Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
Blackadder

General Scots History

Here you go Squeegee ...

Would you like to begin???  Very Happy
Blackadder

Oh alright ... I'll kick off ...

The Roman conquest of Britain began in 43 AD, almost a century after Caesar's first invasion.  By 80 AD the Roman governor, Agricola, felt secure enough in the south of Britain to begin an invasion of the north, building a string of forts across the Clyde/Forth line and defeating a large force of Scottish tribes at Mons Graupius.

The long-term effect of his campaign, however, was slight. Work on a major fort ... to be the base for 5000 soldiers ... at Inchtuthill, on the Tay, was abandoned before it was finished, and the legions withdrew south.

In 123 AD the Emperor Hadrian decided to seal the frontier against the northern tribes and had Hadrian's Wall built, stretching from the Solway Firth to the Tyne ... and was the first formal division of the island of Britain.

Twenty years later, the Romans again ventured north and built the Antonine Wall between the Clyde and the Forth. This was manned for about 40 years, but thereafter the Romans, frustrated by the inhospitable terrain of the Highlands, largely gave up their attempt to subjugate the north, and instead adopted a policy of containment.

It was the Romans who produced the first written accounts of the peoples of Scotland. In the second century AD, the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy drew up the first-known map of Scotland, which identified seventeen tribal territories. Other descriptions were less scientific, compounding the mixture of fear and contempt with which the Romans regarded their Caledonian/Pictish neighbours.

Dio Cassius, a Roman commentator writing in 197 AD, informed his readers: 'They live in huts, go naked and unshod. They mostly have a democratic government, and are much addicted to robbery. They can bear hunger and cold and all manner of hardship; they will retire into their marshes and hold out for days with only their heads above water, and in the forest they will subsist on barks and roots.'

Okay ... discuss ... and points will be added if you can raise a laugh or two along the way ...  Twisted Evil

Have your points deducted and I won't be responsible for what happens after!!!  Rolling Eyes
Runaway Weegie

Well this is cosy...

I think that the Romans created the Picts. I don't mean that the Romans woke up one morning and thought "hmm, let's create a barbarian nation", but that it was the experience of Roman occupation further south that first gave the Picts a sense of a common Pictish identity. Before that they were just a bunch of Smertae, Taezali and Caledonii.

Smertae is a great tribal name by the way. It always makes me think of an organisation of evil villains from a James Bond movie.

But don't the Roman sources tell us there were two Pictish peoples, or rather tribal confederations? The Maeatae and the Deucaledonii - or something, I can't remember the exact names offhand and am too lazy to look them up.
Runaway Weegie

I think it was the 400 years of Roman occupation that made Pictish and Brittonic into different languages too. Britons became Roman citizens and thought of themselves as Romans, they borrowed thousands of words from Latin. The Picts to the north were antagonistic towards Rome much of the time, so they would not have borrowed as many words from Latin. In the late Roman period Brittonic experienced major changes in pronunciation and grammar, there's no reason to believe the same changes happened in Pictish. I suspect Pictish was more influenced by Goidelic.

Oh and the other thing. I missed last week's History of Scotland because reception was too crappy, does anyone know when the series will be shown on BBC England? We pick that up perfectly.
Blackadder

Huvnae a clue what BBC England is!  Unless it's BBC2, 3, 4, 6 or 6!!!  Shocked

I seem to remember the Maeatae (how do you prounounce that? My-Tie??) being called the Miathi in my school during history. And they had close ties to the Votadini.  Was their main oppidum at Trimontium??
Runaway Weegie

BBC England is the one everyone else gets when the announcer tells you this great movie is about to come on, except for viewers in Scotland who'll be getting Indoor Bowling from Coatbridge.

Is a Mai Tai not a cocktail?

It's got Maeatae in Wiki but well, thae Romans were a bit vague on spelling at times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeatae

It would be pronounced My A Tie, obviously they were terribly well dressed.

It also says on Wiki their tribal capital was Dun Maeatae, modern Dumyat hill near Stirling.
Blackadder

So they coulda been called the MYAT???  (my 'at) Or just m-y-a-t ... with the Latinisation being Miathi or Maeatae?

I mean look at the variations of Votadini, Guotodin, Gododdin ... somewhere in there is the original of what the natives called themselves.  I don't think they went around saying, "So, who are we then?"  That's too reminiscent of the pygmy Werafookawi tribe who lived in the middle of Africa's long grass regions!!!

Someone may have to explain that to Carol!!!  Twisted Evil

Just a thought but if the Maeatae were first mentioned well into the Roman establishment of 180 ... maybe they were the remnants of tribes massacred by the Romans, gathering under a new leader whose name was Mayat or something similar ...
Blackadder

I remember reading also about the Taexali/Taezali and the Deucaledonii/Dicalydones. Then there was the Lugi, Cornavii, Epidii, Caereni, Carnonacae, Vacomagi, Venicones and Creones ... which could be a corruption of Cruithne.

I know we've discussed this a little elsewhere, but I thought we could do with a little basework here to establish the way the thread should go ...
Runaway Weegie

All the variations belong to different periods of time though. They were always quite certain what they called themselves, it's just that from time to time those pesky youngsters would come along with a racy and fancy new pronunciation, influenced by the late Iron Age version of punk videos.

Votadini was what they called themselves in early Roman times. It was pronounced Wotadini. By late Roman times, trendy youngsters had started to pronounce it as Gwotadini because they had a slovenly pronunciation and no respect for their elders. Young people today etc etc. Then the trendy youngsters grew up and Gwotadini became how stuffy auld gits like me pronounced things, and the new generation of trendy youngsters started to pronounce it Gwodadhini laaaaik because they'd been listening to too much Late Roman hip hop music and had no respect for their elders. Young people today, etc etc. Add, stir, repeat. That's the recipe for language change.

Anyway, that's how Votadini ended up eventually as Gododdin. And that's a good and useful thing, because knowing the sequence of sound changes means we can date the language and the texts.  

I still haven't found out what Maeatae comes from in Celtic. The -ae ending looks like a genitive though - the possessive ending. That's pretty usual in tribal names because they were the tribe of the whatever.
Runaway Weegie

I was doing a google on the origin of the name Maeatae and came across this -

http://www.archive.org/details/archaeologyandpl012734mbp

It's the entire text of FW Wainwrights 'Archaeology And Place Names And History'

It looks like it's packed full of revelant information, so I'm off to have a read.
Runaway Weegie

I meant FT Wainwright

and relevant

brain farts...
Jimbo

Pronounced My a ti.

Been up Dumyat many times. What a fantastic view. You have a panorama to the west and south for many, many miles. The place was well chosen.

One peculiarity about the place is, that regardless of how heavy it snows, it never seems to lie on Dumyat. Well, not the part that we can see from where we live.

Don't remember where, but I recall reading that Arthur was killed by the Maeatae at Camlann.

Local legend (according to a local) (I'm a Shettleston incomer) has it that Arthur occupied the old Roman fortress at Carmuirs (now within in the bounds of Falkirk Golf Club). The fortress was built on a hill overlooking the river Carron, which at one time flowed down what is now the 18th fairway of the golf club before turning sharply left to wend it's way down to the Forth. There are also other places in the area whose names are associated with Arthur. Arthur's O'n, Arthur's Table, The Round Table etc.

I was of the opinon that the Round Table was a group of do-gooders, but Matt (my local historian friend) assures me it is the local name for an area of Carron Dams.
Blackadder

Quote:
haven't found out what Maeatae comes from in Celtic. The -ae ending looks like a genitive though - the possessive ending. That's pretty usual in tribal names because they were the tribe of the whatever.


Dear gods ... that's almost exactly what I said. Maeatae ... the Tribe of Myat. Therefore ... Dun Myat. And Myat's people!  Shocked

I'm right!!!    Shocked

10 points to me I think.   Twisted Evil
Blackadder

Jimboneheid ... there's some nice views here ...

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/6410
Jimbo

Nah, BA.

Isn't Dumyat a corruption of Dun Maeatae?

Deduct 20 points for jumping to conclusions without having your theory verified by our resident linguist.
Blackadder

Excuse me ... but I'll have you know I have MEDALS for jumping to conclusions!  So Dun Myat or Dun Miathi or Dun Maeatae ...  

I'll keep my points thanks ... and you can lose 30 points cos you're an oik!!! Twisted Evil
Jimbo

Can't get your link to open BA.   Sad

Deduct 100 points for posting a duff link.  Very Happy
Blackadder

Works fine for me ... re-add 120 points for survivalist thinking!!!  Very Happy

Try it again!!!

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/6410

If it still doen't work ... then you're a Dumtwat!!!  Twisted Evil
Runaway Weegie

Well I still dunno what Maeatae comes from, so all I know is that it means "of something or someone". It disnae have to have been a person. You get the same ending in Smertae. Smertae seems to have some connection with the word for dead. (s)mertos. Of the dead people? of the killers?

maia- meant big in ancient Celtic. So maybe it's the tribe of the big something (or someone).

I know Shettleston well. It's also an interesting name. It doesn't look like it's Gaelic, but it is. I'll have to track down the proper sources but it was first attested in the 12th century as Villa Seadna, a Latin translation of an unrecorded Gaelic Baile Seadna "Seadna's farm". (Pronounced Shedna). This was later taken into Lowland Scots where toon replaced the Gaelic baile and the name became Shednatun. This was later corrupted into Shettleston because of an imagined association with weavers' shuttles.

