Talk:Kingdom of Alba

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medieval Scotland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Scottish Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Map[edit]

Ideally this article would need a map of the extent of the realm at one or 2 of the main periods. Anyone has that? --Lgriot (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pict / Alba / Scotland: what, when, by whom[edit]

Granted that the topic of what term was used by whom and when in referring to the land and its people north of Hadrian's Wall is confusing, but the various peripheral mention of these changes in this and other wiki pages does very little to clarify this. Perhaps a dedicated page is needed to clarify exactly what term(s) was/were used in each relevant language for the people and land, who used it/them, how each term translated to other languages in use at that time, and during what periods of time each of these terms and translations applied. Perhaps a table would help summarize such a clarification. I cannot draft such a table because I'm not an expert in this area and the information does not seem fully available in the various places this topic is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Many writers tend to be very careless about terminology - and thus are frequently anchronistic. The words the Scots, Scotland and the English and England often get used in their modern sense in describing times when they meant very different things from later times. Meanwhile Hadrian's Wall is something of a psychological barrier to clarity of thought and expression, since its existence falsely suggests an historic boundary between a Scotland and an England before either existed, even before the Scots or the Anglo-Saxons ever set foot in what the Romans called Caledonia. Strangely the Romans' much more northerly Antonine Wall gets far less mention, perhaps simply because it doesn't fit the expected narrative. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.23 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor's promotion prospects.[edit]

If the chancellor could expected to be promoted to bishop, then the text should say bishop rather than bishopric. On the other hand, saying that he would be promoted to a bishopric presumably implies that he go to work in a bishopric (presumably performing the same duties for the bishop as he was for the king). Either the text or the link is wrong and needs to be changed. (As a secular equivilent, saying someone was promoted to king would have a very different meaning to saying he was promoted to a kingdom). Wardog (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any mileage to "appointed to a bishopric"?--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish/Pictland Synonymous With Scottish/Scotland[edit]

(Moved from Talk:Picts with some formatting)

So, having studied this matter quite a bit over the years, there seems to be an encroaching academic settlement on the idea that Pictland effectively was just Scotland. I understand the traditional origins of Scotland are rooted in the founding of the kingdom in 843 by Kenneth MacAlpin, initially a Dal Riatan subjugation and domination of Pictland, this later seemed to warp (based on archaeological and historical examination) into the rather odd idea that some kind of political union occurred between Pictland and Dal Riata, despite there being absolutely no evidence of such a thing either, and in fact the only evidence seeming to point repeatedly to the idea that Pictland dominated and possibly even exterminated Dal Riata (in terms of power, at least).

As seems to be the consensus today, Kenneth MacAlpin and his immediate successors were never titled as anything other than Kings of Pictland, and it is not until the reign of Constantine II, that the Gaelic term for Scotland becomes used to refer to... well to kings of Pictland, essentially. The mess of naming conventions on Wikipedia is ridiculous. There needs to be clear distinction between modern Scots/Scottish/Scotland and Dal Riatans, I see so often the term Scots used interchangeably with this kingdom and its people in articles related to this, while, rather amusingly, distinguishing the Pictish/Pictland from the modern term of Scots/Scotland despite the fact that all the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to the consensus that THEY were the entity that would today be known today as the Kingdom of Scotland.

So let's just say, we play it safe and assume the change in nomenclature from King of Pictland to King of Scotland represents an actual new political entity as opposed to simply a language/cultural/religous/policy shift. That still puts the founding of the Kingdom of Scotland in the reign of Constantine II, some 100 or so years AFTER the traditional foundation date of 843 by Kenneth I of Scotland. Alternatively if we were to then assume the more likely case that Pictland is/was Scotland, the foundation seems to be given as 260 in the list of Pictish kings, but again to play it safe and only use historically validated kings, the foundation would be around 550, with Cennalath.

Either way, the 843 origin is... erroneous. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia consensus is, I'm sure the concept of national foundation myths are not unique to Scotland and that many other kingdoms have erroneous dates as their founding, but considering we have sort of clear evidence to cast extreme doubt on the traditionally accepted history, it feels a little silly to keep touting that as if it has any validity whatsoever. I mean even the originas of the patronage of Saint Andrew was arguably occurring in the 700s under Óengus I.

