Scottish or British? Conflict or Harmony?

The peoples of Britain have a somewhat unique situation among other European countries in that while we all share the same landmass, language and government, our island is composed of three distinct nations; namely, Scotland, England and Wales. This state of affairs is something which doesn’t sit comfortably for the concept of the nation-state, as you have multiple, competing identities among the folk that are native to the island. Each of these nations have their own history and ethnic origins, which despite being unique in their own right, have constantly been aware of and interacted with each other. While the Scots have a history of Brittonic (including Pictish), Gaelic and Germanic cultures (namely, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Flemish), it is the last that is dominant, while our Gaelic heritage and close ties with Ireland are what make us distinct from England and Wales. England and Wales are less confused in terms of ethnic identity; while the English have a Brittonic prehistory, their ethnic identity is firmly based in Anglo-Saxon culture, which was established after the Roman conquest (who, along with the Normans, had their own imperialist, elite culture that was apart from that of the common folk) and whose tongue forms the basis of both the English and Scots languages. Wales defines itself by its Brittonic homogeneity, although linguistically and culturally they have been heavily influenced by England. For the Welsh, their Brittonic culture and language, which was once dominant across the whole of Britain, is a source of pride.

From this brief summary of our peoples’ ethnography, we can see that the situation is complex and takes many things into account, which is a problem especially for modern politics. While the idea of being both British and Scottish, English or Welsh has not been an issue for previous generations, politicians have discovered that they can use such issues to polarize the public and vie for political power. Nationalism is a funny thing in Scotland; while British nationalists that prefer to see themselves as part of a united island (along with our old imperial hegemony) are associated mainly with the ‘right-wing’, so called ‘Scottish nationalists’ are politically dominated by the Neo-Marxist Scottish National Party (SNP) and Scottish Green Party. The latter position tends to be characterized by a heavily watered-down civic nationalism, which is shared by the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Scottish Conservatives and UKIP. The main source of conflict created by such machinations are that those who lean ‘left’ or ‘right’ will let such partisan ideologies shape their preferred form of nationalism. Therefore, those who have Marxist tendencies and wish to break apart existing structures will generally side with parties that promote regional nationalism based on our more local identity, while those who support the old establishment will prefer to emphasize the similarities between the British peoples rather than their differences. The irony, especially for the former, is that all of these forms of civic nationalism are to varying degrees pro-EU, multiculturalist and not based in ethnic or racial similarities. Therefore, we have a situation where folk are forced to decide between two political structures that denigrate our genetic and cultural heritage in favour of globalism, while pretending that they act in our best interests.

This is especially true at the moment, where we have a party known to be ‘nationalists’ (the SNP) in power locally, who seek to define Scottish identity within a globalist framework, preferably as a small and irrelevant nation within the EU (though there is significant division on this issue within the party, as it is mainly the leadership that promotes this particular agenda). The other side offers no solutions, as UKIP and the Conservatives mainly appeal to English or Welsh voters and don’t really see Scotland as an equal to England in this regard. Thus, there is significant alienation in our country, possibly even more so than in England or Wales, whose own forms of regional nationalism are not as polarized as in Scotland (although Plaid Cymru in Wales are similar to the SNP ideologically, they face stronger competition from the other parties and are much less powerful than the SNP in Scotland, who maintain a slight hegemony in our parliament). There are National Socialists in Scotland, though they form a tiny minority and are irrelevant politically as well as a hindrance to the promotion of Folkish Tribalism through their touting of an outdated and unappealing political ideology, groups such as National Action and the British Movement.

What then is the solution for those of us who have grown sick and tired of this constant conflict concerning whether we should see ourselves as an individual people or as part of a wider collective within our island? It seems apparent that we will simply have to accept the dualistic nature of our folk with regards to who we are as a people. That the Scottish folk are their own is something which cannot be ignored for the sake of promoting unity, and we have always done things differently from the English and Welsh. For this reason, it is at least symbolically positive that we have our own parliament (hideous and pernicious as it is) and our own laws are somewhat different from our neighbours. However, to see ourselves as equivalent to a nation-state in its own right such as those on the continent is simply false. It is not so much that we are too small a country, there are many countries within Europe which are tiny compared to us, if not in size but in population (think of the fact that Scotland has a population higher than that of much larger Norway), but that we cannot realistically act outside of our place within Britain. There was a time during the Stewart era when Scotland looked to the rest of Europe rather than within the British Isles, but such periods are short-lived and resist the strong bonds that tie us to our fellow islanders. England is not our superior, but she is our nation’s sister, who we can rely on to recognise our shared interests. Aside from the contemptuous among the English who see us as a lesser folk, this is mainly restricted to the elites, who are themselves detached from other English people. Most of us in both countries would rather not see the other conquered or destroyed, despite our mutual conflicts in the past. We are not living at the end of the 13th Century, England is not attempting to annex us, we are both occupied by hostile forces that seek to enslave all peoples, and to destroy Europeans.

