WI: The Scots and not the Picts......

....Where assimilated??

is there anny way for the Pictish kingdoms not to fall at the hands of the Scots of Dal Riata?

I was reading and I came across an article about Oengus I son of Fergus, who was King of the Picts from 732 until 761. he managed to Crush the Kingdom of Dal Riata rule it.

appearently, it revolted years later, after the death of its conquerer. it became indenpendant again, and the rest is history.

...but what iff the Scots failed, and assimilated. no Scots to take advantage of the Viking invasion, of the civil wars.

what happens to "Pictland"??
 
The Picts were in such a weak state, that if the Dal Riata hadn't conquered them, someone else would (read Norse).
I think you're making a confusion with state and culture.
1. It's more probably that while the scots were organised in Dalriata (that most probably was a transmaritime kingdom), the picts were still in clanic organisation
2. Without the "personal union" (forgive me the anachronism), thanks to an adaptation of the scots to the pict sucession rule, the gaels would have more hard times to conquer Pictland. I don't see why the Norse would have better odds at conqueriong all the territory (even if they would likely take all the coastline, much like Danish in Ireland).
3. The pictish culture have better influence in Scottish one that mainly believed. I think we could agree on the fact that Scotland was the result of Dalriata and Pict interbreeding, interculture.

However i agree, that Scots wouldn't be that easy to assimilate if Oengus's sucessors manage to keep Pictland united and make it more powerful. It would probably became the thrid nation of Caledonia.
 
However i agree, that Scots wouldn't be that easy to assimilate if Oengus's sucessors manage to keep Pictland united and make it more powerful. It would probably became the thrid nation of Caledonia.

why wouldnt it be easyer to assimilate them???:confused:
 
why wouldnt it be easyer to assimilate them???:confused:
Because Scots would have still strong ties with Ireland, as Dalriada kingdom was in both places. Even if an united Pictland could hold Scot's pushing, the gaels would likely strength the lands they already have, probably by an increasing settlement as this one wouldn't be expanded to all Caledonia.

With a whole gaelic island just close to them, the Scots would be not easy to assimilate. In fact, they could even be considered as the sixth kingdom of Ireland if Picts really can't conquest them.

Besides Picts would have more urgent issues than assimilate Scots, as pushing back Anglo-Saxons, then Northmen. Possibily they would more search an alliance with Scots than crushing them.
 
Because Scots would have still strong ties with Ireland, as Dalriada kingdom was in both places. Even if an united Pictland could hold Scot's pushing, the gaels would likely strength the lands they already have, probably by an increasing settlement as this one wouldn't be expanded to all Caledonia.

With a whole gaelic island just close to them, the Scots would be not easy to assimilate. In fact, they could even be considered as the sixth kingdom of Ireland if Picts really can't conquest them.

Besides Picts would have more urgent issues than assimilate Scots, as pushing back Anglo-Saxons, then Northmen. Possibily they would more search an alliance with Scots than crushing them.

...hmm...alright..

but wouldnt the Picts have anny cultural effects on these scots then?
more then OTL?
 
...hmm...alright..

but wouldnt the Picts have anny cultural effects on these scots then?
more then OTL?

Probably, indeed. I think most of all about the sucession rule of Picts that differ from Scot's ones (basically far more importance given to women that could give the royal title to their sons unlile the men).

But nothing close to an assimilation, at least following my knowledge. Probablt that Scotland, as a limited part of Caledonia, would be eventually united to Pictland, but by keeping their usages and customs at least during all the Middle-Ages.
 
Probably, indeed. I think most of all about the sucession rule of Picts that differ from Scot's ones (basically far more importance given to women that could give the royal title to their sons unlile the men).

But nothing close to an assimilation, at least following my knowledge. Probablt that Scotland, as a limited part of Caledonia, would be eventually united to Pictland, but by keeping their usages and customs at least during all the Middle-Ages.

alright.

keeping this in mind, what would the effect of a stronger Pictish nation be on the history of Brittain???
 
It's interesting to note that while it was Pictland who conquered Dal Riada (Kenneth MacApline was known in his time as King of the Picts and came from a Pictish, not Scottish family) it was the Scots who assimilated the Picts
 
It's interesting to note that while it was Pictland who conquered Dal Riada (Kenneth MacApline was known in his time as King of the Picts and came from a Pictish, not Scottish family) it was the Scots who assimilated the Picts

yeah..never quit got that one , really:D
 
yeah..never quit got that one , really:D

You're not alone. There's so little trustworthy documentation, I don't think anyone is exactly sure how events unfolded. It's certain that both the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms were in bad shape after a devastating defeat by the vikings around 839. Not all that many of either of the dynasties were still standing.
 
You're not alone. There's so little trustworthy documentation, I don't think anyone is exactly sure how events unfolded. It's certain that both the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms were in bad shape after a devastating defeat by the vikings around 839. Not all that many of either of the dynasties were still standing.