I understand Scots initially in certain languages referred to Dal Riatans, but we're not writing articles and conversing in those languages anymore, Scots/Scotland means something entirely different today in English. It's even worse that half the articles keep referring to the Kingdom of SCOTLAND as the Kingdom of ALBA, I mean once the nomenclature change has occurred there is absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever to continue referring to the kingdom as if it is some separate entity to that of the Kingdom of Scotland.

I don't think this counts as original research or opinion, I'm merely reading the actual academic research which keeps repeatedly stressing these ideas, can we perhaps get some standard naming conventions for these people and the era to avoid the headache of trying to figure out who on Earth the article is discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until you cite some Reliable Sources, it is in fact absolutely Original Research .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.7.77 (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't cited any reliable sources because the sources are cited already in various other Wikipedia articles (and also this very one) related to this article and the general topic. I mean you can go through them all yourself and research this, I'm not pushing for anything just attempting to open a dialogue on this where we can then present the sources and best decide what to agree upon.

All I'm asking for is consistency with naming throughout articles, as opposed to the haphazard ad hoc we have at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is reflective of current academic consensus, and to be honest I don't see a problem with it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a problem with it because you understand the meaning of all the terms when used in their various contexts. The purpose of sites like this is to educate, is it not? Seems a tad confusing to an unlearned person to stumble upon a history with several different names for the one entity as well as overlapping names used out of the context of their original languages for entities

I'm not going to disagree it is the current "academic consensus" to have this mess when it comes to naming certain historical polities certain things in English, what I'm saying is don't you think it's just a little stupid and needlessly confusing? I mean to just hone in on the Kingdom of Alba thing for Scotland prior to a certain point, this is literally akin to referring to the Kingdom of Spain as the Empire of Español up until some arbitrary moment in its history, but we don't we call it the Spanish Empire from around the time the crowns of Aragon and Castille united. Because that would the equivalent English term for the entity that was created.

It's stupid, and it's unnecessary. The articles go into in great depth the culture of Scotland during its various phases in history, there is no need to arbitrarily refer to it by its Gaelic name (or for that matter to refer to Dalriadans by their contemporary Latin name) when the Gaelic name literally means what we call Scotland in English.

Following academic consensus is one thing, but Wikipedia does not need to regurgitate academic practices verbatim, if it did then many articles would be near incomprehensible to the vast bulk of readers. What I am asking for is not the championing of original viewpoints or research, I'm merely suggesting a consistent and clear naming policy for past historical political and cultural entities of Scotland. It is not inaccurate to refer t o the Kingdom of Scotland as the Kingdom of Scotland from its traditionally accepted (even if erroneous) founding date, so why on Earth are we referring it to the Kingdom of Alba up until a certain point simply because academics use it as a form of shorthand descriptor of the kingdom's culture at this time? And why are we referring to Dalriadans as Scottish/Scots when the language we are conversing in would be inaccurate to refer to them as this as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard general reference for this would be the New Edinburgh History of Scotland, and before it the New History of Scotland:

Smyth, Alfred P. (1984), "Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80 - 1000", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
Barrow, G.W.S. (1981), "Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000 - 1306", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
Woolf, Alex (2007), "Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
Oram, Richard (2011), "Domination and Lordship: Scotland, 1070-1230", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press

Those are at an undergraduate level, which is the standard level for WP references. But the terminology is also standard at high school level works:

Carver, Martin (2005), "Surviving in Symbols: A Visit to the Pictish Nation", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland
Campbell, Ewan (1999), "Saints and Sea Kings: The First Kingdom of the Scots", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland
Driscoll, Stephen (2002), "Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland AD 800 - 1124", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland

I seriously think you're overstating the confusion... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this? I already said I'm not disagreeing it is done by academics, I'm saying there's no need for it, here at least. Well I'm glad YOU think I'm overstating the confusion, I think you're being purposefully obtuse regarding the potential for it for people who don't know much about the history of Scotland, which I would wager would be a large percentage of people reading these articles. Where does that leave us?