I can't get the link to work either by the way.
Jimbo

Belay that. Opened it after making adjustments to PC. 500 points to me for technical know how.  Very Happy

In image 5, you could see my house if it wasn't for the mist, the trees and the buildings in front of it.

In image 11, the brazier on top of the cairn  normally has a Saltire tied to it. I wonder if those guys in the picture nicked it?  Shocked
Jimbo

Hi Runaway Weegie,

I read that it came from the latin for 'where the road forks'. Sheddings, or some such like. Don't know how true or accurate this was.

There used to be an area (on the left hand side about 400 yards driving east) along Old Shettleston Road called the Sheddings.
Runaway Weegie

Ah here we go, who needs books when there's the Internet?

http://www.shedden.org.uk/busby-and-shettleston-sheddens.html
Jimbo

Hi Runaway Weegie,

so what do you think? Baile Seadna or Sheddens?
Runaway Weegie

You know. I've nae idea.

The Seadna derivation depends upon Villa filie Sedin being Shettleston, but it seems that's not 100% certain.

Crucem de Schedenstun is definitely Shettleston, but it's not necessarily connected with Scots sheddens. Sheddens meant a fork in the road, a cross in the road, so why was only the scheden part of the name translated in "Crucem de Schedenstun"? If sheddens was taken to mean crucem why didn't they write "villam crucis de Schedenstun" - "the farm of the cross of Schedenstun" or something like that.

It could be Scots sheddens, or it could be the Gaelic personal name Sedin (I'm sure I saw it given as Seadna somewhere, but that could well just be another brain fart on my part.) There's no way to tell without further information. Place names are often annoying that way.
Blackadder

Okay, Sedna seems to be the root of the name here. But Sedna is the Inuit Goddess of the Sea, However, I'm positive I read of a "Sedna" in Northern Celtic mythogy somewhere in my dark past, who was a Death Goddess or a Deity of the Land.

Couldn't that be the origin??

btw ... Sedna is also the name of  furthermost astronomical body in our Solar System.

5000 points to me for knowing that!  5000 points deducted from Jimbonecomb for not knowing. And 1000 points to Squeegee for being a sodding know-it-all!!!  He'll get his deductions yet ... watch this space! Evil or Very Mad
carol

literally passing through.  I was involved in overseeing a placenames project in Clackmannanshire a few years ago so can probably contribute stuff regarding the Maetae, Goddodin and the people of Manau etc  'Cept I'll need to go into some files and read up on it.  It is Simon Taylors work, possibility it may have been reproduced on the SPNS site.  The full article was definitely in the History of Scotland magazine a few years ago.  

btw I've climbed the Dumyat from the easy end and was completely knackered!!

ps excuse my spellings

I relocated to Perthshire just over a year ago, googling local history yesterday to discover that the woods where I walk my part-time dog was once a Roman Camp, and the field/hill at the rear of the house was once the site of an Iron Age Fort.  As for witches, Maggie Wall's memorial is not far from where I stay
Blackadder

Come back and post up what you have, O big-boned one.  

100 points deducted for just passing through!!! Twisted Evil
Rinty

As this is celarly about history it has been moved to the history forum
Blackadder

As you have decided to move this thread without consulting the contributors ... this is now a dead thread!
Rinty

For you perhaps and that would be very revealing.  Anyone who is interested in the subject matter should not be concenrned what section it is in.

To moderators it is important that threads about history are in the history section so that when new vistors come they find what they want to discuss under the correct banners.

Why is is it dead?  Being in 'banter' makes no difference to the mood of the debate or the moderation of the debate. "general banter' is a section for everything that doesnt have an existing topic, it is not a section to escape dave or to escaoe moderation.  There is no reason for this debate not to continue.
Rinty

Excellent stuff RW, place names can be very confusing and you obviously have a background knwledge that is very helpful in a discussion like this.

One place name that I always got wrong is "Moscow' in Ayrshire.  As a child we lived nearby in Galston at the time and was told that it came from the village being the site of a POW camp for Russian prisoners in the Crimean war.  Everyone I knew accepted this and it was a commonly held view.  A few years later, when I was a candidate in a council seat in that area, I did some research and found it was all wrong.

The local landowner had renamed the viilage after Napoleons defeat in Russia.  The thing is took just seconds of research to find this out, yet so many people didnt question the accepted reason as it seemed feasible enough.

My point is that, with older names, sometime the research goes missing and an accepted form becomes the 'truth' when it possibly might not have been.
Runaway Weegie

Right - I'm not a happy bunny here.

A) Why was this thread moved unilaterally and without giving contributors an opportunity to make their views known? Is this forum democratic or is it ruled by fiat?

B) Since it has been decided from On High that this thread is to be moved here, what action has been taken to ensure that this thread will not be disrupted by the person who has previously managed to derail the other history threads with his self-obsessed concerns?  

So yes I AM concerned about what section this thread is in. Until there is a guarantee that this thread is fit for purpose there is no point posting here. The actions of the moderator thus far do not inspire confidence.

I won't be doing any more waffling in the History section about place names, obscure sound changes in proto-Celtic, or ancient Scottish history until these questions are answered satisfactorily. I'll be doing my waffling in the General Banter section, where I shall waffle on about whatever I please.
Rinty

"A) Why was this thread moved unilaterally and without giving contributors an opportunity to make their views known? Is this forum democratic or is it ruled by fiat?"

The reason is simple, it is a history discussion, anyone visiting the site interested in history should be able to find it.  It is afunction of a moderator to make sure appropriate threads are in appropriate places.

"B) Since it has been decided from On High that this thread is to be moved here, what action has been taken to ensure that this thread will not be disrupted by the person who has previously managed to derail the other history threads with his self-obsessed concerns?"

All attempts will be taken to make sure every thread is not derailed and that the oersonal is not encouraged in debate.

" So yes I AM concerned about what section this thread is in. Until there is a guarantee that this thread is fit for purpose there is no point posting here. The actions of the moderator thus far do not inspire confidence."

I still cannot see what advantage there is to it being in another section, the same rules apply wherever it is.

"I won't be doing any more waffling in the History section about place names, obscure sound changes in proto-Celtic, or ancient Scottish history until these questions are answered satisfactorily. I'll be doing my waffling in the General Banter section, where I shall waffle on about whatever I please."

That is a shame and I still cannot see any reason for it. Anyone who wants to waste a thread can do it in any section.

the histroy forum is a good fiorum and in general is fine.  You make good contributions to tha forum and it is a shame that you wont do any more.  But you make your choices and I can only follow my duties as a mod to make debates flow, place things in the appropriate place and try to do what benefits all of the members and potential new members.

Can I ask why you thnk that one thread to cover all of history, in a section that isnt history, is a good idea?
schawaldowris

Hi Rinty
Your explanation for the derivation of Moscow in Ayrshire certainly seems logical.

Prof. Watson however in his publication of 1926 suggested the origin stemmed from P-celtic maes meaning an open field or a plain. "In some cases at least maes appears as moss". The second part according to Watson is from Germanic coll or Welsh collen meaning "hazel"

The explanation is therefore the "hazel field" or "plain of the hazel". Given the flatness of the land surrounding the area it does not sound unreasonable.
Runaway Weegie

I don't believe that the best place for a history discussion is a general banter forum, but I do believe that the best place is somewhere that the conversation is not going to be derailed or sidetracked by those who believe that every slight, however tiny or imagined, gives them the excuse to take over the entire thread with their personal concerns. This has occurred on both the BBC history programme thread, and the Mary Queen of Scots thread in just this past week or so.

I do not know this man, and I have no animus against him although I am rapidly developing one. However he has, it seems, already been given a number of warnings about his inappropriate posts, yet he continues in the same pattern of behaviour. I would like your guarantee that in future, his inappropriate posts will be removed without further warning.
Jimbo

schawaldowris wrote:
Hi Rinty
Your explanation for the derivation of Moscow in Ayrshire certainly seems logical.

Prof. Watson however in his publication of 1926 suggested the origin stemmed from P-celtic maes meaning an open field or a plain. "In some cases at least maes appears as moss". The second part according to Watson is from Germanic coll or Welsh collen meaning "hazel"

The explanation is therefore the "hazel field" or "plain of the hazel". Given the flatness of the land surrounding the area it does not sound unreasonable.


Hi Schawaldowris,

could it not also be possible that it is the Celtic 'cau' instead of 'coll'?

Maescau?
Rinty

RW,

I cant guarantee that I will share your view that everything you think is inappropraite is deemed so by the forum amd no other moderator can give that guarantee either.

In the case of the Neil Oliver thread I have re-read it again.

I can see nothing that requires moderation until Agentmancusco brought up the NOTW stitch up on Dave and others,  I don't think that is approriate and RH, another moderator stepped in to warn the participants in the thread with a general moderation warning.  He did this after several posters also expressing concerns that the thread was "degenerating".  The reaction to that however, was to enocurage posters to boycott the history thread and discuss all history in one thread in the banter section.  That is not good for the site.

Earlier in the thread there was nearly a cause for moderation due to Dave's opening of a new thread but dave acknowledfged his mistake, as did others and it was rectified satifactorily without moderation.

