View Full Version : Picts and Scots, whats the difference?
Brother Derfel
01-10-2003, 00:34
Having always believed them to be one and the same, i did some searching round the net for some info on the picts and found this from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~merrie/Arthur/Picts.html :
The Picts
Information on the Picts, the "barbarians" who so often ravaged the Britons from the north, is somewhat scarce. The only text left to us by the Picts is their king-list, which gives the names and the lengths of the reigns of 60 or more Pictish kings. The list ends with Causantin mac Cinaeda, who died in 876. Thereafter, this record of the Picts was no longer used. The only other written source from around the Arthurian era is Adomnan's Life of Columba. Archaeological evidence for their lifestyles is also scarce.
The domain of the Picts was what we consider today to be Scotland. The terms "Picts" and "Pictland" were used in speaking of the inhabitants and the area up until 900, when the country began to be called "Alba."
The Picts had a warrior society, "and warlords needed strongholds. When Columba visited the Pictish king, Bridei, son of Maelchon, in 565, he went to one of the royal fortresses; it was 'near the river Ness' and the most widely accepted identification is Castle Urguhart on Loch Ness... where the medieval castle overlies earlier occupation..." (Nicoll 23) Several Pictish forts have been excavated, revealing that the warlords lived in style, wearing great silver chains and beautiful jewelry. A Pict's life was not altogether different than that of his southern Celtic neighbors; they all spoke a very similar language, as the Pictish language is convincingly argued to have been P-Celtic or Brittonic.
Some archaeological information comes from uncovered Pictish hoards (prior to safe-deposit boxes and banks, a method used to protect valuales was to bury them; inevitably, some remained unclaimed). Brooches and dress-pins have survived from these hoards. The absence of grave-goods, indicating that the Picts did not think much of the practice of burying valuables with the dead, "presumably has implications for their pagan concept of death" (Nicoll 25).
Small painted stones used as charms, distinctively Pictish, have also been found.
This article seems to back up my belief that they were the same. However then I thought about it harder and I seem to remember something about the scots originaly coming from Ireland and pushing the picts out, or something like that.
Can anyone help me on this?
Brother Derfel
01-10-2003, 00:40
Doh
As usual a little more searching has answered my own question.
Go here for an excellent history of the two tribes:
http://www.fifeweb.net/durieweb/picts.htm
It turns out I was correct in that the scots were from ireland and originaly known as the scotti. It seems that they eventualy drove the Picts out.
Anyway the info is there for anybody else who was stuck on this point.
1master1wakibiki
01-10-2003, 01:18
It was quite obvious the difference - ones had blue faces while the others had not...
Theodoret
01-10-2003, 01:28
At one point 'Scotland' was part owned by the Scots, part owned by the Angles of Northumbria (who had a fortress at Edinburgh which means 'Edwin's Fortress' ), part owned by the Picts and part owned by the Strathclyde Welsh (the Glaswegians are Welsh in origin, not Scottish, as many East coast Scots are quick to point out). The Scots gained supremacy by engaging in a healthy bit of divide and conquer politics. For a time it looked like the Angles were set to be rulers of Caledonia, they had conquered everything except a small portion of the Highlands, but the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria went into self-destruct mode as the nobility engaged in all sorts of Byzantine intrigue. The Strathclyde Welsh were conquered by the Scots and the rest is history. BTW Macbeth was of Pictish origin, that is probably why he is so vilified in Shakespeare's play which was written for James I whose ancestor had usurped Macbeth.
Hosakawa Tito
01-10-2003, 01:45
Good research Brother Derfel. I too was curious about this origin of Picts and Scots, thanks for the article. Imagine the Irish and Scots being so closely related http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif who'd a thunk it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif And while they were busy fighting amongst themselves the English snuck right up on them, using their tribal feuds to eventually split and conquer them. Sounds like one of my family reunions, don't forget your complimentary boxing gloves at the door. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
solypsist
01-10-2003, 02:21
please remember the MH is for game discussions. Moved to the Monastery.
Knight_Yellow
01-10-2003, 02:47
Dammit solly leave things where they r for christ sake.
any way ive been wondering this too i thought the scotti where actualy the scotts and the picts where the original guys.
so in basic terms i get to play the scottish and the picts so in essance there r 2 scottish factions. woohoo.
god bless trainspotting its inspired an american university to pay scottish ppl to go to america and get this Give the students verbal abuse lol. so that hopefully all the students will pick up scottish accents hahaha
imajin Bush wae a scottish accent
"awright fannybaws this birds been glessed and nae cunt's leavin till we find oot who dunnit"
*grabs belly and rolls about uncontrably*
now that would be funny
i wrote up a bit on this in the Viking invasion threa in the EH, breifly explains all this, go figure
Cardinal
01-10-2003, 06:48
I read years back, and don't ask me where, that like mentioned, that the Picts inhabited NE Scotland when the Scots came over from Ireland and settled on the west coast. Although the Picts outnumbered the Scots, they (or so I am told) inherited through the female line, so one strategic marriage between a Pict princess and a Scottish prince, an the Picts where wiped off the map as a nation.
