Pictland doesn't become Scotland.

[LSCatilina]

By the IXth century, northernmost Britain eventually translated from a fragmented Pictish realm to a Gaelic (and still fragmented) Scotland.
For the sake of the discussion, let's say that we need a Pictland to exist, that is not before Northernmost Britons form a confederation in the IIIrd century and before Pictish culture (or at least language) disappears in the Xth century (so no romanticist revival) : there's several PoDs and related cultural and political outcomes we can explore there.

1) Roman Britain endures : A strong enough power in the archipelago might be a big deterrent to Scottish migrations and piracy as important as IOTL, eventually leaving Pictland as a frontier league not too dissimilar to Franks, Saxons, Goths, etc. and whose future would be pretty much dependent of imperial politics and strategy.

2) Post-Roman Britain endures : The quasi-states authorities in the wake of imperial collapse in Britain maintain themselves as military dictatorships (i.e. Arthur and/or Coel Hen forming a "Britto-Roman domain" living on). Scotti migrations obviously happens all the same ITTL, but a regional power, say a *Kingdom of the North would probably act as a patron/primary state over Pictland as Northumbria did in the VIIth century and more dedicated to preventing its periphery to turn into some sort of Wild West could enforce an hard stop of gaeliciazation to Argyll.

3) Failure of Dàl Riata : Scottish migrations in Wales does point out that the foundation of a petty-kingdom and gaelicization of the region wasn't something doomed to happen. In the late VIth, a conjunction of Pictish pressure and Irish pressures on the North-East and South-West respectively could have easily enough spelled the end of the petty-kingdom or at least its political and cultural marginalization. It's probably the easiest and simplest PoD to write off gaelicization of northern Britain.

4) No Irish Church : related to the previous one, as the evangelization of the region along Irish rites gave a lot of prestige and leverage of Gaelic centres and culture. If Ireland isn't evangelized by the Vth century, or is along British Latin rites (either when it happened IOTL or later), it could be both a political and cultural obstacle for the gaelicization of the region.

5) Lesser Viking pressure on Pictland : probably the last possible PoD, but a bit difficult. Pictish kings effectively took control (or at least an heavy-handed overlordship) of Dàl Riata in the IXth century and seems to have continued to do so (albeit not without difficulties) until the Xth century where a combination of inner strifes (Scots did know as well) and Viking attacks effectively broke Pictish royal authority, especially the decimation of the ruling family in battle in 830. Consequences would probably be moderate with a likely medieval survival of Gaelic in the west, Pictland being mostly a placeholder for Scotland when it comes to Britain politics, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Ricardolindo]

By the IXth century, northernmost Britain eventually translated from a fragmented Pictish realm to a Gaelic (and still fragmented) Scotland.
For the sake of the discussion, let's say that we need a Pictland to exist, that is not before Northernmost Britons form a confederation in the IIIrd century and before Pictish culture (or at least language) disappears in the Xth century (so no romanticist revival) : there's several PoDs and related cultural and political outcomes we can explore there.

1) Roman Britain endures : A strong enough power in the archipelago might be a big deterrent to Scottish migrations and piracy as important as IOTL, eventually leaving Pictland as a frontier league not too dissimilar to Franks, Saxons, Goths, etc. and whose future would be pretty much dependent of imperial politics and strategy.

2) Post-Roman Britain endures : The quasi-states authorities in the wake of imperial collapse in Britain maintain themselves as military dictatorships (i.e. Arthur and/or Coel Hen forming a "Britto-Roman domain" living on). Scotti migrations obviously happens all the same ITTL, but a regional power, say a *Kingdom of the North would probably act as a patron/primary state over Pictland as Northumbria did in the VIIth century and more dedicated to preventing its periphery to turn into some sort of Wild West could enforce an hard stop of gaeliciazation to Argyll.

3) Failure of Dàl Riata : Scottish migrations in Wales does point out that the foundation of a petty-kingdom and gaelicization of the region wasn't something doomed to happen. In the late VIth, a conjunction of Pictish pressure and Irish pressures on the North-East and South-West respectively could have easily enough spelled the end of the petty-kingdom or at least its political and cultural marginalization. It's probably the easiest and simplest PoD to write off gaelicization of northern Britain.