I can see where in the thread you start to get annoyed at daves abrasive style of debate, but that is not a concern for moderators, no matter who does it.  I was enjoying the debate between you and dave and saw good points from both, it wasnt personal or abusive, a bit heated and edgy but informative.

The thread became a matter for moderation when the NOTW story was brought up, as I said.

Some people are very active in trying to get the mods to ban dave and it is not a pressure that we take kindly to, we do this voluntarily, have done for years and usually dont have campaigns aginst us.

The Mary QoS debate has been explained and I cant help it if some think my explanations are not acceptable.  In that situation the line that was crossed was delving into stories that we have no idea whether they are true or not so we ask people to steer clear of them.  We will not tolerate accusations from dave or carol about one anothers actions at a meeting a while ago and we think it is detrimental, as I said at the time, to encouraging some posters to the site.

We very rarely 'remove posts without warning' and would usually only do so if they contain unsubstabntiated personal allegations and/or racist, homophobic or other such abuse.

So, sorry but I cannot agree to guarantee that every post you deem to be inappropriate will be instantly removed, by asking for this you are asking for the forum rules to be changed and more severe limitations on speech and more work for volunteer mods.

I can guarantee that anything the we think it not beneficial to the forum in general will be dealt with and can gaurantee that we will do our best to keep threads going without personal abuse, that is the best we can do, to do our best.

We cannot see every post, we cannot always get it right in a way that suits all parties, our guidelines are lenient and lax and a only a few things cross the line, unfortunately this has happened a few times recently.

Abrasive and sometimes aggresive arguing is a feature of internet debates, possibly not a nice feature but I would say that this site is less nasty than most I read.  Much of that is doen to the mods only getting involved when certain lines are crossed.
agentmancuso

Runaway Weegie wrote:
I think that the Romans created the Picts. I don't mean that the Romans woke up one morning and thought "hmm, let's create a barbarian nation", but that it was the experience of Roman occupation further south that first gave the Picts a sense of a common Pictish identity. Before that they were just a bunch of Smertae, Taezali and Caledonii.


Something very similar could be said about the way a common Scots identity comes about following the shared experience of a later southern aggressor.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
I can see nothing that requires moderation until Agentmancusco brought up the NOTW stitch up on Dave

I didn't actually mean to bring up the NOTW, for what it's worth.

Quote:
The reaction to that however, was to enocurage posters to boycott the history thread and discuss all history in one thread in the banter section.  That is not good for the site.

I agree.
Jimbo

agentmancuso wrote:
Runaway Weegie wrote:
I think that the Romans created the Picts. I don't mean that the Romans woke up one morning and thought "hmm, let's create a barbarian nation", but that it was the experience of Roman occupation further south that first gave the Picts a sense of a common Pictish identity. Before that they were just a bunch of Smertae, Taezali and Caledonii.


Something very similar could be said about the way a common Scots identity comes about following the shared experience of a later southern aggressor.


Yes. Though some historians argue that there was no such thing as a common Scots identity in those days, I tend to agree with Duncan and Barrow, that it was very much to the fore from earlier times than some claim.

How some can claim that there was a common English identity from the times of Alfred the Great, yet no such thing existed in Scotland, beats me.
Rinty

"I didn't actually mean to bring up the NOTW, for what it's worth."

I accept that, no action was taken other than a mod, Reluctant Hero, stepping in to say 'calm down guys or I will lock the thread',  I am glad that this thread and the other one seems at least to still be going and on subject.
Runaway Weegie

In future I'll just ignore the person, whether he's on or off topic. That's all that needs be said.

I can't find Moscow in Nicholaisen's reference work on Scottish place names, but I know I saw the etymology somewhere. I was sure it was derived from Maes Coll and means "hazel field" as schawaldowris said. (Though I think he may have meant coll was Gaelic and not Germanic as he actually posted.) Walker is an invaluable resource, but he needs to be treated with caution as he wrote in 1926 and understanding of ancient Celtic and Germanic languages has improved a lot since then. Walker has a bit of a tendency to see everything as Celtic. Other sources say the Ayrshire Moscow is derived from Scots "moss hall" or "moss haw".

It's not unknown for places to take their names from famous foreign battles, Portobello in Edinburgh is an example. If the name is found in a recognisable form before the Napoleonic Wars, then the derivation as a commemoration of Napoleon's unsuccessful campaign can't be correct. In fact the the village name is attested earlier in various spellings, so can't have anything to do with the Russian Moscow. However the name first regularly gets spelled as Moscow in the early 19th century as a commemoration of Napoleon's campaign, and it was around that time that the stream flowing through the village was renamed the Volga.

What place names are most affected by is analogy. Often place names are strings of meaningless syllables, and the natural reaction of speakers is to associate these nonsense syllables with something that is actually meaningful in their own language. A good example is the name Bathgate, which has nothing to do with either baths or gates. It comes from Old Welsh baedd coed 'boar wood'. It's attested as Batket in 1153, Bathkete in 1361 and Baythcat in 1488. The phonetics of the name suggest that the original Brittonic name was borrowed by Gaelic speakers who then passed it on to speakers of Scots. To Scots speakers it didn't mean anything, so the name was corrupted into Scots words which were similar in sound.  

I agree with Agentmancuso about the origin of the Scottish nation dating to the Middle Ages and the Wars of Independence (if that's what he meant). I'll put my thoughts together when I walk the dogs and will post something when I get back.
Rinty

"What place names are most affected by is analogy. Often place names are strings of meaningless syllables, and the natural reaction of speakers is to associate these nonsense syllables with something that is actually meaningful in their own language. A good example is the name Bathgate, which has nothing to do with either baths or gates. It comes from Old Welsh baedd coed 'boar wood'. It's attested as Batket in 1153, Bathkete in 1361 and Baythcat in 1488. "

I think I was the first trotskyist in a cenutry to stand for an election in Moscow and not be shot or sent to a prison camp Smile

What you say above is very interesting and I remember someone saying something similar once before when discussing whether certain names were gaelic in origin or not.  He said that sometimes the history is lost and we cannot know, that some place names changed gradually with time and ocassionally then chimed with current words by coincidence and then adopted an origin through chance, if you get my meaning.
Runaway Weegie

A lot of people take umbrage when you say "the Scottish nation originated in the High Middle Ages", thinking it means that the Scots are a recent invention compared to the English. In fact I believe that historically, the Scots developed a sense of nationhood before the English did.

It's important to be careful about terminology here. There are two ways to define nation, one meaning is equivalent to the ethnic nation which invariably has its associated language. It's the old fashioned "blood and soil" definition of nation which is so beloved by certain Unionist posters in this forum when they're berating Scottish nationalists. It is a concept of nation that depends on ethnicity. This understanding of "national identity" is extremely ancient. Sociologists call it a gemeinschaft identity, an identity founded upon "primordial similarities".

The more modern concept of national identity, often called civic nationalism, is what sociologists call a gesellschaft identity. Unlike the primordial "blood and soil" identity it is an identity founded upon ideological associations. An example are modern Americans who have an American national identity despite their varied ethnic heritage, because (in theory at least) all Americans subscribe to the ideology of the founding principles of the USA.

Prior to the Wars of Independence, Scots existed as an ethnic name, the name of a particular people speaking a particular language. In this usage it's directly equivalent to the use of the term "English". Scottishness and Englishness existed as gemeinschaft identities. My argument is that although Scottish and English both existed as ethnic names and as names for the associated languages, neither the Scots nor the English had a "national identity" in the modern sense. There was no gesellschaft understanding of national identity.

The clue to this lies in what each name meant. Yeah, I know, me and names again. But indulge me. Before the Scottish Wars of Independence, Scottish meant Gaelic. A Scot was a Gaelic speaker. The kingdom of Scotland was inhabited by several (gemeinschaft) nations, but only the Gaels were Scots. The Gaels of Ireland were equally Scots even though they had no allegiance to the King of Scots. In Old English and early Middle English, the primary meaning of the word Scot and Scotland was, in modern English, "Irish" and "lands inhabited by Irish speakers". This is the only meaning Scot has in the Anglosaxon Chronicle.

Þrie Scottas comon to Ælfrede cyninge, on anum bate butan ælcum gereþrum of Hibernia.
'Three Scots came to King Ælfred, on a boat without oars from Hibernia .' (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 891)

At the outbreak of the Wars of Independence, southern Scotland contained a large number of people who spoke a northern dialect of English. They called it Inglis, but that was just the northern dialect word for English. Inglis speakers called southern English people Inglis too. The Inglis speakers of England thought of themselves as English. The mediaeval abbot and religious writer Adam of Dryburgh, who was the abbot of Dryburgh Abbey between 1184 and 1188, tells us that the Abbey was in terra Anglorum et in regno Scottorum 'in the land of the English and in the kingdom of the Scots'.

After the Wars of Independence, the meaning of the word Scot changed. It no longer meant a Gaelic speaker. It applied equally to the Gaels and to the speakers of northern Middle English of southern Scotland. The Inglis speakers of Scotland were no longer English.

