The Irish Revolution

[awkwardcustomer]

I've no idea how that double post above happened.

[mikemac]

No, I do not see your point.

In an earlier post you stated that in England, the Anglo Saxons and the Normans fought over territory that didn't belong to them, since both groups were invaders who had stolen the land from the original Britons.

Well, my rather obvious point is that the Gaels were also invaders from Ireland into Scotland, who carved out their kingdom of Dalraida from land originally inhabited by the indigenous Picts.  Yes, the Northumbrian Anglos also made war on the Picts.  But so did the Gaels.  And who were the real losers in all this?  The Picts were, because their language is now extinct, unlike Gaelic.

I'm guessing you won't like that version of events because it undermines the good Gael/bad Anglo narrative. But there it is.  The Gaels were invaders too, who stole land from its original inhabitants and contributed to the annihilation of their culture.

Like I showed on the previous page, the Picts, the Scots of DalRiata and the Brits of Strathclyde united under Kenneth MacAlpin for mutual defense.  Viking raids in the ninth century also contributed to this.  By the end of the tenth century, the Pictish language went extinct as its speakers shifted to the similar Gaelic.  By the way, how many Gaelic speakers do you know?  The monarchs of this union were crowned at the traditional Pictish place, Scone.  The monarchs of this union were named King of the Picts for the first seven monarchs after Kenneth MacAlpin, inclusively.  It wasn't until the eighth monarch, Constantine II that he was described as the King of Alba.  In fact the name Alba was not even used until Constantine II's time.  The seven monarchs of this union prior to Constantine II were all titled the King of the Picts.  In fact the sixth monarch Eochaid was a Brit with the titles King of Strathclyde and/or King of the Picts, although he may have been co-king with Giric.  This all clearly shows that there was a mutual agreement between the Picts, the Scots of DalRiata and the Brits of Strathclyde.  If you go to this List of Scottish monarchs page and hover over the link to the first eight monarchs you can verify what I am saying here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_monarchs

1. Kenneth MacAlpin - King of the Picts - 843/848 – 13 February 858
2. Donald I - King of the Picts - 858 – 13 April 862
3. Constantine I - King of the Picts - 862–877
4. Áed - King of the Picts - 877–878
5. Giric - King of the Picts - 878–889
6. Eochaid - King of Strathclyde and/or King of the Picts - 878–889? (Eochiad was a son of Run, King of Strathclyde, but his mother was a daughter of Kenneth I. Evidence of his reign is unclear. He may have never actually been king and if he was, he was co-king with Giric)
7. Donald II - King of the Picts - 889–900
8. Constantine II - King of Alba - 900–943

Constantine II of Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_II_of_Scotland

Constantine, son of Áed (Medieval Gaelic: Constantín mac Áeda; Modern Gaelic: Còiseam mac Aoidh, known in most modern regnal lists as Constantine II; born no later than 879; died 952) was an early King of Scotland, known then by the Gaelic name Alba. The Kingdom of Alba, a name which first appears in Constantine's lifetime, was situated in modern-day Scotland. The core of the kingdom was formed by the lands around the River Tay. Its southern limit was the River Forth, northwards it extended towards the Moray Firth and perhaps to Caithness, while its western limits are uncertain. Constantine's grandfather Kenneth I of Scotland (Cináed mac Ailpín, died 858) was the first of the family recorded as a king, but as king of the Picts. This change of title, from king of the Picts to king of Alba, is part of a broader transformation of Pictland and the origins of the Kingdom of Alba are traced to Constantine's lifetime.

His reign, like those of his predecessors, was dominated by the actions of Viking rulers in the British Isles, particularly the Uí Ímair ("the grandsons of Ímar", or Ivar the Boneless). During Constantine's reign the rulers of the southern kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia, later the Kingdom of England, extended their authority northwards into the disputed kingdoms of Northumbria. At first allied with the southern rulers against the Vikings, Constantine in time came into conflict with them. King Æthelstan was successful in securing Constantine's submission in 927 and 934, but the two again fought when Constantine, allied with the Strathclyde Britons and the Viking king of Dublin, invaded Æthelstan's kingdom in 937, only to be defeated at the great battle of Brunanburh. In 943 Constantine abdicated the throne and retired to the Céli Dé (Culdee) monastery of St Andrews where he died in 952. He was succeeded by his predecessor's son Malcolm I (Máel Coluim mac Domnaill).

Constantine's reign of 43 years, exceeded in Scotland only by that of King William the Lion before the Union of the Crowns in 1603, is believed to have played a defining part in the gaelicisation of Pictland, in which his patronage of the Irish Céli Dé monastic reformers was a significant factor. During his reign the words "Scots" and "Scotland" (Old English: Scottas, Scotland) are first used to mean part of what is now Scotland. The earliest evidence for the ecclesiastical and administrative institutions which would last until the Davidian Revolution also appears at this time.

This List of kings of the Picts page lists the kings from 260 AD and verifies the first seven monarchs after the union, from Kenneth MacAlpin to Donald II carried the title King of the Picts.  Then the eighth, Constantine II was the first to carry the title of King of Alba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Picts

This still may not have convinced you that Kenneth MacAlpin united the Picts, the Scots of DalRiata and the Brits of Strathclyde for mutual defense, but it really doesn't matter.

I'm just curious awkwardcustomer, what is your take on the Declaration of Arbroath, where the Norman signers declared that they "wiped out the Picts"?  I clearly showed on the previous page that the Normans did not "wipe out the Picts", I'm just curious as to what you think about the Normans saying this?  Actually when I look at the document again it reads "The  Britons  it  first  drove  out,  the  Picts  it utterly destroyed".  What do you think about this?
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//research/declaration-of-arbroath/declaration-of-arbroath-transcription-and-translation.pdf   

[awkwardcustomer]

Like I showed on the previous page, the Picts, the Scots of DalRiata and the Brits of Strathclyde united under Kenneth MacAlpin for mutual defense.  Viking raids in the ninth century also contributed to this.  By the end of the tenth century, the Pictish language went extinct as its speakers shifted to the similar Gaelic.  By the way, how many Gaelic speakers do you know? 

.......


This still may not have convinced you that Kenneth MacAlpin united the Picts, the Scots of DalRiata and the Brits of Strathclyde for mutual defense, but it really doesn't matter.

I'm just curious awkwardcustomer, what is your take on the Declaration of Arbroath, where the Norman signers declared that they "wiped out the Picts"?

I'm not disputing that Kenneth McAlpin united the Picts and the Gaels.  The point I'm making is that the Gaels were originally invaders from Ireland who conquered the Pictish lands of western Scotland and established the Gaelic kingdom of Dalraida there.

The Declaration of Arbroath is no doubt very interesting and full of Norman boasts about what they did to the Picts.  The Picts had to contend with the Norman invaders, the Viking indvaders, and invaders from Ireland.

Can you admit that the Gaels were invaders too?

And I know two Gaelic speakers, but neither is a native speaker in that they weren't raised in a Gaelic speaking family but have chosen to learn the language in adulthood.  One of them studied the language at the Gaelic University on Skye.  When I visited the island of Barra in the Outer Hebrides I'll never forget hearing Gaelic spoken for the first time, in the local shop.  Incidently, Barra stayed Catholic all through the Reformation.  Only now have they begun to lose the Faith , thanks to Vatican II.

[mikemac]

There's a band from Nova Scotia called the Barra MacNeils that sing some Celtic songs.  They are pretty good.  They have some songs published on youtube.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of Pictland.  Pictland did not encompass all of what is now Scotland.  The first paragraph in this page on the Picts says, "The Picts were a confederation of peoples who lived in what is today eastern and northern Scotland ...  They lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde,  ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts

Further down this same page under "Kings and kingdoms" we can read the following.

The early history of Pictland is unclear. In later periods multiple kings existed, ruling over separate kingdoms, with one king, sometimes two, more or less dominating their lesser neighbours.[25] De Situ Albanie, a late document, the Pictish Chronicle, the Duan Albanach, along with Irish legends, have been used to argue the existence of seven Pictish kingdoms. These are as follows; those in bold are known to have had kings, or are otherwise attested in the Pictish period:

    Cait, or Cat, situated in modern Caithness and Sutherland
    Ce, situated in modern Mar and Buchan
    Circinn, perhaps situated in modern Angus and the Mearns[26]
    Fib, the modern Fife, now known as 'the Kingdom of Fife'
    Fidach, location unknown, but possibly near Inverness[27][28][29]
    Fotla, modern Atholl (Ath-Fotla)[30]
    Fortriu, cognate with the Verturiones of the Romans; recently shown to be centred on Moray[31]

More small kingdoms may have existed. Some evidence suggests that a Pictish kingdom also existed in Orkney.[32] De Situ Albanie is not the most reliable of sources, and the number of kingdoms, one for each of the seven sons of Cruithne, the eponymous founder of the Picts, may well be grounds enough for disbelief.[33] Regardless of the exact number of kingdoms and their names, the Pictish nation was not a united one.

For most of Pictish recorded history the kingdom of Fortriu appears dominant, so much so that king of Fortriu and king of the Picts may mean one and the same thing in the annals. This was previously thought to lie in the area around Perth and southern Strathearn; however, recent work has convinced those working in the field that Moray (a name referring to a very much larger area in the High Middle Ages than the county of Moray) was the core of Fortriu.[34]

Below is the map from the same page showing the seven kingdoms of the Picts.


I found this map below which better shows the seven kingdoms of the Picts around 600 AD.  It also shows four kingdoms of the Brits, DalRiata and two new kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons.  (note Gododdin, Elmet and Rhegid, three other kingdoms of the Brits that had not yet been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons by this time around 600 AD)



So from this information above we know the kingdoms of the Picts were in the eastern and northern parts of what is now Scotland, north of the Firth of Forth extending north to Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney.  Pictland did not extend south of the Firth of Forth into the kingdoms of the Brits.  Nor did Pictland extend to the west and south or into the Inner and Outer Hebrides into the kingdom of DalRiata.

So from this we can deduce that the original inhabitants of what is now Scotland were not just the Picts, but the Picts, the Brits of Strathclyde and the Scots of DalRiata.

This all makes sense because I have read that the Picts and the Scots fought together to keep the Romans out of their land.


What do you make of this quote below from the Picts page under "History"?  It kind of blows the hypothesis out of the water that the Scots conquered the Picts.  It looks like the opposite happened.  It also adds to the theory that Kenneth MacAlpin and his offspring were Picts, not Scots.  You know what I mean, if the Pictish king, Caustantín mac Fergusa placed his son Domnall on the throne of Dál Riata in 811 and he remained king until 835 then there is not much time between 835 and 843 when Kenneth MacAlpin, King of the Picts united the Picts, Scots and Brits.

Dál Riata was subject to the Pictish king Óengus mac Fergusa during his reign (729–761), and though it had its own kings beginning in the 760s, does not appear to have recovered its political independence from the Picts.[19] A later Pictish king, Caustantín mac Fergusa (793–820), placed his son Domnall on the throne of Dál Riata (811–835).[20] Pictish attempts to achieve a similar dominance over the Britons of Alt Clut (Dumbarton) were not successful.[21]

And sure enough, if you look at the "List of kings of Dál Riata" page you can find that Domnall mac Caustantín, son of Caustantín mac Fergusa reigned as King of Dal Riata from 811 to 835.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_D%C3%A1l_Riata

[awkwardcustomer]

Mikemac, thank you for posting all this information. Argyle and the Isles, the Kingdom of the Gaels, is one of my favourite parts of the world, just about.

But the Gaels still had to get to Argyle from Ireland, settle there and establish their kingdom.  Will you ackowledge the possibility that they achieved this by force?  That's all I'm asking.  Were the Gaels invaders, or did they just drift across the see without anyone minding?

This link is to an article which won't allow cutting and pasting, but it dares to suggest that the Gaels were not the original inhabitants of Ireland either, that they invaded from mainland Europe and made war on the people already there.

https://www.libraryireland.com/irishnationality/gaels-ireland.php

The Gaels were invaders too.  The Anglo-Saxons were only doing what the Gaels had done, and the Normans what both had done.  So who's the good guy in all this?

[mikemac]

No awkwardcustomer, I will not acknowledge the possibility that the Scots inhabited what became DalRiata by force.  It is a modern day myth.  A re-write of history.  You have already acknowledged how the Normans fabricated the lie that they "wiped out the Picts" in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320.  Well I am running into similar fabrications all the time where Scottish history is re-written continually through the centuries by either Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings and now the English, Scandinavians and even the ones that call themselves Scots now.

Listen, I know how stubborn you are.  You've shown that many other times in this forum.  As if you come here just to argue.  So, I will give this one more shot.  If you still can't see what I am saying then, too bad.  I really don't care.  It doesn't matter.

Okay, so the only battle that the Picts went face to face with the Romans was the Battle of Mons Graupius.  They didn't have much choice because the Romans were threatening the main granaries just as they had been filled from the harvest.  "The Caledonians had no choice but to fight, or starve over the next winter."  Other than the Battle of Mons Graupius the Picts chose to fight the Romans guerilla style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons_Graupius

Below is a map from the 'Battle of Mons Graupius' page above showing the Roman's northern campaigns of 80 to 84 AD.  Notice how far north the Romans had to march to get to the heartland of the Picts.  That's up by the current town of Elgin.  Or referring to my last post, Fortriu.  Now let me repeat this from my last post, "For most of Pictish recorded history the kingdom of Fortriu appears dominant, so much so that king of Fortriu and king of the Picts may mean one and the same thing in the annals."  Notice where Fortriu is on the map in my previous post.  Up by Elgin.



Now notice in the map above the Romans 82 AD campaign into the peninsula that is now called Kintyre.  And notice from the map that the Celtic tribe that inhabited what is now called Kintyre were the Epidii.  This is who the Epidii were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidii

The Epidii (Greek: ???????) were a people of ancient Britain, known from a mention of them by the geographer Ptolemy c. 150. Epidion has been identified as the island of Islay in modern Argyll.[1] Ptolemy does not list a town for the Epidii, but the Ravenna Cosmography (RC 108.4) mentions Rauatonium, which is assumed to be Southend.[2]

Although their name appears to be Brittonic/P-Celtic, some authorities suggest they were Goidelic/Q-Celtic speakers. Dr Ewan Campbell says "Ptolemy's source for his Scottish names was probably from the Scottish Central Lowlands, and may have transmitted the Brittonic form of a Goidelic tribal name, or even the external name given to the tribe by Brittonic speakers".[3] Their presumed territory later became the heartland of the Goidelic kingdom of Dál Riata. Alex Woolf suggests that the Epidii became the Dál Riata, but argues that they were Brittonic-speaking in Ptolemy's time.[4] He also suggests that the Hebrides, called the Ebudae by Ptolemy, were named after the Epidii.[4]

The name Epidii appears to include the P-Celtic root epos, meaning "horse".[5] The Q-Celtic equivalent would be *ekwos, which became Old Gaelic ech. It is suggested that they were named after a horse god, whose name could be reconstructed as *Epidios.[4] The Q-Celtic equivalent would be *Ekwidios, which may be the origin of the Old Gaelic name Eochaid.[4] The Dagda, a Gaelic god, is often referred to as Eochaid Ollathair.[6]

No, the Scots did not inhabit what became DalRiata by force.  They didn't need to because Kintyre, Argyle and the Hebrides were not close to Fortriu, the heartland of the Picts.  So, like I said, the Scots of DalRiata, like the Picts were the original inhabitants of Scotland.

It's also interesting that Brigantes shown in the above map around Yorkshire were also in Ireland as well as a sub-tribe of the Vindelici in the region of the Alps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes

That's enough for now.  Thanks for reading.   

[awkwardcustomer]

The Barra MacNeils from Nova Scotia.

[awkwardcustomer]

Some modern day Gaels.

[awkwardcustomer]

This topic could be debated forever, since there are so many conflicting views.

For example -

In the Life of St Cathróe of Metz, the hagiographer recounts the mythological origin of the saint's people, the Gaels. The hagiographer recounts that they landed in the vicinity of Cruachan Feli - called the Mountain of Ireland. He recounts that the Gaels conquered Ireland after a series of battles with the Picts (here Pictanes). They followed up their conquest of Ireland by invading Britain, conquering Iona before conquering the cities of Rigmonath (=Cennrigmonaid; i.e. St Andrews) and Bellathor (=Cinnbelathoir; an unidentified Scoto-Pictish palace). Afterwards, their commander - a Spartan called Nel (=Niall) - named the land and people after his Egyptian wife Scota. The tale is astonishingly important, because it dates to about 980, an extremely early date, and has Scottish sources. Indeed, the saint himself is Scottish, born of royalty. According to the Life, he was educated in Armagh, before returning to Scotland and entering the service of King Constantine II (Causantín mac Áeda). Constantine gave Cathróe conduct to the court of King Dyfnwal of Strathclyde, and from there made his way to Viking England, and finally, the continent.

Medieval Scottish genealogies trace the origin of the Scots to Fergus Mór mac Eirc, the legendary founder of Dál Riata. The Senchus fer n-Alban also contains the myth of Fergus. This is an older document, perhaps dating to the seventh century, that has been heavily interpolated with later material, probably including the mythological parts. Appended to the Míniugud Senchasa Fher nAlba in many manuscripts is the Genelaig Albanensium, a list of genealogies relating to Gaelic rulers of Scotland going up to at least Constantine III (995-7) (it goes later in some of the manuscripts). It is likely that this material was inserted into the Míniugud in the early eleventh century.

In the Duan Albanach, this tradition is re-enforced. It is known to have been written in the reign of King Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada) (one line reads "Maelcoluim is now the king"). It recounts the earliest histories of the Picts, and then celebrates the conquest of the Picts by the Gaedhil. It calls the Scottish Gaels the children of Conaire and the traces the descent of the Scottish kings from Fergus mac Eirc. It does not trace their descent any further, because in the manuscript the Duan Albanach follows from a companion piece, the Duan Eireannach (i.e. Irish Poem), which had already recounted the history of the Gaels from Scythia via Egypt to Ireland.

These mythical traditions are incorporated into the Declaration of Arbroath, and in that document origins from Ireland are omitted for the first time. They were believed in the early modern period and beyond, and even King James VI traced his origin to Fergus, saying, in his own words, that he was a "Monarch sprunge of Ferguse race".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Kingdom_of_Alba

[mikemac]

Oh my Lord.  You are quoting from "Origin paradigms" from that page.  There are two sections under "Origin paradigms"; 'Medieval version' and 'Goth versus Gael'.  They prove my point from my previous post, especially the 'Goth versus Gael' section, "Well I am running into similar fabrications all the time where Scottish history is re-written continually through the centuries by either Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings and now the English, Scandinavians and even the ones that call themselves Scots now."

Now you should go back to that same page that you posted and read from the title "Origins"; the subtitles being 'Gaelic and Pictish kings', 'Fortriu to Moray' and 'Pictland to Alba'.

[awkwardcustomer]

Oh my Lord.  You are quoting from "Origin paradigms" from that page.  There are two sections under "Origin paradigms"; 'Medieval version' and 'Goth versus Gael'.  They prove my point from my previous post, especially the 'Goth versus Gael' section, "Well I am running into similar fabrications all the time where Scottish history is re-written continually through the centuries by either Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings and now the English, Scandinavians and even the ones that call themselves Scots now."

Now you should go back to that same page that you posted and read from the title "Origins"; the subtitles being 'Gaelic and Pictish kings', 'Fortriu to Moray' and 'Pictland to Alba'.

I know. My point was that there's more than one version of events.

[mikemac]

Red solo cup I apologize for sidetracking your thread.  We should have started a new thread to discuss this two pages ago.

[red solo cup]

Not a problem Mike. Good discussion sometimes follows it's own path. I've learned a lot from you and awkward.

[red solo cup]

[mikemac]

Not a problem Mike. Good discussion sometimes follows it's own path. I've learned a lot from you and awkward.

Thanks red solo cup.  I could have continued with quite a bit more.

See that show 'Rebellion', about the Easter Rising is on Netflix as a series.  I'm about half way through it.  I may watch the rest of it tonight.