Longshanks
02-08-2003, 12:10
Many of the Pictish tribes, unlike the Scots...may not have been Celtic. There is some evidence that they have been remnants of the original peoples who populated Europe before the Indo-Europeans migrated westward.(Celts, Mediterraneans, Germanic peoples ect.)
Longshanks, I heard that too. The picts might of been remants that were pushed into the hills like gaelic tribes later were pushed by the germanics. The Celts came to the Isles as a warrior aristocracy around 4-500 bce. They took over but didn't wipe out the original inhabitants. Cu Chulainn the Irish mythological hero was small and dark, not your stereotypical Celt.
I read somewhere that they did a DNA test on some 6,000 year old bones found in a cave in the south of england. His direct descendent was found in a nearby modern village. Things change. Things remain the same.
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-08-2003, 21:02
Now thats cool. I would laugh if the family from 6,000 years before had never moved. That would be amazing, but also quite lame.
Imagine never moving from your own village. Naturally back then it was the thing to do - stay in your own village - but now, with modern practices this is becoming less and less common.
Thanx for the info guys, being of Scottish origin, I wonder if i'm pictish or Irish. Or neither, 6'3" blonde hair and blue eyes. Flippin' heck im a VIKING
Longshanks
02-08-2003, 22:32
Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 08 2003,14:02)]Thanx for the info guys, being of Scottish origin, I wonder if i'm pictish or Irish. Or neither, 6'3" blonde hair and blue eyes. Flippin' heck im a VIKING
Well technically you wouldn't be Irish. The Scotti weren't the only ethnic group in ancient Ireland...there were also the Hiberni and the Brigantes.(The Brigantes also lived in England,in the Roman province)
The Romans called Ireland either Hibernia or Scotia depending on the source, as they were the two largest groups in Ireland.
The modern day Scots would for the most part a mixture Pictish and Scotti, perhaps in some cases with a bit of Anglo-Saxon, or Viking thrown in.
The modern day Irish for the most part would be a mixture of Hiberni and Brigante, perhaps inw some cases Anglo-Saxon, Norman or Viking thrown in.
Gallowglass
02-09-2003, 23:18
Most Scots today are a mixture of different peoples. We are principally a mix of Celts (The Scots, Picts and Britons/Welsh) and Scandinavians (Angles, Norwegians, Danes). Also we can't forget the Normans, Bretons and Flemings. Many of them settled here.
We are basically a mongrel nation.
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-09-2003, 23:43
mongrel nation, and still the best http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Longshanks
02-11-2003, 08:59
All of the ethnic groups in Western and Central Europe are mongrels, with the possible exception of the Basque.
One more reason why the Nazi's theories on racial purity and racial superiority were a bunch of nonsense.
Knight_Yellow
02-11-2003, 10:40
i think im french sumwhere down the line how bloody sad is that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
joke http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif dont take it seriously froggies
Teutonic Knight
02-11-2003, 18:28
hahaha I love Scots http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Gallowglass
02-13-2003, 23:08
Longshanks
Funny that you mentioned the Basques. Do you know that the Basques, Scots, Irish and Corsicans all have very high incidences of 'O' Level blood groups among their populations. There was a theory I read a while ago that had the idea that all these peoples must have a had a common heritage in the far distant past. Funny if it is true.
P.S. Toda Nebuchadnezzar, you are right that we are best. At drinking anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
JANOSIK007
02-22-2003, 04:15
Quote[/b] (Theodoret @ Jan. 09 2003,18:28)]At one point 'Scotland' was part owned by the Scots, part owned by the Angles of Northumbria (who had a fortress at Edinburgh which means 'Edwin's Fortress' ), part owned by the Picts and part owned by the Strathclyde Welsh (the Glaswegians are Welsh in origin, not Scottish, as many East coast Scots are quick to point out). The Scots gained supremacy by engaging in a healthy bit of divide and conquer politics. For a time it looked like the Angles were set to be rulers of Caledonia, they had conquered everything except a small portion of the Highlands, but the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria went into self-destruct mode as the nobility engaged in all sorts of Byzantine intrigue. The Strathclyde Welsh were conquered by the Scots and the rest is history. BTW Macbeth was of Pictish origin, that is probably why he is so vilified in Shakespeare's play which was written for James I whose ancestor had usurped Macbeth.
About Macbeth: James' ancestor, Banquo, was in reality Macbeth's ally and helped him kill Duncan.
Shakespeare just made Banquo into a hero to appeal to James I. He also included lots about witchcraft for the same reason. James I was a self-proclaimed witchcraft expert. He's also wrote a book about it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.