Talk:Scotland in the early Middle Ages

Recent work
A lot of work is going into this article, but much of it will be wasted if James E. Fraser (historian)'s recent highly praised work is [largely] ignored, as is currently. Also, there is no correspondence just now between the reference section and the notes section. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then, can we call it a good pass, with improvement to follow? This article has languished for a very long time, and we now have something of value on which to base improvements (including material using From C to P). Any of the rest of us with the requisite interest might have spent the time and energy to get things going, but we didn't, so now we have a basis from which to iterate to an optimal solution, thanks to Sabrebd. There is some correspondence between notes and references, though it might be enhanced and formatted differently (or not). And it looks like the map recently tagged "dubious" is based on McNeil and MacQueen, p62 (though they say 'Britons' where the map says 'Strathclyde'). And a ps&mdash;nice to be in contact again, Deacon. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to make a positive effort here, following guidelines and assuming good faith, but I clearly it both here and elsewhere it has been insufficient to meet the standards necessary, so I have restored the previous uncontroversial and largely untagged version. Perhaps in another four or five years someone else will make take on the dubious task of trying to improve this area on Wikipedia and if so I wish them luck.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Notuncurious ... indeedie! Re Britons, Strathclyde is a kingdom only attested post-Vikings, and refers to the Strath of the river Clyde, it has nothing to do with this era. Also, as Alt Clut its centre should be Lennox, not Glenken [where it is lightest]. There's nothing connect either Alt Clut or Strathclyde to Galloway; the map also gives too little territory to Dal Riata at its peak, but is within the realm of argument I guess. The p. 62 map does not have Britons splashed across Galloway anyway, but over the Clyde and the head of the Annan. @ Sabre, don't be so sensitive. Your efforts are appreciated. Editorial review is just editorial review, and is part and parcel of editing Wikipedia. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity
The lead seems to suggest that so-called "Celtic Christianity" and the Roman Catholic Church were two distinct entities. See the discussion in the article "Celtic Christianity" ..."As Patrick Wormald explained, “One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed.” Celtic-speaking areas were part of Latin Christendom as a whole at a time in which there was significant regional variation of liturgy and structure with a general collective veneration of the Bishop of Rome that was no less intense in Celtic areas." Mannanan51 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)mannanan51


 * The lead doesn't mention Celtic Christianity, but the Celtic Tradition. As the opening of the Celtic Christianity article indicates, some have seen this as a seperate church and some as distinct practices. This article probably isnt the place for a long discussion of the historiographical issues, but neutral language should get us around the problem. Accordingly, I will change the one reference to a Celtic church that I can find, as this (I think) implies a seperate organisation.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Law
Would it be possible to draft a short, separate introductory section on what academics have written on the legal system(s) during this period? --Mais oui! (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We definitely should have such a section if it is possible, given the importance of the topic, but it is extremely difficult area, mainly due to the almost total lack of contemporary sources. I will go back and see what I can put together unless someone steps forward with greater expertise.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 08:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not going as well as I hoped (so far I have about one sentence), but I am still working on it. It might be a long term project unless someone else can help.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Irish legal texts for this era make up one of the biggest bulks of vernacular source material in Europe for this era. Sadly Scottish legal texts are non-existent. So far as day-to-day "legal" systems existed, the two regions probably wouldn't have differed very much, so maybe there is some room for some speculative/comparative intro (certainly some of the main concepts in early Irish society are well documented in later medieval Scottish society). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Scotland and Not England
I find much of this anachronistic since 'caledionia' wasn't then todays Scotland, nor did todays England exist. In very simplistic terms 'Scotland' was originally the land of the Scots, whilst the Kingdom of Scotland eventually included one of the'lands of the English'. In simple terms the Scots Gaelic folk were highlanders, whilst the 'English' lowlanders also became part of the 'Kingdon of Scotland'. The consequece seems to be that in the long term, despite the name being 'Scotland' the kingdom actually became a dominantly Anglo-saxon English speaking kingdom.
 * Caledonia is also anachronistic in this period and to be accurate includes everything north of Hadrian's Wall. There was one instance of the use of Anglo-Scottish border that may have been a bit confusing, but that is (I believe) clear now. It would be very cumbersome to say "the area now known as Scotland" every time, but it pretty much appears like that at the start of each section. I think the location is clear from the lead and context of each section.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Caledonia probably isn't anachronistic, but wouldn't have the meaning anyone uses it for now (probably a good term for the area around Dunkeld c. 400). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, its the modern meaning that would not fit, since there was a different meaning in this period.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Racial discrimination?
I'm sure its not intentional, but isn't describing the Angles as 'Germanic invaders', but not the Scots, unconscious racial discrimination? Were not the Gaelic-speaking Scots in fact equally invaders, 'Irish invaders'? I do find that in most of the Wiki pages concerning Scotland and its history there is a something of a common thread: the implicit denial and avoidance of acknowledging the country's very real (and it seems to me, mainly) ethnic, linguistic and cultural Anglo-saxon heritage. Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.72 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not racist and just makes clear their relatively recent arrival at this point and where they came from. Please be careful before making serious accusations like racism on Wikipedia or in expressing conspiracy theories for that matter.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 10:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Northumbria
I'm not sure that it is true to say "In 867 the Vikings seized Northumbria, forming the Kingdom of York"

As I understand it the Vikings seized only the southern half of that English Kingdom. The northern half became thereafter the Kingdom of Lothian, subsequently becoming part of the Kingdom of the Scots. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. I will try to find a reliable source and fix it.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silver probably problematic
Certainly there are hoards of hacksilver, and raids or diplomatic gifts / "protection" payments are probably some sources. But why was it not even considered that Scotland also has its own sources of silver? Loch Lomondside was anciently mined (surface remains are visible) and still has enough silver for more mining to be considered feasible. There were also very old lead mines (thought to be Roman) along with recovery of some other metals, in the southern uplands around Leadhills (hence the placename). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.178 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2.1 The Picts
Given that the relevant Wikipedia page prefers Alex Woolf's Dunnachton over the more traditional Dunnichen as the site of the battle in 685 it is incompetent to assert the Angus site with no caveat. Freuchie (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Rainfall
The section headed Physical Geography includes the sentence: Its east Atlantic position means that it has very heavy rainfall: today about 700 cm (276 in) per year in the east and over 1,000 cm (394 in) in the west. It's not clear where these figures come from but they are nonsense. The article on Fort William, one of the wettest places in Scotland, includes average rainfall data; it gives average annual rainfall for that location of 1883mm (74.1 inches). And yet this section is suggesting that rainfall in the west of Scotland is more than five times greater than that experienced in Fort William, one of its wettest locations. I'm guessing (but can't be certain) that centimetres have been confused with millimetres somewhere along the line and will remove the second half of the offending sentence, especially as it is unreferenced.Freewheeling frankie (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)