For guidance we can look to the Brittonic tradition and the Iron Age political structure of Britain. Our island was split between Cymru, Lloegyr and Alban, which correspond nowadays to Wales, England and Scotland (although back then Cymru was the largest of the three). In those days, these nations were distinct from each other, but united under one king and spoke the same language, which in those times was Common Brittonic. Nowadays, England is the largest and most influential of the three, and it is English that is the common tongue across the island, although we have our own native minority languages in the form of Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish. We are three peoples with a shared land, we must work together but on our own terms as distinct peoples in order to unite against our common enemies. The British monarchy is one example of a symbol of our unity that has become corrupt and decrepit, a ‘royal’ bloodline descending from Germans should not be seen as something which helps us to define our shared identity. The land, its peoples and our history is what we share and what we can look to for inspiration. In this way it must be remembered that ‘Britain’ or ‘the British Isles’ (which includes the Northern and Western Isles of Scotland, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight) is distinct from ‘the United Kingdom’, which is purely a political entity and is purposely confused with British identity for political reasons. In this instance, somewhere like Northern Ireland is included, even though they have their own political and cultural history and have a separate destiny from the rest of Britain, as it is in Ireland rather than Britain.

It is not enough to define ourselves under whichever authority is attempting to subjugate us, whether it is the ‘British’ establishment or false nationalists working on behalf of the EU, as our identity is not held within a passport or within a specific jurisdiction, but within our blood and memory. We are three peoples and one land, if that seems contradictory to you then this simply means that you do not understand our culture, even if you are from here. Whether I am Scottish or British matters mainly depending on the situation. When thinking about managing local affairs and creating laws, this can only be done within the context of Scotland, but with regards to trade, war and mutual interest with England and Wales, it is Britain that takes priority. We should be free to unite in times of war and then to divide in times of peace. I suppose it would make more sense to emphasize our shared identity right now as we are very clearly at war, even if many of us are unaware of it. England and Wales are in many ways in a more dire situation than Scotland, although if we are not careful and remain complacent, we may end up in an even worse state due to a lack of awareness with regards to the danger that threatens all of the peoples of Europe. Though Scotland has never been conquered before, this does not mean that it is not a possibility, and we must make sure that England is not conquered again. Their struggle is our struggle, what affects them affects us and Wales too. We have had enough Brother Wars throughout history, we do not need more.

Wulf Willelmson

An ethnohraphic history of Scotland, Part III: Highlander and Lowlander

Within the endless romanticism of Scotland’s past, the conflict between the Gaelic Highlanders, representing ancient traditions, pastoralism and a ‘noble savage’ mythos; and the Germanic Lowlanders, representing the ruthless expansion of modern ideals from the towns and cities of Scotland into her countryside, has been a recurring theme. While these notions are based on historical reality, the idea that the ways of the Highlanders (as portrayed by the modern tourist industry and false nationalists) represent authentic Scottish culture, while the Lowlanders embody an invasive imitation of English culture (or, at the very least, is largely ignored in romanticism) is as absurd as it is false. Much of the animosity surrounding the Jacobite Wars and the later Highland Clearances has more to do with the increasing domination of British state authority on all the peoples of our island than on the desire for Germanic Lowland culture to become dominant (though, realistically, this has become the case). They both represent two sides of our overall culture that are suited to folk in different parts of the country.

At the dawn of the 12th Century, this division did not exist; at this time, Brittonic culture had been extinguished in Scotland with the annexing of Strathclyde and Gaelic was the predominant language spoken in Scotland (with the exceptions of the Borders and the Northern Isles). This began to change with the reforms of David I, whose establishment of the burghs and invitations to entrepreneurs (mainly from Flanders) to settle them marked the beginning of what would become Lowland culture. This process had already begun beforehand, as English refugees fleeing the Norman invasion settled mostly in Southern Scotland and had influenced the local culture since the 11th Century. While throughout the Wars of Independence from England, the Middle English (French influenced) tongue was restricted mainly to the South-East and the areas surrounding the burghs, there was a definite preference for this language among the Scottish nobles (as well as, of course, French).

It is at this point that I wish to clear up a misconception about one of our national heroes from the Wars of Independence: William Wallace. Though sometimes portrayed as a son of the Highlands, he was from Strathclyde, a place geographically part of the Lowlands. As a member of the nobility, he was taught how to read French and Latin, but probably conversed in English on a day-to-day basis. His comrade, Andrew Moray, was also a nobleman (of a higher rank than Wallace) and would have also been immersed in the culture of the burghs. Yet many of the common soldiers and clansmen that fought for Scotland’s freedom were Gaels, as they all fought against the tyranny of Edward the Hammer of Scots, despite their linguistic differences. Though Robert the Bruce was of a French-speaking Norman family, as King of Scots he would also needed to have been able to read Latin, and probably also knew at least some Gaelic (which would have been handy during his campaigns in Ireland). This began to change, however, in the Late Middle Ages. As the Norman influence began to wane among the nobility, both the nobles and the common folk in the South-East, the Central Belt and the North-East coast adopted English almost exclusively. Conversely, the inhabitants of the rest of the kingdom would have spoken Gaelic on a daily basis.