4) No Irish Church : related to the previous one, as the evangelization of the region along Irish rites gave a lot of prestige and leverage of Gaelic centres and culture. If Ireland isn't evangelized by the Vth century, or is along British Latin rites (either when it happened IOTL or later), it could be both a political and cultural obstacle for the gaelicization of the region.

5) Lesser Viking pressure on Pictland : probably the last possible PoD, but a bit difficult. Pictish kings effectively took control (or at least an heavy-handed overlordship) of Dàl Riata in the IXth century and seems to have continued to do so (albeit not without difficulties) until the Xth century where a combination of inner strifes (Scots did know as well) and Viking attacks effectively broke Pictish royal authority, especially the decimation of the ruling family in battle in 830. Consequences would probably be moderate with a likely medieval survival of Gaelic in the west, Pictland being mostly a placeholder for Scotland when it comes to Britain politics, etc.

Thoughts?

What do you think of Ewan Campbell's revisionist theory about the origins of Dál Riata? Ewan Campbell's arguments are that there is no archeological evidence for an Irish migration to Scotland in the fourth century and that Argyll lacks Brythonic placenames.
Instead, he proposes that Argyll was separated from the rest of Scotland by the mountains and was always tied to Antrim.

 

[LSCatilina]

What do you think of Ewan Campbell's revisionist theory about the origins of Dál Riata? Ewan Campbell's arguments are that there is no archeological evidence for an Irish migration to Scotland in the fourth century and that Argyll lacks Brythonic placenames.
Instead, he proposes that Argyll was separated from the rest of Scotland by the mountains and was always tied to Antrim.

To paraphrase Peter Heather : it is not because we wouldn't have archaeological evidence (and that's, to be honest, a stretch) of mass migration and we can think of an alternative that it disproves it, especially at the light of medieval texts.

I agree that a critical approach is beneficial, but an hyper-critical approach a priori is somewhat self-defeating and virtually the same argument can be made about any mainland Barbarian (or even Celtic, such as Bronze Age or Iron Age populations in Great Britain) migration and would somehow be wrong for all of these, but in this case.

We have no elements arguing for a Iron Age differenciation of western Scotland and the rest of northernmost Britain, would they be linguistic or ethnographic : yes, Romans geographers wouldn't have cared much, but it doesn't makes it less speculative.

Eventually the linguistic aspect is more interesting, keeping in mind our knowledge of "Pictish" is really lacking : we can assume it was probably a Brythonic language, but not how distinct and when it branched out if it did. We could as well argue there was a pre-Celtic language still spoken massively there, although I'd be unconvinced, or at the contrary a massive migration over a population speaking a relatively close Insular Celtic language. Heck, even if North-western Scotland was Gaelic speaking in Antiquity, it wouldn't disprove by itself a migration.

The idea isn't without merit, still, as it stresses the danger swallowing up whole the narrative of "translated kinghip" (à la Jutes just moving in with kings and peoples) and the role of in situ development (to follow the same exemple, in situ development of Kent along the lines of migrations and mixing in Cantium). But much of it leave me quite skeptical.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Failure of Dàl Riata or less Viking pressure sounds like the easiest but also potentially the least interesting to think about, you'd then basically get a large Pictland in place of Scotland by the end of it?

 

[LSCatilina]

Failure of Dàl Riata or less Viking pressure sounds like the easiest but also potentially the least interesting to think about, you'd then basically get a large Pictland in place of Scotland by the end of it?

Very likely, would it be only for the second.
I could see some minor changes still, with maybe a great *Notland interest on Starthclyde : IOTL, Pictish kings failed to secure control over the region as they did of Argyll but a stronger Pictland (especially if Viking hold in northermost Britain is somewhat lesser on Picts while same on Gaels and Saxons) could end up integrating it as Gaels did during the Xth century but earlier and hold on it meaning a possible later survival of Cumbric (or mixed with Pictish?