This is extremely odd indeed. In fact I can't think of any similar examples. If it were just that the English speakers of southern Scotland had been alienated from England by the events of the Wars and they no longer chose to regard themselves as English, then they could have adopted a name for themselves which reflected their position as an ethnic group of the Kingdom of Scotland. They could have called themselves and their not very distinctive variety of northern Middle English "Suddron" or "Lothians" or some similar name. But they didn't do that. Instead they chose to refer to themselves by a name which expressly asserted their ideological identification with Gaelic speaking Scots. Inglis speakers and Gaelic speakers were united by an identity which encompassed more than one language. The term Scot was no longer purely an ethnic reference, it had become more than a gemeinschaft identity. The Scottish nation in the modern sense had been born.

The English had still to go through this process. Englishness was still only a gemeinschaft identity. The concept of a gesellschaft English identity didn't arise until a good hundred years or more later when the Normans were finally assimilated into English language and culture and ceased to be a distinctive part of the English population.

There's a huge amount more that could be said about this topic. I'd be interested in others' opinions.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
Earlier in the thread there was nearly a cause for moderation due to Dave's opening of a new thread but dave acknowledfged his mistake, as did others and it was rectified satifactorily without moderation.


The first mistake was the topic being named "Neil Munro's History of Scotland"! That was an honest mistake by Blackadder. My wife pointed out the mistake, which I had myself failed to notice. Me opening a new thread was an honest attempt to correct that honest mistake, and as soon as I realised that it could be corrected without a new thread I was very happy to concentrate on the original thread.

Regarding this thread in the History section being "General Banter about Scots History for the Cool People", I have a black tee shirt, with "celtic" type white lettering on it, which reads "THIS IS WHAT COOL LOOKS LIKE". My mother in law, who is actually only a few years older than me, saw it in a shop in San Francisco, and thought "that would be a perfect present for Dave". It is a historical fact that she bought that cool tee shirt for a Scot called Coull. Of course, the spelling does vary. In Davie Lindsay's 1535 "A Satire of The Three Estates", he gives the name of the Irish giant, Finn MacCool, as Finn Mac Coull.
Runaway Weegie

Oops, I made a mistake in my long post above. Where I say -

Inglis speakers called southern English people Inglis too. The Inglis speakers of England thought of themselves as English.

It should read

Inglis speakers called southern English people Inglis too. The Inglis speakers of SCOTLAND thought of themselves as English.
Babygael

That was totally interesting RW, so really the concept of Scotland being a Nation,a people seperate from England came about after the Wars of Independence? Before that the people thought of themselves as a tribe or clan within a particular area? well I can see how the Wars helped that,it must have brought people together to fight for one cause.To lay down tribal/Clan differences and come together,no?
agentmancuso

Runaway Weegie wrote:
I agree with Agentmancuso about the origin of the Scottish nation dating to the Middle Ages and the Wars of Independence (if that's what he meant).


It's exactly what I meant, though it would have taken me months to express it as cogently as you manage in the long post. I mainly associate this theme with Barrow - I seem to remember his saying that the main achievement of Edward I Malleus Scottorum was to hammer the Scots into a shared sense of identity.

As for the Norman component in English history, it never seems to have been entirely absorbed. Until recently the English aristocracy quite genuinely attributed their right to privilege to their descent from Norman stock, and a persistent theme running through populist or revolutionary movements in England was a desire to 'throw off the Norman yoke' and reclaim a more egalitarian Anglo-Saxon society.
William_Cleland

Perhaps worth noting that Robert de Brus was a Norman too. Seems to me that talking about nations in the age of feudalism is a bit of a stretch. John Knox was probably the father of the modern nation although I doubt he set out to be or would have wanted that as his main legacy. Without the Presbyterian-Anglican split there would have been no need to entrench national institutions for Scotland in the Treaty of Union and Scotland would be like Lombardy or Saxony nowadays. In medieval times the Wars of Independence tend to be over-emphasised, in my opinion. In many ways it was David I who created the feudal kingdom by founding the burghs etc. He was probably a bit too fervently RC for the taste of many later historians, however, while Bruce being excommunicated and having possible masonic links went down a lot better.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
Perhaps worth noting that Robert de Brus was a Norman too.


Yes, but wasn't he Gaelic on his mother's side?

William_Cleland wrote:
Seems to me that talking about nations in the age of feudalism is a bit of a stretch.


Nevertheless, it does seem that there was a kind of nationalism in Bruce's day. He was something of an opportunist, and the Bruces were the biggest landowners in England after the king, but once he had murdered a rival claimant for the Scottish throne, and in a church at that, and so burnt his boats, Bruce did make a point of appealing to nationalist sentiment, and there WAS nationalist sentiment to which to appeal, Wallace and others having done the groundwork for this. Also, if you read the Declaration of Arbroath, there is plenty in there about the origins of the Scottish nation, more or less complete rubbish of course. It's a historic document, but the history IN it is inaccurate to the point of being fairy tales. Nevertheless, that document does set out a claim of Scotland being a nation. Also, when King Robert's brother, Edward, set out to make himself High King of Ireland, the Bruces put out propaganda to the Irish along the lines of the Scots and Irish are one people, or, at least, are related peoples, therefore it makes sense to have the brother of the man who has successfully resisted the English in Scotland doing the same for the Irish nation.

William_Cleland wrote:
In many ways it was David I who created the feudal kingdom by founding the burghs etc. He was probably a bit too fervently RC for the taste of many later historians, however, while Bruce being excommunicated and having possible masonic links went down a lot better.


Yes, the huge importance of David I tends to get under-estimated. Yes, it is quite possible that, for historians in early modern times, many from protestant backgrounds, David I seemed a bit too papist, whereas the pope had excommunicated Bruce. However, David I made less of an appeal to nationalist sentiment than Bruce. He expanded the kingdom deep into the north of England, his kingdom became very wealthy at least partly from having control of silver mines and other assets in the north of England, so in one sense his kingdom was bigger and more successful but less distinctively Scottish.

William_Cleland wrote:
John Knox was probably the father of the modern nation


He certainly played a big part in fathering the modern nation.

William_Cleland wrote:
although I doubt he set out to be or would have wanted that as his main legacy


What he set out to do was to spread what he considered to be The One True Faith as far and wide as possible. He would have been very happy if presbyterianism had triumphed in England............and Ireland, and France, and Belgium, and Italy, and..................

William_Cleland wrote:
Without the Presbyterian-Anglican split there would have been no need to entrench national institutions for Scotland in the Treaty of Union and Scotland would be like Lombardy or Saxony nowadays.


It's hard to be sure exactly how things would have developed in that Alternative History, but, certainly, the fact that, in the real world, Scotland kept a separate established church, a separate legal system, and a separate educational system (because of the separate church) had a huge effect in keeping the idea of a separate  Scottish nation alive.
schawaldowris

I note that once again we are being subjected to the entirely erroneous description that Robert I king of Scots was a "Norman" The facts would tell us otherwise.

According to Scottish history, he was born at Turnberry Castle in Carrick the ancestral home of his mother, Marjorie of Carrick, who was the daughter of Neil, also earl of Carrick and a direct descendant of the ancient Celtic earls of Galloway. His paternal ancestors had been resident in Scotland, since Robert (II) de Bruce received the lordship of Annandale from David I king of Scots, in 1124. It must also be pointed out that his grandmother was Isabel de Clare who was descended from Eva Mc Dermott McMurrough, daughter of the Celtic earl of Leinster. Furthermore "the Bruce" was also descended from Isabel of Huntingdon daughter of David I king of Scots and also Isabel, daughter of William (the Lion) king of Scots.

So it can be seen, that quite apart from his place of birth, his paternal ancestors had been resident in Scotland for 150 years before he was born! It can also be argued that given his lineage he had as much Celtic blood in his veins as Norman.

Notwithstanding his lineage, he was also fluent in Gaelic. One wonders how many who sneer at Bruce for his "foreign" blood are capable of conversing in the language that was dominent in Scotland more than 1500 years ago?

I can think of many prominent modern day Scots whose ancestors arrived in these islands less than 150 years ago. If you were to suggest they were anything but Scots, as they say, " a smack on the mouth often offends!"
William_Cleland

schawaldowris wrote:
Notwithstanding his lineage, he was also fluent in Gaelic. One wonders how many who sneer at Bruce for his "foreign" blood are capable of conversing in the language that was dominent in Scotland more than 1500 years ago?


Can speak a watered down version of the language he spoke immediately after knifing Red Comyn and can read John Barbour's epic poem The Brus without having to check out the glossary too often, which I always find surprising given it was written almost 700 years ago. You are way off base on my motivation. I wonder if my Andy Murray avatar is what leads to these kneejerk outbursts? I originally adopted it to remind agentmancuso and Aventinian that I am not a Scottish nationalist when arguing against their rather extreme outbursts against Scottish nationalism. Maybe time for a change.
schawaldowris

Hi Weegie

Thank you for pointing out my transcription error in "G" for Germanic instead of Gaelic. You are of course perfectly correct. On the other hand may I point out my reference was Prof. W.J.Watson and not Walker!

It is correct to say Watson had a tendency to see things from a Celtic perspective but after all, his research culminated in a publication named the "The Celtic Placenames of Scotland" So perhaps it is understandable.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
I wonder if my Andy Murray avatar is what leads to these kneejerk outbursts?


I don't have any avatar at all, yet I still seem able to set some knees jerking!