So it could even happend that both sides had copied things from eachothers cultures, and maybe the scottish people have a lot of pictish blood running through them.

on the other hand, it could be so that the Scots really outclassed the Pitcs.

we might never know:eek:
 
It's likely that there had been a significant amount of cross-fertilisation of both cultures.

If anything, the Picts would have been undergoing some degree of Gaelicization long before any 'Dal Riadan takeover', with the Columban Church spreading Irish culture throughout Pictland for hundreds of years beforehand.

Likewise, the Kingdom of Alba is referred to as 'the kingdom of the Picts' long after Cináed mac Ailpin's death, so it seems as if the Dal Riadans (if that's what the mac Ailpins were) maintained significant elements of Pictish social organisation.

Looking at the Pictish kinglists, there seem to be quite a few demonstrably 'Irish' names well in advance of the mac Ailpin takeover. Likewise, wherever the mac Ailpin dynasty originated in the male line, it would make sense if there was a female Pictish inheritance that made a claim on both thrones viable.

I guess the scenario depends on what you believed actually happened as the kingdom of the Picts came to an end. There's so little evidence, that you're effectively working with educated guesses and hypothetical arguments drawn up by scholars centuries after the event.

A not inconsiderable body of thought states that Cináed mac Ailpin was, in fact, a Pict himself, and that the Gaelicisation that happened after his accession was more related to the education of Pictish aristocrats in Gaelic-speaking monasteries than anything else. If you want Pictish culture to survive, remove or weaken Columban Christianity and replace it with Orthodox catholicism (as King Nechtan attempted to do in the 700s).

The traditional school of thought states that Cináed seized power after the decimation of the Pictish ruling class in battles with the Viking hordes. In which case, offer a more favourable history and have the main Pictish royal line(s) survive these trials.

They could pursue a diplomatic policy with the Scots, leading to an eventual 'anschluss' at some later date, as the Scots seem to have been getting the works from the Vikings at around the same time. The two peoples had a lot in common, and a union based on a more favourable Pictish negotiating position might well see a Pictish-speaking aristocracy taking control rather than a Gaelic one. This united power would be a force to be reckoned with, and would form the analogue to OTL Scotland.

There will be some centralisation: it seems to have been the trend in Northern Europe at the time. You might initially have a Pictish High King ruling over his own domains in the north and east of OTL Scotland, with nominal authority over a Dal Riadan sub King, a sub-king of Strathcylyde, and whatever odds and sods he manages to haul away from Northumbria in the Lothians and the Vikings in the north. Whether he could forge that into a united, Pictish speaking nation, however, is very open to debate.

Linguistically.... well, the country will be completely different. We have no idea what Pictish sounded like, but it's likely that it was Brythonic-ish, so the modern day 'Scots' might sound more like the Welsh. The butterflies would be immense.

I might even by typing this at my desk covered in tatoos of weird animals and geometric shapes, supping my heather ale and thinking about what designs to add to my latest standing stone :D
 
If anything, the Picts would have been undergoing some degree of Gaelicization long before any 'Dal Riadan takeover', with the Columban Church spreading Irish culture throughout Pictland for hundreds of years beforehand.
But, in the other hand, monastic reports said that gaelic monks needed translators to be understood of the Picts.
Maybe it's a form of gaelicisation in the church ritual, but even here i doubt of its expense, seeing that the celto-christians rites were adapted without too changes in the Britton culture, not making them gaelicised.

Looking at the Pictish kinglists, there seem to be quite a few demonstrably 'Irish' names well in advance of the mac Ailpin takeover. Likewise, wherever the mac Ailpin dynasty originated in the male line, it would make sense if there was a female Pictish inheritance that made a claim on both thrones viable.
So far i know, the Pict sucession system gave the priority to the matrolinear line. If women couldn't ascend to throne, their child can while the childs of the king with another woman weren't allowed to do so. Of course it's a supputation based on later texts and later list of kings.

A not inconsiderable body of thought states that Cináed mac Ailpin was, in fact, a Pict himself, and that the Gaelicisation that happened after his accession was more related to the education of Pictish aristocrats in Gaelic-speaking monasteries than anything else. If you want Pictish culture to survive, remove or weaken Columban Christianity and replace it with Orthodox catholicism (as King Nechtan attempted to do in the 700s).
Again, the christianisation with Gaelic monks didn't affected too much the Cambria or Brittonia. As long you don't have gaelic invaders and settlers, the monks would eventually likely adapt themselves to the local culture.

The traditional school of thought states that Cináed seized power after the decimation of the Pictish ruling class in battles with the Viking hordes. In which case, offer a more favourable history and have the main Pictish royal line(s) survive these trials.
Well, it's a really widespread indo-european account of events : the foreign king that kill all the local nobility to legitimize his power on the land, deprived from his traditional elite. You can find the same about Anglo-Saxons,Romans in Gaul, pseudo-history of French nobility, Arabo-Berbers in Hispania, etc.
I frankly doubt about the reliability of this slaughter. Maybe there was battles that decimated pictish nobility, but the traditional "invite them, make truce, then kill them all" is too stereotyped for me.