This linguistic separation continued right through the 15th Century, as the Scottish form of English diverged from that spoken in England. This language came to be known as ‘Scots’ (known to Scots speakers as ‘Lallans’) and its distinct literature became a feature of Scottish culture during the reign of the Stewart dynasty in the 15th and 16th Centuries. In this period, Scots and English became mutually unintelligible; as English underwent significant changes, Scots retained more features of Middle English and displayed considerably more influence from Norse and Latin. Scots wasn’t the only new language to have emerged in Scotland during the Middle Ages. The variety of Norse spoken in the Northern Isles was known as ‘Norn’ and was distinct from Norwegian. However, with the granting of sovereignty over Orkney and Shetland to Scotland by the King of Scandinavia, Eric of Pomerania (who, apparently, needed the money), Norn came to be replaced by Scots, though it was not extinct until the 19th Century.

Gradually, throughout the Early Modern Period, Lowland culture expanded in Southern and Eastern Scotland and Scots became the language of the folk in the hills and on the plans, while Gaelic was retained by those in the mountainous regions (with the exception of Galloway), creating the Highland/Lowland dichotomy we know today. While at the beginning of the Stewart’s reign, the whole of Scotland was Catholic, this was to change in the 16th Century during the reign of the first (and, arguably, last) Scottish queen: Mary Queen of Scots. Though she herself was a Catholic raised in France, many folk in Scotland became disillusioned with the corruption and dominance of the Catholic Church and sought to emulate those in England and elsewhere in Europe who had challenged its power and established Protestant churches. Protestantism appealed more to the Lowlanders, whose lives in the burghs and more densely populated communities felt the need for change, as many could not reconcile the poverty among their folk with the power of the fabulously wealthy Catholic Church. The Highlanders, on the other hand, saw less need for reform as their own pastoral traditions had continued from heathen times and the issues surrounding wealth distribution had less impact on their largely tribal way of life.

The Protestant Reformation in Scotland was spearheaded by a fiery preacher named John Knox, who preached a deterministic Protestant doctrine known as ‘Calvinism’, which maintained that only those chosen by God can attain ‘Salvation’ and that God is the supreme authority. Calvinism also made allowances for usury, which facilitated the beginning of banking and capitalism in Scotland, and so was favoured by the merchant class. Eventually, he and his followers persuaded many Lowlanders with his teachings and an orgy of destruction of all that was ‘popish’ ensued, resulting in a loss of literature and damage of architecture not seen since Edward’s invasion. The Church of Scotland was reformed with English support, and the new doctrine was known as ‘Presbyterianism’, which came to distinguish the Lowlanders from the still largely Catholic Highlanders, whom this cultural revolution did not affect. Now a sectarian divide reinforced the linguistic and cultural differences between the Highlanders and Lowlanders, and relations between the two deteriorated over time.

With the ascendancy of James VI of Scotland (who was our first Protestant king) to the English throne to form the United Kingdom, the 17th Century marked the beginning of the end of Gaelic Highland culture. By now, the Lowlanders referred to the Highlanders as ‘Erse’ (‘Irish’), while the Highlanders used the term ‘Sassenach’ (‘Saxon’) to describe the Lowlanders. This reflected the mutual animosity between the two and their desire to cast the other as foreign and not ‘true Scots’. This situation wasn’t helped by the fact that James VI settled Presbyterian Lowlanders in Northern Ireland to ‘de-Gaelify’ Ulster, introducing Lowland culture there and setting the stage for future sectarian troubles.With the outbreak of the civil war in Britain and Ireland in 1642, most Highlanders rallied behind the king, while many Lowlanders considered themselves ‘Covenanters’ and resented Charles I’s attempts to impose Anglican liturgy on their Presbyterian services. Despite the fact that Cromwell’s victorious regime was overthrown and Charles II restored as king, this was not the end of the struggle.

His successor, James VII, was an open Catholic, which proved to be enough reason for the English parliament to force him to abdicate in favour of the bankers’ choice, William of Orange from Holland (who was married to James’ sister, Mary II). The ensuing struggle came to be known as the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 by Protestants and continues to represent the bitter hatred between Catholics and Protestants over the next few centuries. The men that supported James VII came to be known as ‘Jacobites’ (after the Latin ‘Jacobus’ for ‘James’) and became synonymous with the Highlanders, despite the fact that this was a political rather than cultural affiliation. The Jacobites were successful at first, routing their enemies at the Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689. However, their subsequent defeats at the Haughs of Cromdale in Scotland and the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland (both in 1690) saw the end of the revolution and victory for William.

The following uprisings occurred several times in the early 18th Century in response to a new monarchy beginning with George I of Hanover. The ‘Hanoverians’ represented the dominance of a degenerated Germanic culture characterized by capitalism and secularism, which was encroaching on peoples all over Northern Europe and other parts of the world. The most notable Jacobite uprising was that of the ‘Young Pretender’, Bonnie Prince Charlie, in 1745, as this time they were more successful and briefly managed to gain control of Scotland. Unfortunately, the Jacobite army was unsuccessful in taking England and they were driven back to the Highlands, where they were defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Bonnie Prince Charlie fled to France, and the retribution against the Highlanders was that their clan system was dismantled and their way of life degraded.