William_Cleland wrote:
I originally adopted it to remind agentmancuso and Aventinian that I am not a Scottish nationalist when arguing against their rather extreme outbursts against Scottish nationalism.


Well, in the relatively short time since you adopted your Andy Murray avatar for that purpose, Agentmancuso has joined the SNP, and there has been quite a marked change of tune in his utterances.

William_Cleland wrote:
Maybe time for a change.


It always puzzles me why people feel the need to have these avatar thingies at all.
schawaldowris

Hi William

I would assure you that how you wish to display your avater had no effect on the substance or contents of my post. I would further reassure you that my response was not just prompted by your comment but on the continual promotion by certain Scottish historians who attempt to denigrate the motives and achievements of Robert I for purely socio political reasons. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the children of the world deserve to have a factual history and not one designed to fit  the views of an established select few. Such is the work of the propagandist.
Runaway Weegie

Sorry, Schawaldowris, Watson... That's the man.

Despite the fact that Robert the Bruce was predominantly of Gaelic descent, and was a Gaelic speaker, he probably thought of himself as a Norman. His social position depended upon his Norman heritage. It just illustrates how categories of ethnic identity are not as clear cut as we might imagine. We each take our identities from only a small part of our heritage, the part which happens to be relevant for social, cultural and political reasons. The Gallowegians were not regarded as Scots in the early Middle Ages either, although they too were Gaelic speakers.

After the Scottish Wars of Independence the Normans vanish entirely as a distinct part of the Scottish population, just like the English of south east Scotland. The Normans of Scotland became Scots too. This change in identity was all the easier because many of the people it affected were already Gaelic in speech, or were bilingual (or even trilingual in Gaelic, Inglis and Norman French). Inglis and Gaelic had shared southern Scotland for over 600 years by the time of the Wars of Independence, there must have been many who were fully bilingual. It's only after the Inglis of Scotland became Scots that Gaelic suffered a rapid collapse and pretty much vanished from most of the Lowlands. Lowland Gaelic clung on in a few places. It was spoken until as late as the end of the 18th century in southern Ayrshire.

William, I am certainly not arguing that in the early 14th century a fully fledged modern gesellschaft concept of Scottish nationhood had sprung into existence. However the Mediaeval Scottish sense of nationhood was unarguably a gesellschaft identity as it encompassed people belonging to a number of different ethno-linguistic groups. It was the forerunner of a modern sense of Scottish national identity. The development of gesellschaft identities marked the beginning of the end of the age of European feudalism, and Scotland led the way.

I wouldn't regard John Knox as being the father of the nation, and I'm not just saying that because I was brought up a Tim! The nation already existed when Knox was born. The Reformation panned out as it did precisely because Scots already had a gesellschaft concept of nationhood. That was the very reason the Reformers were so concerned to establish a national Scottish church. Of course what happened was that the Reformation was not adopted in some parts of Scotland, and the great social divide between Highlanders (Gaelic speaking and Catholic) and Lowlanders (Scots speaking and Protestant) developed. In part this was because of the historic accident that the domain of the Gaelic language had retreated more or less to the Highland line by around the time of the Reformation. Rather than forging a common Scottish identity, the Reformation fractured a pre-existing common Scottish identity. It could be argued that Knox was the father of the division of the Scottish nation into Lowlanders and Highlanders.

Of course, just to annoy the more rabid Unionists (and no William I'm not including you in that camp), and to stir things up a bit, it's also possible to construct an argument claiming that the English failed to develop a modern sense of national identity. It could be argued that the English never developed a gesellschaft construct of Englishness, instead they developed a quasi-caste system - the infamous obsession with class. The prevailing concept of Britishness amongst the English is the lineal descendant of the old ethnic consciousness of the English, overlain by a particularly English caste-system, and this is why Britishness failed to be universally accepted amongst the non-English ethnicities of the British Isles. Britishness, in this point of view, is the regressive "blood and soil" nationalism which progressive Scottish nationalists are campaigning against.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
John Knox was probably the father of the modern nation

Knox (and the gang of vandals he can be said to represent) did far more damage to Scotland than any English army.

Quote:
In many ways it was David I who created the feudal kingdom by founding the burghs etc.

I agree that the importance of David I tends to be overlooked somewhat - wars and murders always take centre stage in populist history, whereas merely building things and maintaining stability lacks drama.
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
Well, in the relatively short time since you adopted your Andy Murray avatar for that purpose, Agentmancuso has joined the SNP, and there has been quite a marked change of tune in his utterances.


Mr Cleland's deeply unappealing British nationalism helped clarify my thoughts a little; I owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.
mairead

Agent, I agree entirely with your comments about John Knox.
Rinty

I find John Knox a fascinating character and a huge part of great period in our history.

Also I have to say that I like Wiliam's Avatar.  I think it is a sort of ironic, tongue in cheek view of Murray and a good mix of the scottish/british dilemma for people like Murray.  I think its quite a witty avatar.  But perhaps I am reading too much into it. Smile
Rinty

I think we shiould change the name of this thread by editing the 'for cool people' tongue-in-cheek reference to dave's name from it.  I also think that, so as not to confuse it with the 'general banter' forum, it should be called 'general discussion' This would make it 'general discussion about scots history'.

I also think that I should edit the first post to say something like:

Quote:
This thread is a general, evolving discussion on history for people with various levels of knowledge on the subject.  The thread should not be an intellectual contest and is a place for people who want to discuss Scots history at all levels and sometimes just to learn.  In this thread no ridiculing of another members opinions or mistakes is allowed and anyone who takes this approach will be asked to take up their points in other, more suitable threads.


I believe this should at least help to take care of a problem that some people have of feeling intimidated by other people's (alleged) knowledge.

Who do members think?
agentmancuso

Go for it.
schawaldowris

Hi RW

May I take issue with you on two items on your previous post. You stated that Robert I "probably though of himself as Norman" and "his social position depended on his Norman heritage"

With regret we are unable to interview the subject in question, neverthless it is possible to gain some insight into his thoughts and motivations in light of his subsequent actions.

It has unfortunately become fashionable to see Bruce and his family as political opportunists with no regard for any one but themselves. The clear facts are, his pursuit of the Scots crown was fraught with danger. When he first set out on his quest there was no guarantee of success, in fact just the opposite. In many ways the odds were stacked against him. If he had wanted political success and greater wealth, an unswerving allegience to the throne of England, would have certainly been an easier path to follow. Yet he doggedly pursued his ambition to be king of Scots and in process engendered the hate and raised the bile of a Plantagenet Norman king. In process Eduard I declared him traitor and forfieted Bruces extensive estates in England. Is this a person who thinks of himself as Norman by defying a Norman king?

Then we have the matter of "his social position being dependant on his Norman background?

It will be recalled that "the Bruce" was  earl of Carrick, one of the premier earls of Scotland, at the gift of his mother Marjorie, who was of Celtic descent. In similar vein John de Baliol received the Lordship of Galloway only because he married Devorgilla in her own right Countess of Galloway. Then we have John Comyn who married Isabel Countess of Buchan. In each case we have persons of Norman descent climbing the social ladder at the gift of their wives.

Of course it could be argued that the Celtic heiresses married men of Norman descent for political advantage. Yet certainly in the case of Devorgilla and Marjorie, history records they were infatuated with their husbands.

One final point, the lordship of Galloway was regarded as one of the lesser righ of Scotland. They certainly considered themselves to be Scots. It will be recalled that Alan of Galloway was Constable of Scotland and Gallwegians were in the van of the Scots army of David I defeated at the Neville's Cross. When the Constable died in 1234 despite having large estates in England and other lands in Ireland, his body was interred at Dundrennan in the land of his anscetors.

Mairead

You dont like John Knox because he was apparantly a self confessed woman hater! Wouldn't it be fascinating to know what his wife thought of him ?
Runaway Weegie

I've got no problems with a name change.

Your introductory paragraph seems quite fair. I'd like this thread to be about sharing knowledge.
Blackadder

As the person who started the thread I reserve the right to change the name as I did with another thread I opened ... and consider it done!!!
schawaldowris

Hi Rinty

I am in complete sympathy with your viewpoint. As Agent says "go for it."
We can question anothers argument without resorting to personal abuse or villification. As RW says we should share knowledge with one another. It is always better to listen than to lecture.
Dave Coull

William wrote:
Robert de Brus was a Norman too.


I wrote:
wasn't he Gaelic on his mother's side?


schawaldowris wrote:
he was born at Turnberry Castle in Carrick the ancestral home of his mother, Marjorie of Carrick, who was the daughter of Neil, also earl of Carrick and a direct descendant of the ancient Celtic earls of Galloway.


also

Quote:
his paternal ancestors had been resident in Scotland for 150 years before he was born!


and

Quote:
he was also fluent in Gaelic.


That's what I thought, but didn't have the details, thank you for providing these, Schawaldowris.
Runaway Weegie

I see what you're saying Schawaldowris. I agree, it's not possible to know with 100% accuracy what Bruce thought of his identity. If there is evidence that he thought of himself as a Scot and a Gael I'm happy to accept it. But I think we can agree that Bruce owed his position within Scottish society and the aristocracy of the day at least in part due to his Norman heritage. I certainly wouldn't claim he thought of himself as Norman and nothing else.

