east was probably around where Inveresk/Musselburgh is today, so Lothian would probably go better in Strathclyde as a way of boosting its power. If there were a Lennox province Strathclyde could grab that, but it's not there.
It's possible like you say that Lochlann was "Norse Scotland", but really that's just one of many theories. The Kingdom of the Isles however is really something that begins in the late 10th century with Maccus, the first ruler of such a kingdom identified in reliable contemporary sources (as opposed to saga fantasy). There is some evidence that Ross and Cat (the old Pictish/Scottish name for Caithness and Sutherland) had some existence in the Viking Age as Celtic powerbases under the influence of the Alpinids, but it isn't secure.
Last edited:
It's called the Byzantine Empire because that's the accepted name in our modern times for that country during the era of CK2.
The difference is that the accepted modern name for the Picts in the CK2 timeframe is not Scotland, it's the Picts.
The difference is that the accepted modern name for the Picts in the CK2 timeframe is not Scotland, it's the Picts.
Modern convention of regnal numbering for the kingdom of Scotland starts with a monarch who came to power in the 840s, more than two decades before our start date. Not saying the convention is correct (more accurate to start at either Bruide/Bridei m. Bile or David I), but it shows that the Byzantine comparison supports using "Scotland".