Many clan chieftains were replaced and the system of landownership was reorganized so as to make the chieftain the landowner rather than the clan using the land communally. This eventually resulted in what became known as the ‘Highland Clearances’, a painful memory for our folk as much of Highland culture was destroyed following the displacement of folk from their ancestral lands that were now tenants rather than clansmen in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. This happened because the traditional practice of cattle droving was unprofitable and the lairds struggled to receive enough rent from their tenants. An available alternative was to invest in the wool industry by replacing cattle droving with sheep farming. However, because sheep farmers were of a different occupation than the cattle drovers, they had to be imported from other parts of Scotland, so many of the previous tenants were evicted and had to move either to other parts of Scotland, or to British colonies like Canada or New Zealand. A similar process also occurred in the Lowlands, however, this mainly had to do with land reorganization, so most of the affected simply moved into the cities or other parts of the Lowlands, and so many Lowland communities remained intact. Highland society, on the other hand, was drastically altered (along with the Highland environment, which has been largely made barren by extensive sheep farming) and English replaced Gaelic all over the Highlands with the introduction of standardized education. Again, the same thing happened in the Lowlands, but with less vigour and likely with less ethnic hostility involved.

What was it that made the Highland and Lowland cultures seem to incompatible over the last few centuries? The answer has to do with long-standing cultural differences between the Celtic and Germanic peoples in addition to the division and strife that has characterized the most recent phase of Kali Yuga. In my last post, I described some of the differences between Celtic and Germanic culture, and these differences still applied in this period. Cattle-raiding was not a feature of Germanic culture, a fact which became bothersome to Lowland cattle-farmers who saw the Highlanders cattle-rustling as mere thievery, rather than a time-honoured tradition of proving their manhood and leadership capabilities to their folk. There were also noticeable differences in fashion; for example, trousers were ubiquitous to all of the Germanic peoples and remain a feature of their culture even in modern times.

In contrast, the Celtic peoples (beginning in the Dark Ages) saw trousers as the mark of a peasant and so most Highlanders went bare-legged in accordance with this custom. It is from their cloak and knee-length tunic combination without trousers that the modern kilt derives. The weaving of ‘tartan’ was not exclusive to the Highlands, but it was certainly the norm there, in contrast to the Lowlands where clothes were more likely to be of one colour. Unlike in modern times, a particular tartan was the mark of a local weaver rather than a particular clan and did not have this significance as it does today. Highland culture was also exclusively rural and pastoral, while Lowlanders could be found in urban or rural places. This led to the perception of the Gaelic Highlanders as ‘country bumpkins’, whole uncivilized lifestyles conflicted with those of folk in Lowland Scotland and England.

The organization of each society also differed; whereas Highland society retained the tribal bond between kinsmen as the basic structure of a clan, the Lowlands were centred on the burghs, which acted as redistribution centres for the surrounding countryside and worked on a financial rather than familial model. However, despite these differences, one area where they shared many similarities (especially towards the end of this era) was warfare. Despite the fact that most of the king’s army was drawn up from Lowland knights and commoners, while the Gaelic clansmen were used more like mercenaries, their weapons and tactics in battle were very similar. Both consisted of elite, armoured skirmisher cavalry supported by lightly or unarmoured infantry (though the Highlanders were less likely to be armoured) consisting of spearmen and archers. During the Wars of Independence, the ‘schiltron’ came into use, a tactic where pikemen were arranged in an oval formation similar to a phalanx. This tactic was used unsuccessfully as a defensive formation by William Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, only to be successfully utilized by Robert the Bruce to push the offensive at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.

From this point on, Medieval European warfare came to be dominated by infantry, as innovation in creating new types of pole-arms resulted in a wider range of weapons that could be used against cavalry (including glaives, bill-hooks and war axes) in addition to pikes. In the Late Middle Ages, this necessitated the use of larger swords that could only be wielded with two hands, which paved the way for the creation of the weapon that signifies the Highland warrior: the claymore. ‘Claidheamh-Mor’ means ‘great sword’ and, despite its unique association with the Highlands, ‘great swords’ could be found all over Europe, even the Lowlanders had their own design. However, the style of the claymore was exclusive to the Highlanders, who were famed for their skills with the sword, which has come to represent strength and masculinity.

As firearms came to dominate the battlefield, armour became gradually obsolete, as it was more useful to be mobile than heavily protected in an age of long-range combat. The Highlanders never seriously lagged behind their Lowland counterparts and in the Early Modern Period, they used a combination of targe (shield with straps) and broadsword with pistol and musket. The fearsome ‘Highland charge’ gave the Jacobites many of their victories, but could be outmanoeuvred by cavalry. It was this factor that led to the Jacobite defeat at the Battle of Culloden rather than inferior military tactics or equipment. New research suggests that the Jacobites were as well trained as the British army, but that their lack of cavalry proved decisive in their defeat. The differences between Highlanders and Lowlanders were never so wide as so clearly show one society as superior to the other, and the perspective of Gaelic inferiority was simply used as propaganda by the British establishment to justify the suppression of the Jacobites and Highland culture.

Today, Scotland is somewhat more uniform in her culture; mass media and standardized education has made us more similar to the English and, more recently, to the Americans. The English tongue reigns supreme, as Scottish Gaelic is only spoken by a small minority of the population (mostly in the Western Isles), while Scots is still spoken interchangeably with Scottish English mostly in the North-East and Shetland. Yet, in addition to this, there are also immigrants from England and Ireland as well as other parts of Europe and the world. The large influx of Polish folk in particular is beginning to add a Slavic element to our culture. As the dichotomy between the Highlands and Lowlands now exists largely within geography rather than society, this current cultural climate will also change. What will the future of Scottish culture be? Hopefully it will incorporate our historical Celtic and Germanic traditions and help to reconnect our folk to their heritage in addition to borrowing customs from other Aryan brothers and sisters living on our land.