Although they had an important cultural influence, the Normans were a minor ethnic group in Scotland. The vast majority of the population were Gaelic speakers with a large Inglis speaking minority in the south. There were still a few Cumbric speakers around at this date too.

I'm not denying Bruce's Gaelic heritage. It may be more accurate to describe him as Normanised Gael, or a Gaelicised Norman. People like Robert Bruce illustrate the point I made above about how Scotland must have contained many people who were equally comfortable in two languages and cultures. He was probably Norman when it suited him, and a Gael when it suited him.

Edward 1 was a Norman king, but he wasn't King of the Normans and didn't claim that title. Bruce wouldn't have felt allegiance to an English king for Bruce's Scottish lands just because both Bruce and the English king were Normans. Other Normans in other parts of Europe didn't necessarily feel any allegiance to the English king either.

The reason I mentioned the Gallowegians was because they are often listed separately from the Scots as inhabitants of the kingdom of Scotland. It seems that the word "Scot" wasn't automatically taken to apply to Gallowegians. Of course their linguistic and cultural ties to other Gaelic speakers were obvious, but they seem to have had some sort of special status of their own.  

There's an interesting difference between the title of the Scottish monarch in Latin, English and Gaelic. In Latin he was Rex Scottorum King of Scots, the exact same phrase used in English. In this early period, Scot was the usual word for Gaelic speaker, whether in Scotland or Ireland. However in Gaelic the King of Scots was Rí Alban - King of Alba. Not Rí nan Gaidheal which would be the exact translation of Rex Scottorum. I've only just realised this, and have no idea why there's such a difference. Any thoughts?
Jimbo

Yes Rinty.
Dave Coull

schawaldowris wrote:
Mairead

You dont like John Knox because he was apparantly  self confessed woman hater!


A plausible case could perhaps be made out for regarding John Knox as something of a dirty old man. After all, when he was 50, just a few years after his first wife died, he married a young lassie who was barely seventeen, and he soon had her pregnant, in fact, he got her pregnant three times in succession. These three daughters, plus the two sons from his first marriage, made him a dad five times over. However, I doubt if he could properly be described as "a self-confessed woman hater". Apart from his obvious joy in married life, he also had close friendships with several other ladies, which gave rise to a fair bit of gossip. Knox liked female company. It is true to say he was a male chauvinist  -  but after all, so were all other men of his day, certainly all other religious leaders of his day, both Catholic and protestant. They took what Saint Paul says in the New Testament about women keeping their mouths shut fairly seriously. I think the idea that he was a "woman hater" comes from "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women". Yes, like an awful lot of other men, both Catholic and protestant, he didn't like the idea of being ruled by a woman. "Regiment" means "rule". Nothing to do with a military unit, and nothing to do with women in general. At the time when  Knox wrote "The Monstrous Regiment" ,  Bloody Mary was Queen of England, and hundreds of protestants were being burned alive as heretics in England. But the timing of the actual publication of the book was incredibly bad as far as Knox was concerned   -  as soon as it came out, Bloody Mary died, and was replaced by her half-sister Queen Elizabeth, who was protestant but took a very dim view of Knox's book. The idea that Knox was a "woman hater" probably has something to do with the way the meaning of "regiment" has changed. A male chauvinist, like practically all men of his day, certainly; a dirty old man, quite possibly; but a woman hater? I don't think so.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
John Knox was probably the father of the modern nation


I wrote:
He certainly played a big part in fathering the modern nation.


Runaway Weegie wrote:
I wouldn't regard John Knox as being the father of the nation


Nobody actually described him as such. William said "Knox was probably the father of the MODERN nation". I qualified that statement still further to "played a big PART in fathering the modern nation".

Runaway Weegie wrote:
The nation already existed when Knox was born. The Reformation panned out as it did precisely because Scots already had a gesellschaft concept of nationhood. That was the very reason the Reformers were so concerned to establish a national Scottish church.


Yes, the nation already existed when Knox was born. Now, William can correct me if I have misunderstood, but I think what he was saying is that, for good or ill, an awful lot of what defines the MODERN nation of Scotland can be traced back to Knox. I said that he "played a big part" in this. An example of that "fathering" of the modern nation in which I think Knox played a PART would be the decision of the very first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to aim at having "a school in every parish, and a teacher in every school". Now, of course it was a very long time before that was actually achieved, but the point is, no other nation in the entire world even had it as an AIM. In fact, it would be hundreds of years before any other nation had such an aim. So far as most countries were concerned, it was actually a bad idea to educate the masses. They might get ideas above their station. So far as the Scots reformers were concerned, it was essential that everybody, women as well as men, should learn to read. After all, the destiny of their eternal souls depended on them being able to read the Bible. A largely unintended consequence of Scots learning to read the Bible was that they learned to read other things as well. Which is why we got Scots philosophers, poets, scientists, inventors, etc, who might never even have learned to read if it hadn't been for the likes of John Knox.
William_Cleland

Dave Coull wrote:
Well, in the relatively short time since you adopted your Andy Murray avatar for that purpose, Agentmancuso has joined the SNP, and there has been quite a marked change of tune in his utterances.


OK time to change Andys and see what happens with this one. Smile

Dave Coull wrote:
It always puzzles me why people feel the need to have these avatar thingies at all.


On most boards they are usually meant to be funny. Something like this in response to recent posts in this thread for example:-

mairead

Shawaldowris,
No I don't find Knox obnoxious because of his woman hating thing, but because I think his reformation, or rather the manner in which he carried it out, caused a great deal of damage in Scotland and I think also that his vicious manner of preaching  was inadvertently one of the factors which led to the death of Queen Mary Stewart.
My reason for thinking that way is that it was he, who to a great extent turned the people of Scotland against her.
Rinty

Turning the people of scotland against royalty is always, in my opinion, a positive effect.
Dave Coull

mairead wrote:
I don't find Knox obnoxious because of his woman hating thing


Is there any actual EVIDENCE that Knox "hated" women, or is it just an assumption that people make? Of course he was a male chauvinist. Virtually EVERY man in the Sixteenth Century was a male chauvinist, and certainly all religious leaders, both Catholic and protestant, were. Of course he thought that having a woman monarch was just plain wrong. Most men, and certainly most religious leaders, both Catholic and protestant, in the Sixteenth Century, thought so, and anyway, regardless of their own personal feelings, the Bible said so, and you couldn't argue with the Word of God. But "woman hating"? In Knox's day, a good preacher was like a rock star, he could attract fans, most of them women. I have been dragged along to a rock concert because a woman in my life wanted to hear this band. In Knox's day, men got dragged along to hear this preacher. He was popular with a lot of women. And he enjoyed being popular with women. And while it is true that, when he was fifty, he married a seventeen year old girl, and soon got her pregnant, there is no suggestion that anybody had to force her. I think the truth is, Knox liked women. He thought they were good at providing the refreshments at church functions, and they were good in the kitchen, and they were good in the bedroom, and they were good at teaching bairns to say their prayers, but, of course, they shouldn't be involved in running the church, or the government. In other words, he was no different from a lot of other men in the Sixteenth Century, and some today. But that doesn't mean he "hated" women.

mairead wrote:
but because I think his reformation, or rather the manner in which he carried it out, caused a great deal of damage in Scotland


If I was to write "The History of Campaigning for a Referendum on Independence for Scotland", there would probably be quite a lot about Dave Coull in it. Well, John Knox wrote "The History of the Reformation in Scotland", which was published in his own lifetime. There's a lot about John Knox in it! But the truth is, it wasn't "his" reformation. There was a saying amongst the Scots protestants of Knox's day that  "At the end o' the hairst, came John Knox". At the end o the hairst  -  when most of the crop of converts to the protestant cause had already been gathered in, by others, John Knox agreed that now would be a good time to return to Scotland!

As for "damage to Scotland", burning young Patrick Hamilton at the stake for heresy damaged Scotland. So did the burning of George Wishart, and others.  One positive thing about Knox and the other reformers in Scotland was that  they STOPPED the practice of burning folk at the stake for heresy.

mairead wrote:
his vicious manner of preaching


Consider the international context. Nearly three hundred people had been burned alive in England as protestant heretics. The Spanish Inquisition was in raging form, torturing folk to death not just in Spain itself, but in other countries, such as Belgium, for instance. In France, you had the beginnings of the attacks which would  culminate in the slaughter of FIFTY THOUSAND protestants in the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Of course Knox and others spoke out vigorously against anything that looked like it could lead to a restoration of the power of the Catholic church in Scotland.

mairead wrote:
was inadvertently one of the factors which led to the death of Queen Mary Stewart


"Inadvertently", perhaps. Intentionally, no. Besides, John Knox died FIFTEEN YEARS before the execution of Mary.
Dave Coull

Runaway Weegie wrote:
The Reformation panned out as it did precisely because Scots already had a gesellschaft concept of nationhood.
That was the very reason the Reformers were so concerned to establish a national Scottish church.


Agreed.

Runaway Weegie wrote:
Of course what happened was that the Reformation was not adopted in some parts of Scotland, and the great social divide between Highlanders (Gaelic speaking and Catholic) and Lowlanders (Scots speaking and Protestant) developed.