Can you explain to me a justification or even reason for calling the Kingdom of Scotland the Kingdom of Alba between these arbitrary dates that it generally is called such, other than "academics do it"? Do the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia articles refer to the Kingdom of Scotland as 'Rìoghachd na Scotland' instead of 'Rìoghachd na h-Alba' after this arbitrary time period ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted those to demonstrate that it is not just used at an academic level, but that it is accepted convention in undergraduate textbooks (which are the generally accepted level of sources for WP) but also at high school level. We don't have to like it or find it logical... that's just the way it is. It is not appropriate to call the political entity that was around in AD 1000 "Scotland" because it just wasn't called that. The point at which it became "Alba" is blurry, and there is a suggestion by some that Alba may have been a Pictish term, but there seems to have been a point around the reign of Donald II where the title of the king became king of Alba rather than king of the Picts... possibly something to do with distinguishing a divided kingdom ruled by Eochaid and Giric... who knows?

But anyway... you proposed extending the concept of "Scotland" to the sixth century, which is (without any intention to disrespect you) utter nonsense. Nobody thinks that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not appropriate to call the political entity that was around in AD 1000 "Scotland" because it just wasn't called that."

In what language, by who, at what point? See this is your problem, and the problem I felt I had pretty clearly laid out, clearly I was not concise enough and for that I apologise. It wasn't called the Kingdom of Scotland, it also wasn't called Kingdom of Alba either, modern English was not spoken at this time. It certainly was never at any point in its history in any language of the time in nearby areas called the Kingdom of Alba, even in Gaelic, as I have alluded to it was called 'Rìoghachd na h-Alba', or at least is known as that in MODERN Gaelic, what is was called in the Gaelic of the time, I don't know.

It's absolutely appropriate to call it the Kingdom of Scotland from AT LEAST the point in king lists where it starts being labelled 'Alba' (as that literally means Scotland) because it was the same entity, in a political sense, as it was right up until 1707. While the culture/naming changed drastically throughout its history, the entity itself remained largely the same in various aspects. Same royal centres, coronation ceremonies such as at Scone, same royal dynasties and even similar rough geographical area.

I made a point that, as you have mentioned as well, some people are of the opinion that Alba may simply have been the word the Picts used for their own kingdom, which existed, at least in a historically valid sense, from at least 550 with Cennalath being recorded in corroborative historical sources (such as the Irish Annals). However I would not suggest actually calling Pictland Scotland in English without some kind of substantive academic consensus on the idea that Pictland to Alba was in fact merely a change in nomenclature as opposed to a change in political entity.

What I am asking for is CLEAR and CONSISTENT naming guidelines, okay? Dal Riata did not call their kingdom Scotland or themselves Scots/Scottish, so according to your own logic Dal Riata and its people should never at any point be referred to as Scots in any article unless discussing what they were at some point called in a certain language by certain people, correct? Pictland I am happy to remain calling Pictland/Pictish until some academic consensus on whether this theorized union between Pictland and Dal Riata ever actually happened or not, okay?

So we have clear naming consensus. Nobody is Scots/Scottish/Scotland until AT LEAST Alba (literally Scotland in Gaelic, again) starts appearing. Or to use your silly arbitrary academic/undergradutate consensus timeline. We have Picts and Dal Riatans, yes? Up until either the emergence of the name Alba OR the arbitrary point in time yourself and academics have arrived at.

As I already explained to you academics and undergraduates use the term Alba merely to describe a particular cultural/societal period in SCOTLAND, this is clearly stated in other articles, it has nothing to do with what it was known by AT THE TIME in languages WE ARE NOT SPEAKING/WRITING the article in.

Is this clearer to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further material from my talk page:

"It is not appropriate to call the political entity that was around in AD 1000 "Scotland" because it just wasn't called that."

In what language, by who, at what point? See this is your problem, and the problem I felt I had pretty clearly laid out, clearly I was not concise enough and for that I apologise. It wasn't called the Kingdom of Scotland, it also wasn't called Kingdom of Alba either, modern English was not spoken at this time. It certainly was never at any point in its history in any language of the time in nearby areas called the Kingdom of Alba, even in Gaelic, as I have alluded to it was called 'Rìoghachd na h-Alba', or at least is known as that in MODERN Gaelic, what is was called in the Gaelic of the time, I don't know.