Wulf Willelmson

An ethnographic history of Scotland, Part II: The Germanic tribes

In recent years, the peoples of Britain have been steadily divided along national lines for political purposes, and a dichotomy has been presented between ‘Celtic’ Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ England; which has been used to strengthen a false nationalism, not based on race, but on the extent of state authority. Yet history shows this simplification to be untrue, particularly in Scotland where the (mostly) Germanic English tongue is dominant today. This actually reflects a process that has been occurring in Britain for thousands of years, as the cultural influences from either the Atlantic (the West coast of France, Spain and Portugal) or Nordic (Scandinavia and the Low Countries) peoples have competed for dominance at various points in history. Last time, we looked at the Celtic tribes in Scotland, who represent a time of Atlantic supremacy. Today in Scotland, Nordic culture reigns supreme and this process began with the Roman invasion.

By the dawn of the First Century AD, the Roman army consisted of legionaries from Italy supported by auxiliary troops from the provinces of the empire. Most of the auxiliaries stationed in Britain were from Batavia in what is now the Netherlands, who mingled with the local population. Later on , as the Romans themselves grew weary of fighting for their leaders due to systemic corruption (sound familiar?) and the increasing occurrence of civil war, they came to rely on ‘foederates’, Germanic warriors enlisted from the borders of the empire who fought for the Romans in exchange for land within the empire. This proved to be their undoing, as the foederati generals became so powerful that they could simply rely on their loyal warriors to carve themselves kingdoms within the decaying empire.

Things happened a little differently in Britain, as the Roman armies had already left out of frustration with trying to maintain the difficult province by the time the empire started to crumble. The Romano-British were beset by raids from the Picts and Gaels (who the Romans called ‘Scoti’, from whom the Scots derive their name and is related to the word ‘Scythian’), so they decided to use the Roman tactic of recruiting Germanic foederati to fight them; as the Romanized Britons had become dependent on the Roman soldiers and were mostly unable to respond effectively with their own militias. The British tyrant ‘Vortigern’ recruited two leaders from Jutland (mainland Denmark) named Hengest and Horsa (both names meaning ‘horse’) and their warbands to defend the Britons against these invaders, in exchange for land in the South-East of Britain. Despite their success, the Romano-British nobles feared these heathen warriors and wanted them out of Britain. Vortigern tried to convince them to leave, but since he had given them his word that they could stay (and also married Hengest’s daughter and thus, to them they were family) they saw this as oathbreaking and reacted by making war on the Britons. They successfully conquered the South-East, and soon many other Germanic tribes from Angeln ( in Schleswig) and Saxony settled on the East coast. These tribes became what are today known as the Anglo-Saxons.

Throughout the 5th and 6th Centuries, the Anglo-Saxons had little to do with Scotland. An ambitious warlord named ‘Ida’ is said to have taken control of Bamburgh on the Northumberland coast and founded the kingdom of Bernicia. Though this region lay close to Scotland’s modern border, during this time they were more concerned with fighting the Britons (and each other) to the South. This was to change at the dawn of the 7th Century with the rise of a ruthless Bernician king named ‘Aethelfrith’. Intent on expanding the borders of Bernicia, he campaigned against his neighbours to the South and extended his hegemony into Scotland. He came to blows with another powerful warlord in Scotland at the time, Aidan MacGabran, King of Dal Riada (the Gaelic part of Scotland). They met at a place called ‘Degsastan’ somewhere in the Scottish Borders, and a battle ensued in which Aethelfrith would emerge the victor; which set the course for Anglo-Saxon domination in Scotland over the next century, having gained a foothold in the Borders region.

After Aethelfrith’s death, his kingdom was taken by his enemy, Edwin of Deira (Yorkshire), whose own kingdom fell apart upon his death. Aethelfrith’s son, Oswald, then became king of Bernicia and went on the unite the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira to form what became known as ‘Northumbria’. Irish annals record a ‘siege of Etain (Edinburgh)’ in 638 during Oswald’s reign, which, while not mentioning who was involved, suggests that he managed to conquer the British kingdom of Gododdin (Lothian); which brought the realm of Northumbria to the borders of the Picts. After his death, he was succeeded by his younger brother, Oswy, who then became the most powerful king of Northumbria. He campaigned as far West as Galloway and as far North as Angus, and all of the most powerful kingdoms in Scotland and England paid tribute to him. After his death, his son, Egfrith, managed to reinforce his kingdom’s authority by defeating the Picts at the Battle of Two Rivers near Perth in 671. However, another Pictish rebellion 14 years later convinced Egfrith to launch an ill-advised mounted campaign once again into Southern Pictland, only to be defeated and killed at the Battle of Nechtansmere, probably at Dunnichen in Angus.