I think that's an oversimplification. There are plenty of protestants throughout the highlands. In the Western Isles, a minority of catholics in the southern islands complain that the the island council is dominated by the majority presbyterians of the more northerly isles. True, the initial phase of the Reformation in Scotland had limited impact in the "Highlands", but it also had limited impact in some parts of the "Lowlands". And within a relatively short space of time rather a lot of highlanders had become presbyterian. Not just the Campbells, but quite a few other clans, such as the Mackays, Munros, and Rosses. And of course a minority of lowlanders remained catholic. Tam Dalyell's ancestors, for instance.

Runaway Weegie wrote:
In part this was because of the historic accident that the domain of the Gaelic language had retreated more or less to the Highland line by around the time of the Reformation. Rather than forging a common Scottish identity, the Reformation fractured a pre-existing common Scottish identity. It could be argued that Knox was the father of the division of the Scottish nation into Lowlanders and Highlanders.


I think the Lowlander/Highlander division is a fairly meaningless one, and it always was. There has never at any time in history been a time when all of the "highlands" was Gaelic-speaking, and all of the "Lowlands" was not. There has never at any time in history been a time when all of the "Highlands" was Catholic, and all of the "Lowlands" was not. There has never at any time in history been ANY characteristic which is true of all of the "Highlands", and not true of any of the "Lowlands".
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:


Laughing An excellent choice!
Risto the Great

Runaway Weegie wrote:
Well I still dunno what Maeatae comes from, so all I know is that it means "of something or someone". It disnae have to have been a person. You get the same ending in Smertae. Smertae seems to have some connection with the word for dead. (s)mertos. Of the dead people? of the killers?

Hi guys.
Just a heads up ... "smrt" is quite universal in Slavic languages meaning "death". I am trying to look into connections between the Celt migrations and the Macedonians. So my interests are purely selfish ... but nevertheless, thought someone might like to know the etymology.
William_Cleland

Out of curiosity are you Risto Stefov the historian Greek nationalists are not too keen on? If so I've read some of your stuff and found it an interesting read. I think any Scottish victimhood pales into insignificance compared to recent Macedonian history. We did most of any damage inflicted to ourselves to help cash in on being a junior partner in the world's greatest empire. Your people obviously have had a very tough time of it courtesy of the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Serbia/Yugoslavia until Tito arrived on the scene.
Runaway Weegie

smrt in Slavonic languages comes from the same Indoeuropean root as the Celtic name Smertae. It's a common inheritance in both language groups, so isn't evidence for a special connection between them within Indoeuropean.

The initial s is what Indoeuropean specialists call the s mobile because it shows up in some daughter languages but not others. It's believed the s- was an old prefix, although its meaning was lost by the time Indoeuropean broke up into its daughter languages. Some languages preserved the s- as a fossil, others didn't. Latin mortuus and English murder come from the same Indoeuropean root.

And as William said, the Macedonians certainly got the rough end of the stick. Balkan history is even more politicised than Scottish history.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
We did most of any damage inflicted to ourselves to help cash in on being a junior partner in the world's greatest empire.

There's a lot of truth in that.

Quote:
..Serbia/Yugoslavia..

Ssshhh! Don't say that word too loudly or Arkan the Windmill will awake from his slumbers.
Risto the Great

William_Cleland wrote:
Out of curiosity are you Risto Stefov the historian Greek nationalists are not too keen on? If so I've read some of your stuff and found it an interesting read. I think any Scottish victimhood pales into insignificance compared to recent Macedonian history. We did most of any damage inflicted to ourselves to help cash in on being a junior partner in the world's greatest empire. Your people obviously have had a very tough time of it courtesy of the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Serbia/Yugoslavia until Tito arrived on the scene.

Hi William,
No, Risto Stefov is a good friend though!
He has done some great stuff to introduce a little balance in the history books.

I am associated with a forum at www.macedoniantruth.org

The Macedonians have been copping it royally for a very long time because they are so bloody peaceful! Northern Greece used to be part of Macedonia and was handed to the Greeks in order to provide resources (food/electricity = both over 90% of Greece's needs) so that they could repay Mother England for her efforts in helping them to break away from the Ottoman empire. It didn't work out that way and now the Greeks whinge about Elgin's marbles or something !

.... just grinding my axe!
Runaway Weegie

I've never really understood the Greek objection to the name Macedonia. It's like Germany objecting to the name France because the original Franks were a Germanic tribe. Actually it's worse, because it's by no means certain that the original Macedonians were Greek.

Greece has the worst record in Europe in terms of how it treats its linguistic minorities. It's even worse than France, France at least acknowledges the existence of Breton and Basque as regional patois. The Greek government refuses to admit that any of its citizens outside Thrace speak a different language to Greek. In Thrace the Turkish minority has certain legal rights due to the terms of the Treaty of Sevres of 1920. As well as Macedonians, Greece also has populations of Albanians, Arumanians (who speak a Latin language related to Romanian), Pomaks (Muslims who speak Bulgarian, or Macedonian, depending on your point of view), and some others.

It's not just Greeks and Macedonians though, if you have a few decades spare, listen to Hungarians and Romanians argue about Transylvania. Or Serbs arguing with Albanians about Kosova/Kosovo.

Albanian is one of my favourite languages. The Albanians have lived in the Balkans for a very long time indeed. Like Welsh and Basque, their language is full of old Latin loanwords dating to the time of the Roman Empire. The Albanians, the Britons, and the Basques were the only three peoples conquered by Rome who managed to preserve their own languages.

Looking at the Balkans makes me grateful that Scotland has well defined frontiers that are not seriously disputed.
Runaway Weegie

Not the Treaty of Sevres of 1920, that was the one when Turkey got carved up. I should have said the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.
agentmancuso

Runaway Weegie wrote:
Actually it's worse, because it's by no means certain that the original Macedonians were Greek.

Isn't it even disputed that modern Greeks are 'Greek' in the old sense?
Quote:

Arumanians (who speak a Latin language related to Romanian),

I'd never heard of that one. I did have a shot at the first few chapters of a TY Romanian a long time ago (Eliade being the main interest) but didn't get very far.
Quote:

Looking at the Balkans makes me grateful that Scotland has well defined frontiers that are not seriously disputed.

Berwick!
Dave Coull

Runaway Weegie wrote:
Looking at the Balkans makes me grateful that Scotland has well defined frontiers that are not seriously disputed.


agentmancuso wrote:
Berwick!


Balkans!

Runaway Weegie is absolutely correct in stating that "Scotland has well defined frontiers that are not SERIOUSLY disputed".

Neither the SNP, nor Solidarity, nor the Green party, nor the SSP, nor any other political party which supports independence for Scotland, disputes the existing border between Scotland and England.

Neither the SNP, nor Solidarity, nor the Green party, nor the SSP, nor any other political party which supports independence for Scotland, has suggested that Scotland should make any claim on Berwick, nor have they given anybody else the slightest encouragement to open up a question regarding Berwick.

Apart from actual political parties committed to supporting independence for Scotland, no non-party-political group campaigning for independence disputes the existing border beteen Scotland and England, and no non-party-political group campaigning for independence has the given anybody else the slightest encouragement to open up a question regarding Berwick.

Berwick is in England, and it has been for many hundreds of years. Any attempt to call that situation into question can only serve the interests of the OPPONENTS of independence for Scotland. Indeed, it is notable that the only attempt in recent times to question the status of Berwick came from a Liberal Democrat councillor in the North of England.
agentmancuso

Thanks for pointing that out Dave. I'd no idea.
Dave Coull

agentmancuso wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out Dave. I'd no idea.


Oh, yes, you did!

But me pointing this out wasn't for YOUR benefit.

Partly it was for the benefit of folk who are not such know-alls as yourself. For instance, Risto the Great has been posting here, including on this thread, and this Macedon-Australian says at least part of his reason for being here is to try to understand what makes us tick. And even if Risto is absolutely clear about the complete insignificance of Berwick, there are bound to be other folk who are not so clear about this (even if they won't admit it).  So the reason for posting what I did was partly educational. Not everybody knows everything.

But the other reason for posting what I did, perhaps the main reason, is because there are folk who read this forum, journalists for instance, who might just be tempted to seize on nothing very much and turn that nothing very much into NATIONALISTS DEMAND BERWICK BACK!!!!!!!
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out Dave. I'd no idea.


Oh, yes, you did!

But me pointing this out wasn't for YOUR benefit.

Wink
Risto the Great

I completely understand why you felt compelled to write about Berwick.
Even though I was not aware of its sensitivity in relation to Scotland.
I certainly am now!

I am happy to discuss the Balkan issues further, but feel it is inappropriate in this forum. Other than to highlight how ethnicities have been swept under the carpet in Greece and how the Greeks have managed to achieve that.

Here is an example of the kind of actions as recent as 20 years ago!

http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=386

But again, I certainly don't want to troll here. Would similar actions have happpened in Scotland's history? How much intermarriage happens in Scotland? Is it frowned upon when a Scot marries an English? The offspring will usually be compromised. Am I sounding like Hitler yet?   Wink
Risto the Great

Runaway Weegie wrote:
I've never really understood the Greek objection to the name Macedonia. It's like Germany objecting to the name France because the original Franks were a Germanic tribe. Actually it's worse, because it's by no means certain that the original Macedonians were Greek.

The Greek argument is based on a perceived connection with the ancient Macedonians over 2000 years ago. It is tenuous and hardly something to base modern arguments on. Especially when much proof exists to delineate the Ancient Macedonians from the Ancient Hellenes.

