Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion

Expand Messages
  • Charles Penland
    I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it s
    Message 1 of 10 , May 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to
      your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
      existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.On occation it
      would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
      time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
      people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
      each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
      Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
      takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
      the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.If they did conquer
      Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
      Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
      not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
      to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
      this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
      the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.


      >From: bkwyrm@...
      >Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
      >To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
      >Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:58:15 EDT
      >
      >In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
      >charlespenland20@... writes:
      >
      > >
      > > The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
      > > invaders.they had lived as subjects.
      >
      >They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate
      >kingdom, with a distinct and separate language, as attested by the records
      >of the
      >day? Dalriada was independent of the Pictish kingdom.
      >
      >JfG
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
    • Sharon L. Krossa
      ... What is the source for this claim? ... What is the source for these claims, especially the figure of 10% ? ... Again, what is the source for these claims?
      Message 2 of 10 , May 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 2:43 AM -0600 5/28/03, Charles Penland wrote:
        >I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to
        >your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
        >existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.

        What is the source for this claim?

        >On occation it
        >would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
        >time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
        >people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
        >each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
        >Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
        >takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
        >the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.

        What is the source for these claims, especially the figure of "10%"?

        >If they did conquer
        >Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
        >Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
        >not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
        >to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
        >this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
        >the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.

        Again, what is the source for these claims?

        While it is true that there was a complex history between the Scots
        of Dal Riata and the Picts, and the Picts did not disappear (as their
        language and culture did well before the advent of the Anglo-Normans)
        simply due to straight forward conquest and extermination, from
        reading this post and your earlier posts, it sounds to me like you
        may have been getting your interpretations too much from unreliable
        popular books and web pages and not enough from sound, reliable
        history books on the subject of early Scotland.

        In particular, note that when the Gaelic kings consolidated their
        acquisition of Pictland, the Pictish language and culture rapidly
        disappeared, replaced by the Gaelic language and culture. Yes, it is
        unlikely (in the extreme!) that this happened by killing off all the
        Picts -- but after a couple generations of the descendants of the
        Picts speaking Gaelic and not Pictish, and intermarrying with Gaels
        from elsewhere (who themselves might have British or Norse ancestors
        as well as Gaelic ones), it is a little strange to keep talking of
        Picts as if they still existed. Likewise in Orkney and Shetland,
        etc., where Pictish language and culture was replaced by Norse
        language and culture. (So, for example, by the time of the
        Declaration of Arbroath -- in the early 14th century -- there hadn't
        been any Picts in Scotland for a number of centuries, so it can
        hardly have given authority to anybody to seize anything from the
        Picts, as suggested in one of your earlier posts.)

        Having Pictish ancestors is not the same thing as being Pictish.
        (This can sometimes be a hard concept for we USAmericans and others
        from immigrant nations to keep in mind, given the common US practice
        of using nationality terms to refer to ancestry rather than current
        nationality/citizenship/culture/etc, as when a USAmerican speaks of
        being "Scottish" in reference to their ancestry rather than to their
        citizenship or where they themselves were born and raised. But even
        most USAmericans agree that a Scot born in Scotland, raised in
        Scotland, and with UK citizenship is "Scottish" in quite a different
        way than a USAmerican whose ancestors left Scotland a century ago,
        whether or not they also have German, French, and/or Italian
        ancestors.) In the context of discussing history, it is vitally
        important to keep clear the distinction between ancestry and
        contemporary culture, nationality, etc.

        Sharon, ska Africa

        PS BTW, please note that it is very hard to read text when there no
        spaces after punctuation marks like periods and commas.
        --
        Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.