The Picts had shaken off the yoke of Northumbrian servitude once and for all, never again would the Anglo-Saxons march North of the Forth until the reign of Aethelstan of Wessex in the 10th Century, and so their territory was restricted to the South-East. The Picts then became the dominant power in Scotland during the 8th Century, gaining submission from the Gaels of Dal Riada and the Britons of Strathclyde. This was not to last, however, as all of the peoples of Britain would feel the fury of the Norsemen at the end of the 8th Century. The Norsemen were the last wave of Germanic heathen folk to invade Britain, as they began their raids first on Lindisfarne in 793, then on the Northern and Western Isles in 794. In subsequent years they settled on Shetland and Orkney as bases from which to launch further raids rather than sailing all the way from Norway. By the middle of the 9th Century, they had also colonized the Hebrides, mingling with the local Gaels (for some reason, no trace of Pictish culture survives from the Isles after this period, possibly because the local Picts were outnumbered by Norse settlers, which was not the case on the Gaelic Inner Hebrides).

It was during this time that the Jarl of Orkney, Sigurth the Mighty, launched campaigns onto the Scottish mainland, conquering Caithness and Sutherland (which was ‘southern land’ from an Orcadian perspective). His forays into Ross and Moray brought him to blows with the reigning Pictish king and his kinsmen, who were wiped out by Sigurth’s armies (though it was the Picts who had the last laugh, as the captured head of the Pictish king’s teeth rubbed against Sigurth’s leg, which became an infected wound and he died). This threw the Pictish kingdoms into civil war, shattering their collective power in Scotland. From the struggle for power emerged Kenneth MacAlpin, king of Dal Riada (which was previously under Pictish control), who defeated his rivals in battle and became King of the Picts. Though still dependent on the support of the Pictish nobles, this marked the beginning of Gaelic supremacy in Scotland.

Norse settlement continued throughout this period, as Norse-Gaels from Ireland, led by Olaf the White, sacked the Strathclyde Briton’s stronghold of Dumbarton, forcing the Britons to relocate their centre of power to Govan further inland. These ‘foreign Gaels’ subsequently settled in Galloway. From this point on, however, favour began to swing in favour of the Scottish Gaels who, by the 10th Century, had annexed Lothian form Northumbria. By this time, their kingdom was centred at Scone and was known as ‘Alba’ in Gaelic and ‘Scotland’ in English and they shared power with the kings of Moray (also Gaelic), though this sometimes led to fighting between the two. It was at this point that the Picts ceased to form a distinct entity and disappeared from history following ‘Gaelicization’. The new unified kingdom then became threatened by the Saxon king Aethelstan, who gained submission from Constantine II following an invasion of Scotland. An attempt to regain power by the Scots, Strathclyde Britons and the Norse-Gaels of Dublin met with defeat at the Battle of Brunanburh in 934. However, Aethelstan’s power had still been sufficiently weakened by the long campaign, and the young kingdom of Scotland was able to survive.

In the 11th Century, Gaelic dominance in Scotland reached its peak, as Strathclyde and the Borders region were annexed during the reign of Malcolm Canmore. However, his reign also signalled the beginning of the decline for Gaelic culture, as Malcolm’s second wife was of the House of Wessex (whose family had fled to Scotland following the Norman invasion) and it was likely under her influence that English became the language of the Scottish court. Though the Scottish nobles tried to reverse this process by supporting Malcolm’s brother, Donald, and his claim to the throne after Malcolm’s death, it was too late. Malcolm’s sons had fled to England and were supported by the Norman king, Henry II. Despite the regime change imposed on England by William the Bastard in 1066, the hybrid Anglo-Norman culture was simply imported to Scotland by Malcolm’s sons after they returned to Scotland and overthrew their uncle with English support, particularly David I.

It was he who founded the burghs of Scotland and imposed ecclesiastical reform that brought the Church of Scotland in line with the rest of Catholic Europe. He stripped the kingdoms of Moray and Galloway of their remaining autonomy and invited Norman and Flemish knights from England and gave them the land and titles that he had taken from the displaced nobles. It was also during his reign that Edinburgh became the capital. David’s successor, William, spent much of his reign launching failed campaigns into Northumberland in an attempt to annex the region. It was not to be though, and so under his successor, Alexander II, Scotland’s border became fixed to what it is today (with the exception of Berwick, which would change hands over the centuries). Alexander was focused on a more realistic acquisition, the Hebrides.

While the Hebrides had formed their own kingdom with the Isle of Man, they had recently come under Norwegian domination, as the Northern Isles had been for two centuries. Alexander died on his way to the Hebrides to begin his campaign, but the fight was taken up by this son, Alexander III, who managed to drive away the army of the Norwegian king, Haakon the Old, at the Battle of Largs in 1263. Haakon retreated to Orkney and died there and his son, Magnus VI, had no interest in reasserting his father’s claim; and so he ceded the Hebrides to Scotland and acknowledged Scottish authority over Caithness, which had also been disputed. From this point, Gaelic culture became dominant in the Hebrides, while the Northern Isles still belonged to Norway (for now). As Norse culture in Scotland went into retreat, Germanic culture still found room for expansion in the Lowlands, as the dichotomy between the Gaelic Highlands and Germanic Lowlands would become a feature of later centuries.