When would you say Scottish history actually began? (Mindful of utter irrelevance to this thread!)
Dave Coull

Risto the Great wrote:
How much intermarriage happens in Scotland?


A lot of intermarriage happens in Scotland.

Risto the Great wrote:
Is it frowned upon when a Scot marries an English?


No. Large numbers of folk in Scotland are of English origin, large numbers of folk in Scotland have English ancestors, and, of course, the same is true of Scots folk in England. But despite very widespread intermarriage, we still have the existence of a Scottish nation and an English nation.

You are more likely to see a bit of a frown from some folk when a catholic (whether male or female, and whether they are Scots, or English, or Irish) marries a protestant (whether male or female, and whether they are Scots, or English, or Irish), because that raises the sensitive question, which religion are the children raised in?

These issues might be better discussed under the heading "Scottish News, Life, and Society", rather than "History". They are not necessarily "news", but they are certainly "Scottish Life and Society".

Risto the Great wrote:
I am happy to discuss the Balkan issues further, but feel it is inappropriate in this forum.


There is a section of Our Scotland called "Global Politics", it might be more appropriate to discuss the Balkans there. You should start a new topic, with a new heading, chosen by you. But I'd better warn you that there has already been a LOT of very heated discussion about the Balkans in that section! For discussion that is more about the HISTORY of the Balkans, rather than the present day politics of the Balkans, this History forum is the best place for that, but you should start a new topic, with a new heading, chosen by you, for example, "Macedonian History" (or something like that).
Runaway Weegie

Och Berwick Schmerwick. Wasn't Carlisle stolen from us too? Mind you, Berwick's prettier. I always thought Carlisle was a bit of a dump.

Nae worries Risto, don't worry about going off topic - it doesn't seem to stop anyone else. In my opinion it's the interesting irrelevances that very often make threads worth reading. Like when a discussion on ancient Scottish history takes an unexpected diversion into the southern Balkans. Finding out about wider connections and similarities gives us all a greater perspective on our own concerns.

So in the spirit of digression, the Arumanians are one of the Balkan Romance speaking peoples. Traditionally they were semi-nomadic sheep herders in the high mountains. There are several hundred thousand them scattered around various Balkan countries. Exact numbers are disputed, these things are highly politicised in the Balkans. There is also a group called the Megleno-Romanians who live in northern Greece and southern Macedonia. There are only around 5000 speakers. In Istria in Croatia there are perhaps 1000 remaining speakers of Istro-Romanian. The Romanian of Romania is classified as Daco-Romanian by linguists. All four of these languages are very closely related to one another.

The origin of the Romanians is one of the biggest disputes in Balkan history. And Balkan history is certainly noted for its disputes. Scottish history is a simple tale by comparison. Scottish historians disagree about details, Balkan historians disagree about fundamentals - like whether the Romanians descend from the Roman colonists of Dacia or from later migrations from the central Balkans, or whether Albanians descend from ancient Illyrians or not, or Greeks telling Macedonians that Macedonians don't exist.

Of course there have been those in this forum who have made the claim that the Scottish nation does not exist. The difference is that in Greece such insanity is official policy. The similarity is that in both cases it's politically motivated.

Ancient Macedonian may have been an aberrant Greek dialect, or a language most closely related to Greek within Indoeuropean, or more closely related to another ancient Balkan language. Whatever the case, it came under strong Greek influence at an early date. Some historians (I can't remember the source and am too lazy to look it up) said that Cleopatra, who was descended from Macedonians, spoke Macedonian as well as Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic and Latin. Though I dunno which Cleopatra it was, I believe there were several.

Now I've mentioned Egyptian princesses, it's the ideal cue for someone to talk about the legend of the Egyptian princess Scota who is supposedly our great-great-whatever-great-grannie.  

I don't think anyone counts Scots marrying English people as intermarriage. I married an Englishman. The fact that both of us are men, and he's English, never caused anyone to raise an eyebrow. The only difference it made was that when we got married I wore a kilt and he didn't.
William_Cleland

Risto the Great wrote:
How much intermarriage happens in Scotland? Is it frowned upon when a Scot marries an English? The offspring will usually be compromised. Am I sounding like Hitler yet?   Wink


There was actually a very good Macedonian movie on this sort of subject in the mid-90s called Before The Rain, which focused on Orthodox Macedonian vs Muslim Albanian relations in that sort of regard in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Yugoslavia. Well worth a download or a rental. Probably the best way to think of the Scots and English in Balkan terms is along the same sort of lines as Montenegrins and Serbs although the parallels are far from exact. A lot has changed since the era depicted (highly inaccurately in many ways) in Braveheart. Smile War between the two peoples is completely unthinkable but separation into two states is not, but many would be deeply opposed and see it as a very sad day. Although nobody else wanted to bring it up mixed marriage between Protestants and Roman Catholics was often a big issue for people until Scottish society secularised over the last few decades. A lot of mixed couples emigrated to Australia or Canada to get away from the headcases on both sides who had a problem with that sort of thing but fortunately unlike in Before The Rain they weren't wandering about with firearms at any point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqBuZtDoCS0
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
Although nobody else wanted to bring it up mixed marriage between Protestants and Roman Catholics was often a big issue for people until Scottish society secularised over the last few decades.


Whaddya mean, "nobody else wanted to bring it up"? In reply to Risto's question about intermarriage in Scotland,

Dave Coull wrote:
You are more likely to see a bit of a frown from some folk when a catholic (whether male or female, and whether they are Scots, or English, or Irish) marries a protestant (whether male or female, and whether they are Scots, or English, or Irish), because that raises the sensitive question, which religion are the children raised in?


And by the way, although this is less of an issue since Scottish society became more secularised, where one or both partners still retain some elements of religious belief, the question of which religion the children are raised in can still be a sensitive issue.
William_Cleland

Oops, sorry Dave should have read the thread more carefully. Embarassed
Risto the Great

Runaway Weegie wrote:

Now I've mentioned Egyptian princesses, it's the ideal cue for someone to talk about the legend of the Egyptian princess Scota who is supposedly our great-great-whatever-great-grannie.  

See ... that is funny!
In the interest of maintaining healthy distraction ....
Knowing that Cleopatra descended from the Ptolemaic (Macedonian) dynasty and now learning of "Scota" makes me wonder if the Lion symbol we share have any correlation. In the aftermath of the Battle of Chaeronea in 338BC the Theban Army was destroyed and most of the Theban Sacred Band (the 300 elite troops of Thebes) lay dead. The Athenian army suffered a large loss as well. In recognition of the bravery of the men of the Sacred Band, Philip allowed the statue of a lion to be erected to commemorate their courage and self-sacrifice.

Obviously the lion has been embraced by heraldry since then. But do we have a specific point in time when the Lion became a symbol for the Scots?

I would also like to thank you all for welcoming me. After debating with Greeks for so long ... it is nice to know that other people are aware of the absurdities that Greece has perpetuated on the Macedonians (amongst others).

cheers
Jimbo

Hi Risto,

Quote:
But do we have a specific point in time when the Lion became a symbol for the Scots?


It was already the personal heraldic device of King William I (William the Lion) when he succeeded his brother Malcolm IV to the throne of Scotland, 1165 - 1214. Prior to that it had no attachment to any other Scottish king. It was adopted as the heraldic symbol for the Scottish kings by King Robert I, 1306 - 1329.
agentmancuso

Jimbo wrote:
It was already the personal heraldic device of King William I (William the Lion) when he succeeded his brother Malcolm IV to the throne of Scotland, 1165 - 1214. Prior to that it had no attachment to any other Scottish king. It was adopted as the heraldic symbol for the Scottish kings by King Robert I, 1306 - 1329.


Yes, I think it came with the de Brus family from France?
Dave Coull

Jimbo wrote:
It was already the personal heraldic device of King William I (William the Lion) when he succeeded his brother Malcolm IV to the throne of Scotland, 1165 - 1214. Prior to that it had no attachment to any other Scottish king. It was adopted as the heraldic symbol for the Scottish kings by King Robert I, 1306 - 1329.


agentmancuso wrote:
Yes, I think it came with the de Brus family from France?


You can find references to lions as a symbol in the Old Testament, for example, in connection with Samson, the strong man. The Lion Rampant symbol was first used in Scotland by William the Lion, who was not a Bruce, and who ruled long before the Bruces came to prominence. I think the suggestion of a Macedonian connection is way too far fetched. The Lion is generally recognised as "the king of the beasts" so it is an obvious royal symbol practically everywhere. In Africa, loads of kings used the lion symbol, for example, the Emperor of Ethiopia was known as "The Lion of Judah". Of course the Ethiopian emperor actually kept lions as captives/pets, being able to have lions around and under your control showed just how powerful you were. I have seen it suggested that William the Lion of Scotland actually had a pet lion for a time, which may not be as far fetched as it sounds, there had been a trade in wild beasts since Roman times at least, Scotland did trade quite widely, and there were lions in North Africa, the Middle East, and even Spain, so it's not impossible. But whether he did or not, the lion is such an obvious royal symbol, you don't need to look for any other reason for its adoption. It was only much later that this royal symbol became adopted by Scotland football fans, and for much the same sort of reasons, fierceness, courage, etc etc.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics