WI: *Scotland unified by English?

During the Dark Ages, the region now known as Scotland was inhabited by three ethnic groups: the Scots proper in the west, the Picts in the north-east, and the English-speaking Bernicians in the south-east. IOTL the Scots managed to subdue the other two and gave the whole country the name of Scotland. I was wondering what would happen if instead we saw more English settlement, enough for the Bernicians to expand and conquer the country. What effect would that have on *Scottish language and culture, do you think? And, assuming that present-day England gets unified much as IOTL, how would Anglo-*Scottish relations be affected?
 
During the Dark Ages, the region now known as Scotland was inhabited by three ethnic groups: the Scots proper in the west, the Picts in the north-east, and the English-speaking Bernicians in the south-east. IOTL the Scots managed to subdue the other two and gave the whole country the name of Scotland. I was wondering what would happen if instead we saw more English settlement, enough for the Bernicians to expand and conquer the country. What effect would that have on *Scottish language and culture, do you think? And, assuming that present-day England gets unified much as IOTL, how would Anglo-*Scottish relations be affected?

I don't really recognise the history in your opening post. It was much messier than you describe.

If "Strathclyde" and/or Northumbria/ Bernica had expanded Northwards instead of the Scots Westward then I'd still expect to see a distinct difference (and rivalry) between the Anglo-Normans and Anglo-Picts

The language differences are relatively trivial in either time line as are the cultures as Scotland's culture is dominated by the lowland influence today as it would be in the alt-timeline
 
Remember that Scotland isn't an endonym, and rather a name from southern, germanic, peoples for gaelic-speaking peoples.

I don't think Scots exactly subdued Anglo-Saxons or Picts : politically, Pict dynasties managed to get overlordship, and eventhere was a mix, it was only partial and never went in the direction of a complete fusion (even politically before Davidian Revolution, as the high-kingship of Alba was looking like Irish one up to the IX at least).

We could see Lowlands being entierly takeover by either Anglo-Saxons from Bernicia, or Brythonic people clientelized by Northumbria or another kingdom (particularly if Picts and Scots doesn't mix), but it would be more of a march being far from cultural and political AS centers.
I don't see an entiere takeover of OTL Scotland at this point, the motivations for doing so being slim, and enough troubles in OTL AS England to not do such easily.

Eventually, AS Lowlands would likely being taken over (directly, puppetized, vassalized) by Norses, leading to a possible Norse-Lowland identity not unlike Norse-Northumbrian one.
At this point, you could have a kingdom/ealdormancy of "Scytsmark" (let's be creative), while Scotland would be more similar to pre-Norman Ireland or Wales.
 
IN the 12th century Scottish Kings were still crowned King of the Scots, English and Norse (sometimes Cumbrian)...

However, to have the AS transform Pictland rather than the Scots we need Augustine Christianity to spread north far quicker... it was Gaelic Christianity that increasingly drew Pictland into the world of the Irish Sea... If we could get the northern AS to adopt to Latin Christian norms sooner, we may have a chance of having Pictland religiously orientated north-to-south rather than west-east....
 
it was Gaelic Christianity that increasingly drew Pictland into the world of the Irish Sea...
I strongly disagree there, it was political fusion between Picts and Scots. The whole "Celtic Christianity" concept is, saying it politely, a scam forged in order to have an historical precedent against Roman political-religious dominance.

Sure, you had differences between Irish churches, Scottish churches, Anglo-Saxon churches, etc.
But these weren't only much less important than between Latin and Greek rites (that before the IXth were more about anal retention than actual important differences), it was a common feature in all Christian world where political rulers were de facto and de jure the leader of their churches which not only had different liturgy, rites and councils but inner differences as well.

Admitting that Anglo-Saxon rites, liturgy and so on, are carried deeper in Scotland (and that would be doable ONLY trough political takeover), you'd still have a separation as long Scotland is politically distinct from other AS kingdoms.
 
I strongly disagree there, it was political fusion between Picts and Scots. The whole "Gaelic Christianity" concept is, saying it politely, a scam.

Sure, you had differences between Irish churches, Scottish churches, Anglo-Saxon churches, etc.
But these weren't only much less important than between Latin and Greek rites (that before the IXth were more about anal retention than actual important differences), it was a common feature in all Christian world where political rulers were de facto and de jure the leader of their churches which not only had different liturgy, rites and councils but inner differences as well.

Admitting that Anglo-Saxon rites, liturgy and so on, are carried deeper in Scotland (and that would be doable ONLY trough political takeover), you'd still have a separation as long Scotland is politically distinct from other AS kingdoms.

I wasn't referring to liturgical models, even St Patrick was probably linked far closer to the continent than the espousers of "Celtic" Christianity would have us to believe...

However, organisationally in the Gaelic world the abbot and the minster were more powerful than the bishop. It was only in the 10th/11th century that Scotland organised its dioceses geographically previously they had essentially been there own separate kingdoms at odds with many of the local nobility.