The Celtic and Germanic peoples had a lot in common, they all worshipped Wotan as the chief god in heathen times (though they obviously had different names for him) and they also practised a mixed economy of pastoralism and agriculture supplemented by some hunting traditions. There were, however, noticeable differences; not just linguistic, but also cultural. In general, the Teutons tended to focus on the solar solstices and equinoxes as the most important times of the year, while their Celtic counterparts placed more emphasis on lunar festivals, though these were all present in both cultures. This displayed a heavier emphasis on agriculture by the Norse and Anglo-Saxons and pastoralism by the Picts, Gaels and Britons. To the Celts, cattle were considered the most sacred animals, while the Teutons held more reverence for the boar (cattle-raiding was not a feature of Germanic culture). There were also differences in political structures; while the Celtic peoples retained a more decentralized tribal structure, the Anglo-Saxons had been influenced by the military hierarchy of the Romans, and so the loyalty of the warband to their leader was more important than loyalty to their tribe. Though Anglo-Saxon kings were much more answerable to their folk than the later Norman kings (who saw the folk as mere ‘subjects’), this meant that Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were more centralized and homogeneous, unlike the complex system of high kings and sub-kings present in Scotland and Ireland.

There were also differences in their styles of warfare; Germanic warriors preferred to meet their foe on the open battlefield most of the time, in contrast to the heavy reliance on skirmishes and ambushing by the Celtic peoples. The main formation of Germanic armies was the shieldwall, which placed more emphasis on teamwork than the Celtic preference to fight for individual glory (although there is evidence that the Picts adopted the shieldwall and used it against the Northumbrians at the Battle of Nechtansmere). Germanic swords, shields and spearheads also tended to be larger than those used by Celtic warriors and they seem to have utilized more armour in the form of mail shirts and iron helmets, which could be very richly decorated. The Teutons also had light cavalry, but they were primarily infantrymen; and so the Norse became famous for their skills with the axe and, because of the increasing reliance on armour from the 10th Century onwards, chose to forego the shield and used much larger axes wielded with two hands (a style which was adopted not only by the Anglo-Saxons, but also by the Irish and Hebrideans). Yet the warrior culture of all these diverse peoples was the same, they all celebrated their victories in the mead hall and treasured honour and loyalty as the highest virtues. They are sister-cultures which compliment each other well, and it is a shame that they are sometimes seen as antithetical to one another.

To be continued…

Wulf Willelmson

An ethnographic history of Scotland, Part I: The Celtic tribes

To have an understanding of one’s heritage, you must recognise the struggles of the tribes and nations that came before you so that you can appreciate the cultures that your ancestors fought to preserve and how you can hopefully avoid being wiped off the map as a distinct group of people. That said, the folk that make up ethnic groups tend not to truly disappear (except in the case of deliberate genocide by a hostile invader), but rather live on in in the blood of people who may have adopted the culture of their ancestors’ enemies. Such is the course of history, and being able to recognise who is truly your racial enemy and who is simply another ethnic group living in the vicinity is essential to the survival of a folk. Some ethnic groups live side-by-side in a country, others come to dominate the whole country, while the unfortunate or weak-willed are trampled underfoot and forgotten. We must have an understanding of where we have come from if we want to know where to go as a folk.

Our country has a long history of human occupation stretching back at least 10,000 years to the Mesolithic, though earlier settlement will have become obscured by the devastating force of the glaciers during each Ice Age. Though the ways of these early prehistoric folk have long since faded, our Aryan heritage stretches at least back to the Bronze Age (around 4,000 years ago) with the introduction of metallurgy and pastoralism (although whether the Aryans were also responsible for the introduction of agriculture around 5,000 years ago is not entirely clear). Nevertheless, despite the many interesting things that could be said about our prehistory, for the sake of conciseness I am going to focus specifically on the history of the last 2,000 years, since our ancestral memory of earlier times has been clouded and also because it is in this period that the various peoples who form the basis of the European nations today emerge. Maybe another time we can focus on the truly ancient past.

For now we must do with what, unfortunately, other civilisations have had to say about our ancestors. The Classical Greeks knew of Britain and Ireland and even sailed there a few times. The name they gave for Britain was ‘Albion’, an ancient term possibly meaning ‘white’ and related to the name of the Alps. However, it is the Romans who give us the first true glimpses of our country’s ethnography, specifically because they were attempting to conquer it. The impression that they give us is that our ancestors were naked savages that knew nothing of civilisation and lived like animals, and that the only reason that the Romans couldn’t conquer their land was because it was so dreary and the climate so awful that no sane person would ever want to live there. Archaeology has shown this blatant propaganda to be false, as of course, our ancestors were engaged in agriculture for thousands of years and in fact, the area of Strathmore on the east coast has long been acknowledged as highly productive for growing grain. Therefore, the Romans have contributed nothing to our heritage aside form their ‘historical’ records and archaeological remains. Yet their accounts are still valuable, as they provide us with the earliest tribal and ethnic names that our ancestors may have used to refer to themselves.

