[Kevin P Molloy]

[Randall Moffett]

Kevin,

Bruce actually writes something similar in 1308 or 1309 to the French, though not per se saying they are of blood relation. This letter simply shows Bruce wanting to get support and when in this situation you will say what will tie you the most to your readers..... nothing changes in politics. So Bruce did not write this actually saying they were one people or did he likely have the intention of one country.... he as well as they knew this to be untrue. He wrote this simply looking for support against a very powerful southern neighbor.... one in which several people had conflicts with that possibly could help.

But you are missing a key to this. Bruce had a chance to go to Ireland and be king but instead his brother Edward went. Not Robert. This was no accident. He had no interest in making a joint throne.... at least not right away. This might be tied to him not wanting to over extend but also likely goes into the difficulty in combining two very different countries into one. It seemed from the get go Edward was to run Ireland itself separate, though perhaps of course an allied state.

The issue is not so much they share bloodlines. I sure many of them did. So did/do lots of people. But similar blood does not a culture make.

It is the idea of some sort of unified Celtic front that is Victorian fantasy that for some reason continued on till this day like chainmail. By this time society and culture between Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Brittany is completely different.... heck the north and south of Scotland and Wales and the West and east of Wales and Brittany are all different inside their own boundaries. None of them have the real political, social, economic, military systems that their earlier common ancestors shared and by 1300 the differences likely out weight the similarities several times. There is a great deal of evidence indicating lowlanders are not even speaking a gaelic as their primary language in the late 13th, 14th onward which is why it begins a sharp decline by the 15th century in the lowlands.

Now if one had to bend reality a bit, hearken back to a common level to gain allies and support against a bigger badder enemy.... you'd do the same thing. So this letter, while good in showing Bruce at work, does not change the fact Scottish and Irish cultures are very different by this point in most of the points Bruce is alluding.

RPM

[Kevin P Molloy]

[Randall Moffett]

Kevin,

This counter celtic unity concept started in the 40s or 50s but really took off in the 70s or somewhere around there and there is more info than one could shake a stick at. There are literally scores if not hundreds of books on this topic. This was in response to the pro-celtic union ideals that BEGIN in the 1820s or there abouts that brought revivals of the language and culture in much of the world, but especially Ireland, later Scotland and Wales.

It is called Pan-Celticism. It is a modern phenomena. There is really no earlier evidence for real Pan-celticism.

Now some sources that demonstrate this-
Pittock, Murray. Celtic Identity and the British Image. Manchester University Press, 1999.
Oxford Companion to Scottish History p. 161 162, edited by Michael Lynch, Oxford University Press.
Making the Caledonian Connection: The Development of Irish and Scottish Studies." by T.M. Devine. Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies, University of Aberdeen. in Radharc: A Journal of Irish Studies Vol 3: 2002.
"Myth and Identity in Early Medieval Scotland" by E.J. Cowan, Scottish Historical Review, xxii (1984).

I think your understanding of the period and its languages in Scotland are somewhat off. In part because common language does not dictate a common culture. It is a means of transportation though culture but is not the limiter of it. We have loads of groups of common linguistic base that form completely different cultures up. Look at the English language or Spanish for example. Spanish culture in Spain is much different than it is in Latin America.

The national organisation for preserving Scottish Gaelic has an excellent time frame based on the most recent work on the topic of Scottish Gaelic.

http://www.savegaelic.org/gaelic/scottish-gaelic-history.php

Here is the key from the site illustrating this-

'The Gaelic language eventually displaced Pictish north of the Forth, and until the late 15th century it was known in Inglis as Scottis. Gaelic began to decline in Scotland by the beginning of the 13th century, and with this went a decline in its status as a national language. By the beginning of the 15th century, the highland-lowland line was beginning to emerge.'

So by the start of the 13th century it begins around the border lands and lowlands. By the late 13th much of the south is not using it as their primary language. During the 14th it even further is decayed and more and more people are just not using it until during the 15th it plummets and begins simply to disappear. Now clearly not the case with reference to the highlands but the lowlands and border county it certainly is the case. I had not said the Highlands discarded Gaelic previously as it is not important to this post as I related earlier. Most of the men involved in the Wars of Independence are lowlanders. They founded the early kingdom and many of them ran the other areas of Scotland as nobles.

So perhaps through his mothers side perhaps that is true that Bruce did but for most of the lowlands this is not supported by any real historic evidence of modern research. I could not say if Wallace did but I doubt it with the area he being in being one of the earlier areas to discard it. Nor have I seen much evidence he is associated with it.

Now I did not mean Robert Bruce did not go to Ireland at all but as I said before he did not go to Ireland to be king. This is the critical issue. He had apparently no intention of doing this.

The reason this is so important.... Pan-Celticism is not medieval. None of the multitudes of articles, books, primary records (I have read all the Scot Parliament Rolls for example), none push this concept. It is something that 19th and 20th century Pan-Celticists want to push for their reasons at the time but it is founded on loose interpretation on the past. So does it exist now. Certainly. Is there real evidence that points to it then in the medieval period, not really.

So now I have provided evidence for the counter point of medieval Pan-Celticism. What real evidence do we have for the cultures being the same? After all my readings on this I see very little to none. I wanted to. I had originally thought of doing my PhD on this topic and my introductory reading made me realize the evidence for it is so little it was not worth the effort.