If we have Augustine style organisation move north quicker, with the increased power it gave the king over the church, we could see Pictland more adoptive of other AS church reforms...

It's not that plausible but not impossible...

N.B. Certainly where I study "Gaelic Christianity" is used to refer to peculiarities of the Gaelic world, as opposed to that of the world of the Sarum rite or Mozarabic rites... "Celtic Christianity" is the term used to mean the largely modern movement that tries to recreate a Christianity based on a romanticised (and highly partisan view) of Early Mediaeval Britonnic/Gaelic Christianity. That of course might not be the convention at your institution. :)
 
If we have Augustine style organisation move north quicker, with the increased power it gave the king over the church, we could see Pictland more adoptive of other AS church reforms...
But Augustine organisation was essentially tied to royal (or assimilated) power, from one part, and to the existence of a cities net to exist.

The power of monasteries above bishops is less a cultural one, than the presence (or absence) of these two factors.

In Merovingian Gaul, depsite the political dominance of Augistine organisation and the power of bishops trough both an exisiting and relativly strong urban net and royal support (as well both : merovingian administrative power being largely reliant on cities), you still had an important influence of Irish churches for monasteries (even if St Colomban rule was soon mixed with Benedictine during Carolingian period)

In "Scytmark" (yes, I like the name),the absence of a real urban net (I don't knwo much about Lowlands in MA, but basing myself on what Northern England looked like, I don't think it wasn't much more develloped) would be a severe obstacle to bishop power above monasteries.

Unless we have a royal power that already favours Augustine organisation (in all plausibility, an AS king), and manage by constant effort (aka, against the background tendency) to make them equally powerful facing lasting Irish-tied monasteries...

I don't think the solution to the OP request could be only a matter of religion, when we're talking of an era when religious organisation was tied to royal power and when said organisation was largely dependent of a defined background.

That of course might not be the convention at your institution. :)
Ah, maybe. I'm sorry for the confusion, then.

I always read "Irish Churches" or "Anglo-Saxon Churches" rather than Christianity (that is reseved for Latin, including Irish/Scottish, etc and Greek, not including Oriental churches).

Basically, Christianity is used for large ensemble, Churches for organised ensemble distinct from each other while they can be part of the same group, Liturgy and rites something else. (It's nowhere as formal in reality, of course)
 
During the Dark Ages, the region now known as Scotland was inhabited by three ethnic groups: the Scots proper in the west, the Picts in the north-east, and the English-speaking Bernicians in the south-east. IOTL the Scots managed to subdue the other two and gave the whole country the name of Scotland. I was wondering what would happen if instead we saw more English settlement, enough for the Bernicians to expand and conquer the country. What effect would that have on *Scottish language and culture, do you think? And, assuming that present-day England gets unified much as IOTL, how would Anglo-*Scottish relations be affected?

There was Welsh/Cumbric too.
 
Remember that Scotland isn't an endonym, and rather a name from southern, germanic, peoples for gaelic-speaking peoples.

How do you explain the fact that the Scots (that is, Lowland Scots-speaking inhabitants) called it "Scotland"? How are they any less "Scottish" than those who called the place "Alba" by the 11th. Century? The fact that they are newcomers relative to the Picts ignores the fact that the Gaels ALSO weren't endemic to the area, but branched out from Dalriada. There's that whole "No True Scotsman" saying for a reason.
 
How do you explain the fact that the Scots (that is, Lowland Scots-speaking inhabitants) called it "Scotland"?
Because they didn't called themselves Scots before the XIth, aka not before the territorial definition prevailed : it's the same kind of developpment that made Cumbrians using for themselves a name that wasn't their ethnonym; or Gascons that became an ethnonym only after the "ethnic" definition of "Duchy of Vasconia" was totally lost.

It's another case of a territory being named after a distinct people, and that inhabitants of said county eventually taking this name for themselves.

As the OP specifically asked for northern Britain to not be unified under Gaelic-Pictish rule, I supposed that definitions that appeared only centuries later shouldn't apply, would it be only for chronological reasons.

How are they any less "Scottish" than those who called the place "Alba" by the 11th. Century?
You seem to find in my previous posts about "Scottish-isity". You're misguided to make any modern ethnic lecture of these, and maybe you didn't read carefully enough my previous statements.

I pointed that Lowland population didn't called itself "Scot" before Scotland, as a territory was definied.
It was defining at first the territory controlled by Scots, understood as Gaelic-Pictish fusion, aka north of Forth river.

It wasn't before the Davidian Revolution (along other features of course, but it was nevertheless a founding event) that the name passed from an "ethnic" definition to territorial, understanding any territory ruled by the King of Scots.

You have similar exemple elsewhere in Europe : Francia first concieved as only part of the northern kingdom of Western Francia, eventually understood as the whole northern part (and eventually all of it)
 
Grr, I keep forgetting that much of Lowland Scotland was England (and Brythonic, for a while) during that period of time, bordered to the north by those Picto-Gaels. Mea culpa.
 
Top