It's absolutely appropriate to call it the Kingdom of Scotland from AT LEAST the point in king lists where it starts being labelled 'Alba' (as that literally means Scotland) because it was the same entity, in a political sense, as it was right up until 1707. While the culture/naming changed drastically throughout its history, the entity itself remained largely the same in various aspects. Same royal centres, coronation ceremonies such as at Scone, same royal dynasties and even similar rough geographical area.

I made a point that, as you have mentioned as well, some people are of the opinion that Alba may simply have been the word the Picts used for their own kingdom, which existed, at least in a historically valid sense, from at least 550 with Cennalath being recorded in corroborative historical sources (such as the Irish Annals). However I would not suggest actually calling Pictland Scotland in English without some kind of substantive academic consensus on the idea that Pictland to Alba was in fact merely a change in nomenclature as opposed to a change in political entity.

What I am asking for is CLEAR and CONSISTENT naming guidelines, okay? Dal Riata did not call their kingdom Scotland or themselves Scots/Scottish, so according to your own logic Dal Riata and its people should never at any point be referred to as Scots in any article unless discussing what they were at some point called in a certain language by certain people, correct? Pictland I am happy to remain calling Pictland/Pictish until some academic consensus on whether this theorized union between Pictland and Dal Riata ever actually happened or not, okay?

So we have clear naming consensus. Nobody is Scots/Scottish/Scotland until AT LEAST Alba (literally Scotland in Gaelic, again) starts appearing. Or to use your silly arbitrary academic/undergradutate consensus timeline. We have Picts and Dal Riatans, yes? Up until either the emergence of the name Alba OR the arbitrary point in time yourself and academics have arrived at.

As I already explained to you academics and undergraduates use the term Alba merely to describe a particular cultural/societal period in SCOTLAND, this is clearly stated in other articles, it has nothing to do with what it was known by AT THE TIME in languages WE ARE NOT SPEAKING/WRITING the article in.

Is this clearer to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - The capitals were meant to emphasize but it just comes across as aggressive/obnoxious, so I apologize for the tone there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a case to be made, by the way, that the entity that today is known as Scotland basically orginated with the confederation known by the Romans as Caledonians. Both Caledonians and Picts were confederations of tribes in the same general area, Caledonians to Picts again seems to merely be a gradual change in nomenclature, what sources in diverse languages evolve the names of these groups into over time.

This would be original research though and would never suggest rewriting articles based upon it, just food for thought though.

I don't know what your strange obsession with siphoning off sections of Scotland's history and fabricating the notion that these represent individual kingdoms/entities with arbitrary nomenclature changes in sources of varying languages is, but... it's clearly "shared by academics", for no explainable reason really, other than the one I have already given you, which doesn't really apply to the format of Wikipedia. So that's cool. Are multilingual political entities several different entities? Is Switzerland 4 different countries for example because it has different names in 3 different languages? There are far better examples which display the absurdity of your position when applied on a standard scale to countries as well.

Your position is very strange, and leads to massive problems if applied universally, so why apply it to Scotland. It just makes no sense to me, to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately I'm ambivalent about the Scotland/Alba issue. I have not contributed to the Kingdom of Alba article, but it didn't just pop into existence. It might be better to shift this discussion to there. A couple of thoughts though:

Alba was originally the Irish term for the island of Britain (Latinised form is Albion)
At some point the meaning of Alba changed to mean the northernmost part of Britain, i.e. Scotland north of the Forth. This is reflected in the shift from "Rex Pictorum" to "Ri Alban" in the king lists and probably signified a view of Pictland as Free Britain, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon/Norse dominated south.
The Chronicle of the Kings of Alba has this entry for Mael Coluim mac Domnaill (Malcolm I, Ri Alban, 943-954)

Mael Coluim son of Domnall reigned xi years. With his army he crossed into Moreb and slew Cellach. In the vii year of his reigh he plundered the English as far as the river Thesis and carried off many people and many droves of cattle, which raid the Scotti call the raid of Albidosi that is nainndisi.

There is a suggestion that Albidosi means "people of Albidia", which could either be a Brittonicisation of Alba or potentially the Picts' name for their own country.