Linguistically.... well, the country will be completely different. We have no idea what Pictish sounded like, but it's likely that it was Brythonic-ish, so the modern day 'Scots' might sound more like the Welsh. The butterflies would be immense.
I'm not agreeing here. If the souther population of Caledonia was undubiously Britton, the Picts were in the same time distinguished for them making their total appartenance to the Brittonic (and even Celtic) family more...nucanced.
Personally (but it's totally unprooved, as the whole theories about Picts origin), i would rather think to a mix between Brittons and Picts before the III, something comparable to the Celts forming at the contact of the Iberians, the Celtiberian civilisation where Celtic traits were still presents but strongly infulenced (or even replaced) by Iberic usages.
 
Last edited:
so in fact that which religion they would follow could change annything.
an interesting thing to keep in mind.

So far i know, the Pict sucession system gave the priority to the matrolinear line. If women couldn't ascend to throne, their child can while the childs of the king with another woman weren't allowed to do so. Of course it's a supputation based on later texts and later list of kings

always found that part interesting.

I guess the scenario depends on what you believed actually happened as the kingdom of the Picts came to an end. There's so little evidence, that you're effectively working with educated guesses and hypothetical arguments drawn up by scholars centuries after the event.

I try to keep in mind that most theories have a part of the truth as a basis. mostly works, so my guess is that, though manny died in the procses, Picts have a large lasting legacy in Scotland...we might just not know it


I might even by typing this at my desk covered in tatoos of weird animals and geometric shapes, supping my heather ale and thinking about what designs to add to my latest standing stone :D
sadly, I cant second this...but I would probably send you an message in a menhir:p
 
Berserker said:
But, in the other hand, monastic reports said that gaelic monks needed translators to be understood of the Picts.
Maybe it's a form of gaelicisation in the church ritual, but even here i doubt of its expense, seeing that the celto-christians rites were adapted without too changes in the Britton culture, not making them gaelicised.

You would think so, but it wasn't so much the ordinary people I was considering. If you take into account the impact of educating Pictish elites in Gaelic monasteries, it becomes more reasonable to suppose that the ruling class would have been at least familiar with Gaelic culture and language. That would then have a trickle down effect.

For example, the richest, most successful people in Scotland should speak Scots in our own time. But they don't. They speak English, as that's where the money and social advancement is at. If prestige and success (or even spirituality) become associated with a language, that becomes a powerful draw for ordinary people as well as elites to learn it.

Add into that mix the Pictish willingness to incorporate non-native males into the ruling family (including Dal Riadan Scots), and you're creating an environment where foreign usages and customs will be readily adopted.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if our Pictish ancestors were subjected to the same cultural pressures as prevail to this day. "You savages at the end of the world can't do anything right; this is the correct way to do things, the shiny, prestigious metropolitan way" - that same mentality lives on into our present day. I know plenty Scots kids who can't roll an r properly because it isn't the 'proper' way to speak. I guess Pictish probably went the same way, but in favour of Gaelic, which was the shiny, metropolitan language of advancement in the tenth century.

You don't need genocide or replacement: just keep telling someone that their culture's shite, and they'll eventually adopt yours.

So far i know, the Pict sucession system gave the priority to the matrolinear line. If women couldn't ascend to throne, their child can while the childs of the king with another woman weren't allowed to do so. Of course it's a supputation based on later texts and later list of kings.

There's some debate as to whether it was strictly matrilineal - it was quite possibly some kind of tanistry as practiced by the Dal Riadan. It certainly seems to have allowed for inheritance by the children of non-Pictish fathers (notably Britons, and one Angle I can think of), which strikes me as a tad unusual at the very least. I can't think of any other society which allowed exogamous succession in the paternal line.

Again, the christianisation with Gaelic monks didn't affected too much the Cambria or Brittonia. As long you don't have gaelic invaders and settlers, the monks would eventually likely adapt themselves to the local culture.

Well, there must have certainly been some settlement - the whole of the north-east of Scotland is covered with mixed Pictish-Gaelic placenames. The question is how did the linguistic replacement happen - was the settlement that extensive, from Dal Riada's limited pool of manpower?

Personally (but it's totally unprooved, as the whole theories about Picts origin), i would rather think to a mix between Brittons and Picts before the III, something comparable to the Celts forming at the contact of the Iberians, the Celtiberian civilisation where Celtic traits were still presents but strongly infulenced (or even replaced) by Iberic usages.

That was kind of why I qualified my statement with 'Brythonic-ish' - whatever Pictish was, it wasn't mutually intelligible to the British peoples further south. Non-Indo European substratum? Who knows? Maybe it had just completely diverged on the basis of comparative isolation from other P-Celtic languages, or there was something else we don't know about.

I would say there has to be something to the P-Celtic theory though - there are too many P-Celtic place names within shouting distance of the room I'm sitting in as we speak. What kind of a P-Celtic language it was, however, and what it was overlaying, is very much open to debate.

Berserker said:
sadly, I cant second this...but I would probably send you an message in a menhir:p

:D
 
Top