The Roman historian Tacitus gives us some interesting details about the natives of this land in the eulogy to his father-in-law, British governor and general, Agricola, and his attempt to conquer Scotland. He refers to her inhabitans as ‘Britons’ and more specifically to the tribes north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus as ‘Caledonians’ (from whom our kindred takes it’s name). While it is tempting to presume that the folk of Northern Scotland were ethnically identical to those in the rest of Britain on this basis, there is evidence that this was not necessarily the case. In the Welsh Triads, Britain (known as ‘Prydein’) is split into three parts: Lloegyr (what is now Southern and Eastern England), Cymru (pronounced ‘cum-ree’ and consisted of Wales, Northern and Western England and Southern Scotland) and the area in question as Alban or Prydyn. While the Welsh refer to themselves as ‘Cymraeg’, they referred to the inhabitants of Prydyn as ‘Brithwyr’, which is very confusing considering that later on the Romans referred to the former as ‘Britons’ and the latter as ‘Picts’. Nevertheless, it has been proven through the analysis of place-names and Pictish personal names that the Picts spoke a Brittonic language in the same family as Modern Welsh, Cornish and Breton.

Another group that appear to have been present in Scotland at this time are the Gaels. Though they have come to be seen by some as synonymous with Scottish identity, originally they seem to have had a fairly minor presence in Scotland, inhabiting what is now Argyll (which means ‘coast of the Gael’). It has been generally assumed that the Scottish Gaels originally came from Ireland, although the lack of Brittonic place-names in Argyll that would suggest the presence of an earlier Pictish population makes this unlikely. Thus, by the time the Romans arrive (and for that matter, by the time they leave) Scotland consisted of three distinct ethnic groups: Britons in the South, Gaels in the West and Picts in the rest (the Northern and Western Isles were probably Pictish too but it’s harder to be sure). They all spoke Celtic languages and had similar Iron Age cultures, but each group consisted of different tribes with their own traditions and ties to the land.

Their way of life most likely depended on what sort of land they lived on. Tribes that inhabited the low-lying plains (yes, they do exist in Scotland) would have focused more on agriculture and may have had more settled lives, growing grains like barley, oats and spelt wheat as well as vegetables such as leeks, kale and turnips. Those tribes that lived on the hills would have practised pastoralism and moved up or down from the hills depending on the season. Though they would have herded sheep, goats and pigs (chickens being relatively rare in this period), their main focus was on cattle, who were considered so valuable that cattle-raiding has been a long-standing tradition in Celtic culture. This usually took place during Autumn and was a chance for young warriors to prove their worth among their tribe through acts of bravery. As you would expect, these folk survived on a diet mainly consisting of meat and dairy, although they would also have grown crops, the emphasis here being that these differences in lifestyle between tribes were not necessarily exclusive, more the predominance of agriculture or pastoralism in a particular area. The tribes that lived on the coast or on islands would have relied more on wild sources of food, such as fishing and whaling as well as hunting for seabirds and their eggs. They were the ones who best preserved the ancient ways of the hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic (as reflected by the lack of archaeological finds from Scottish islands in this period), although they also practised what agriculture and animal husbandry they could.

The style of warfare among Iron Age tribes in Scotland was fairly primitive, there is little evidence for armour and what armour there was (chainmail and possibly bronze helmets) would have only been worn by the chieftains or champions who were given lavish weapons and armour as gifts. Spears, javelins or darts (which may have been tipped with iron or bone) and small shields would have been the mainstay of warriors at this time, with a focus on light, mobile warfare consisting of hit-and-run tactics and ambushing. Though they seem to have reserved this style of warfare for the Romans, who could not be defeated in a pitched battle (as evidenced by their defeat at the hands of Agricola at the Battle of Mons Graupius according to Tacitus) and had to be dealt with through guerilla warfare; attacking and then retreating into the mountains and forests to wear them down through attrition (which seemed to do the trick given that the Romans basically gave up on conquering Scotland, if not for want of trying). They used light cavalry but they also had chariots, which were more suited to the smaller ponies native to Britain and had gone out of fashion in the rest of Eurasia. It is unclear what their swords were like, Tacitus says that the Caledonians used ‘huge swords’, but all of the archaeological evidence from Northern Britain (albeit, none has been found in the region of Alban) suggests that swords weren’t much longer than the average gladius, which is more likely considering that iron isn’t particularly abundant in Scotland, and the style of warfare in Northern Britain and Ireland suggests the use of short swords.

Amongst themselves battles were probably more ritualized, with an emphasis on display through both ostentatious torques and tattoos as well as taunts, songs and chants as a prelude to combat. The battle may have begun with an exchange of javelins from skirmishers and charioteers (as suggested from Tacitus account of Mons Graupius) before the more experienced warriors would charge at each other. Battles in this era were probably rather short, and would have depended on the performance of the most skilled warriors, with the lighter armed and less experienced warriors providing support through missile-fire and shouting. Given what Tacitus says about the amount of warriors that fled Mons Graupius (most of them) we can assume that these warriors were used to breaking once the better warriors began to rout and so while the losing army returned to their wives and mothers in shame, they at least lived to fight and maybe win again another day. The winners celebrated their victories in the mead hall (probably the house of their chieftain) and feasted, drank and sung of great deeds on the battlefield and heroes of the past. Battles would have usually taken place in the Summer (it was a separate sort of engagement from the cattle-raiding), and could have occurred for all manner of reasons, vendettas and slanders by a member of one tribe against another were likely reasons. Single-combat between champions was also aspect of Iron Age warfare, since this emphasizes the conflict between individuals rather than whole tribes and could have been used to resolve disputes without a battle taking place.

To be continued…

Wulf Willelmson