There is the matter of Alba being in common use to mean the Gaelic kingdom of Scotland in the High Middle Ages, between the reign of Domnall mac Causantin (Donald II) 900 to Alexander III 1286. "Common use" in this case is largely limited to academia as it's not really a common topic of discussion... despite an interest in the subject I can count the number of discussions I've had in pubs about this subject on one hand and that is with other people who use "Alba" (other than a few conversations when the Kenneth Macalpine myth was brought up).

Anyway... let's move the discussion to the relevant place and see if we can get more of a discussion going. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As was stated above, Alba is just the Gaelic name for Scotland. Some historians like to use the term for the Scottish kingdom as a Gaelic kingdom (as opposed to the later medieval kingdom divided into Highlands and Lowlands), but yes indeed this is rather arbitrary. There is also a theory that Alba had been the Gaelic name for Pictland too, but that's not a consensus. Please don't put any weight on the existence of this article, it was created a long time ago simply to host excess content from the Scotland in the High Middle Ages article. It could just as easily be Kingdom of Scotland (900–1286 or the like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the period being discussed, Alba as a Gaelic name looks fair enough. Earlier, by c. 400, Avienus referred to Britain as insula Albionum, "island of the Albions", suggesting they were Brythonic or, as we might say, Welsh rather than Gaelic. See Britain (place name)#Written record . . . dave souza, talk 14:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, returning and new. Yeah it was just I see the Alba/Kingdom of Alba name appearing a lot in articles outside of this or this context, which is very confusing to people who aren't really aware of this. Articles like this are great and I think it's always a positive to talk about names and their origins and meanings at different times, but when we're referring to the kingdom in English articles, I think Scotland (from AT LEAST 900, the reign of Donald II, when it starts being called Alba at least in other sources)) should really be the standard, unless in an article like this where we're discussing this specific issue.

Those were my only real thoughts. Just getting some kind of consistent naming guidelines/principles for Scottish related articles as it can become a bit of a headache for people unfamiliar with Scottish history to hear all these overlapping and duplicate terms and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to apologise for the tone, I come across as ridiculously hostile and forceful at times with this, really was not my intent at all, sound quite obnoxious and condescending, and like a bit of an idiot. Thanks for copying all this to this page, Catfish. Let's just say I am passionate about it, impassioned, haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously don't worry about it... passion is good, and a little rare round these parts.

It used to be that Scottish history pre-1286 wasn't considered worthy of study as it was too difficult to separate fact from fiction. At least that was the opinion of William Robertson (historian). We've learnt a bit since then, but he had a point. I quite like the Alba thing because it gives a defined buffer zone between "reliable" history (in Robertson's terms) and the part of history that really interests me. But ultimately, there's no technical differentiation between Scotland and Alba/Albania (apart from the 2-0 win in the Nations League).

I would guard against trying to extend the concept of "Scotland" before the 10th century. There was certainly a merging of kingdoms in the "Pictish" period and to identify any one of those kingdoms as being synonymous with "Scotland" would be at the expense of others. Which is inaccurate. Fortriu was no more representative of modern Scotland than Circinn or Dalriada or for that matter Bernicia Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm happy with the cutoff point being from when Alba starts appearing in the king lists and other sources, so that's Constantine II (not Donald, sorry), right? Where does the 843 figure come from as the traditional founding date then, haha? I suppose because Kenneth was the first in that royal house to rule, makes a little sense I guess. So that would be 900 for Constantine II. I would never just start claiming we rewrite articles or whatever and push a narrative not agreed upon by academics, so the theory of Pictland basically just being Scotland will remain that for me, a theory, and not even one I'm sure I support with great certainty. I do think there's something to it though.

It's such a volatile time in the history, any number of factors could be the reasoning for the change in name from King of Picts to King of Alba. But yeah. It could honestly even be something as silly as the Picts adopting the convention of the kingdom being a land/entity as opposed to the people/group of tribes, as in the differences between King of Scots and King of Scotland. Picts could simply have been the people and Alba was simply what they called their land, obviously coming from the term for Great Britain initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes political expediency has been thought of as more important than historical accuracy. The Kenneth Macalpine myth dates to the 12th century, in a work composed under William the Lion, whose family were Gaels tracing their lineage to Dalriada. For some reason it was considered more attractive to present the history as one of conquest with the Gaels as victors. James Fraser talks about this phenomenon in his introduction to From Caledonia to Pictland. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see their thinking. "We invaded and colonised western Scotland as a fierce warrior race before conquering the Picts and eradicating them" is a lot catchier than "We were separated geographically from the rest of Scotland so slowly began to adopt the language, customs and religion of our major trading partners in Ireland, we slowly spread our culture into Pictish lands through latching our language and customs onto early Christianity as we missionised it in pre-Christian Pictish areas. Pictland eventually dominated us militarily and placed their own Pictish nobility on our throne, before eventually subsuming our kingdom entirely into their own realm while the rest was conquered by the Norse, but our process of cultural fusion was already well under way in Pictland and eventually won out over the older Pictish language, religion and traditions".

Haha, not sure why they wouldn't have conceived the origin myth as going in the opposite direction though, something like "We and our culture originated in western Scotland before spreading into Ireland, then spreading eastward to conquer and eradicate the Picts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a problem with confusing names. Not least that the modern geographical area of Scotland wasn't always the same as the Kingdom of Scotland or indeed the Kingdom of the King of the Scots. The Isles, Galloway and Lothian for example were not part of the early 'Scot-land'. Nor were the inhabitants of these other territories Scots. Lothian for example was earlier the northern half of the English Kingdom of Northumbria. The south west by contrast was home to the Welsh or Old British. Thus it becomes very tricky to write of 'Scotland' or 'The Scots' in historical terms without being very specific about exactly what one means. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.32.101 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty simple solution is Scotland/Scots corresponds to the modern geographical area of Scotland and kingdoms/peoples centered there are the time, just in the same way people refer to the various kingdoms of Ireland as Irish/Ireland despite the concept of a united Ireland being hundreds of years away. Ireland is a geographic area, as is Scotland.

What we absolutely need to stop doing is referring to Dal Riatans exclusively as Scots. I see it all the time here on pages on Wikipedia where Scot is used interchangeably with Dal Riatians/Gaels. Dal Riatans/Gaels is a far more concise and accurate term for them. Scotland/Scots today means what it does in the language we're speaking, like it or not, so it is appropriate to call Pictland, Dal Riata, Strathclyde all Scottish kingdoms as they were all centered in this modern recognized geographic area. With the Anglic areas, since the Kingdom of Northumbria was not centered in Scotland, but rather Bamburgh and York, it would be inappropriate to refer to this as a Scottish kingdom.

These historical kingdoms that were centered in the geographic area of Scotland are either all Scottish or none of them are. As it stands Pictland would, naturally, have the strongest claim to sole use of the Scottish term (if we were going to single out one geopolitical entity from the time/area) considering that effectively is the geopolitical entity which gradually became known as Scotland in other languages. The entity did not change, all that changed is what people outside of the kingdom called it in languages not even spoken in that kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.221.1 (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant in the Room in the history of the Kingdom of Alba is the Norman Conquest. Few writers give it any emphasis. Some ignore it altogether. Some report that the Normans were simply 'invited' into Scotland by King David. Perhaps it just doesn't fit the preferred national narrative. But just read the Wiki pages on the life and times of David I and one can see that the 'Davidian Revolution' was far more than just about a new feudal system or establishing new towns. It was a literal revolution in which the imperial-minded Gaelic Kingdom of Alba or Scot-land simply ended. Only the name of the kingdom persisted in what was really a new kingdom, an Anglo-Norman Lowland kingdom, a second England, with northern Gaelic provinces, rather than a Gaelic Highland kingdom with southern Anglic provinces. The Davidian Revolution was a complete and total inversion of the previous order. A real Norman Conquest, and moreover one in which any suggestion of political or national continuity presents a seriously misleading picture. Cassandra.

lede paragraph[edit]

I'm having trouble following the sentence that begins "The name is one of convenience...." This could be because I'm a doofus. But it would be swell if someone well-versed in the topic would review it, just in case it is in need of an edit. PurpleChez (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]