Now that said in the farther extremes of Scotland I think there is evidence of several continued cultures, both of Celtic and Norse culture. But regardless my point of view is settled on a fairly extensive collection of evidence, not opinion or my own passion on the topic.

So enjoy the reading and see what you think.

RPM

[Thom R.]

going back to the OP, the reality is that as far as what form the leine took in the time of Robert and Edward Bruce in gaelic speaking areas the answer is we just don't know. we have info on the leine in the early 16th c. renaissance period but prior to that in the medieval period, its a tricky issue. some questions include, what was the cut of the sleeves at various times, how large were the cuffs, how long was the body of the leine, what was the neck selvage like, when did hanging sleeves become common, etc etc.

i think the reasonable assumption is that fashion in gaelic speaking areas of ireland and scotland probably followed trends elsewhere in europe during the medieval period, albeit with a bit of a time lag and some regional adaptations (an example of which would be trews still being worn instead of hose in the 14th and 15th c). btw some of the medieval irish sculpture of the 15th c. shows men with rather long "super" tunics down to near their ankles, something that would have been out of fashion in europe 50-100 years before. but its hard to say whether what is depicted is formal attire rather than everyday attire. there does seem to me to be some evidence that in the medieval period clothing in gaelic speaking areas followed mainland european trends except with a time lag and perhaps a longer body, the body of tunics being consistently mid thigh or lower even when the short doublet was all the rage in the main areas of europe. this may have been a practical response to the weather. the mantle or cloak seems to be another common element in gaelic dress throughout the medieval period.

[J.D. Crawford]

[Kevin P Molloy]

Randall,
Nothing you cited refutes what Bruce wrote in his letter to the irish chiefs nor backs up your opinion of what was meant by it.
You have set up a classic straw man argument and diverted attention from my specific question on what do you base your comments on related to the Bruce letter? Do you have a source for your interpretation of what he meant when he wrote it?

How can you say Lowlanders founded the kingdom of Scotland when it was Kenneth MacAlpine a Gael of the Irish tribe of DalRaida? Alexander III was the last pure gaelic king in 1296.

I would say that Spain and Latin America do have a common culture based on language and past associations same as United States and England,Canada, Australia etc, etc AND Ireland and Scotland did back then. They all have much more in common than differences and someone from either area would get along just fine in the other.

Have you read William Ferguson's Identity of the Scottish nation an Historic quest? Some interesting stuff in there on why there developed a split between Highland and Lowlands, and against the Gael, sadly it seems a little English prejudice might have crept in.

I will agree with you and already mentioned that their never was a united celtic front but there is no denying that it was tried once in Ireland by Robert the Bruce and it failed. And you would agree with me that Scotland has a strong celtic heritage, correct?

[Thom R.]

Ireland and Western Scotland were two regions of the Isles in the 13th century that had some cultural elements in common. They also had cultural elements that were different. count me lost on this duel of contrary hypotheses. tr

[Randall Moffett]

Thom,

Yes. That is basically it.


Kevin,

If you want to base your entire argument on one document that is your own choice but ignoring the evidence I pointed you to and saying it is a straw man indicates you do not really care to improve your understanding of the actual history of the time in question. As the document you mentioned and many more like it are covered in major detail in these works, why should I rewrite their argument when it is already there and you simply have not bothered to read the books? The Myth article goes into great detail on the reality of the situation in Scotland that relates to not only your single account but the larger context. The issue is simply as I and Kel pointed out. A political move to draw on cultural ties from their ancient past. What evidence do you have to prove that Bruce was meaning they had the same culture and language as you seem to be indicating? Can you prove that this was not the case in Bruce's letter?

The lowlanders and borderer families did found what we would consider Scotland in our time. Sure the Highlanders had their moments but most of the wealth, population and policies that formed the country were from this area.

No where did I say there was no remains of Celtic culture but I would not say Celtic culture was any stronger in much of Scotland than many other active culture.

Regardless I do not see a point in continuing an argument that was finished over a decade ago in 100 times more detail than I care to drop in a post. The large amount of work done on this topic indicates that the idea of a strong Celtic culture being dominate over others present in Scotland in the areas involved in this period indicate it is not the case.

Believe what you will, but you have the information available to you if you wish to.

RPM

[Kevin P Molloy]

[Kevin P Molloy]

[Randall Moffett]

Kevin,

The letter itself is not describing real trends in Scotland of the early 14th century. That is why the books are important. They show that his use of common language and common culture are meant to gain empathy with possible supporter.

Him calling it a common language when it has died out among the more populous areas of Scotland is shown in these books as well as the National Organisation of Scotland for the language itself based on the best research available today.

So common language, no.

The fact that the culture is very different in fashion, clothing, military systems, politics....

That is the ultimate issue. They were indeed based on the same cultural basis as Celts but since that time, over the next hundreds of years they grew up very different. They no longer in truth shared a common language but for a minority of them and very little in common with most the population.

So common culture at that time in Scotland, no.

So how can you defend Bruce's letter as evidence when it is not supported by really any of the trends occurring with most of Scotland population. It is being critical on a primary source, something that is vital to understanding a source. Comparing them against other sources to verify their accuracy.

How did the Lowlanders and Border families make modern Scotland. they created the government and prevalent culture that exists for most of the Scottish population to this day. Strong national style governments were imposed on the Highlanders. Ironically later they would support the king very faithfully but that was not their invention/creation.

The Bruces may have had Gaelic ties but Bruce and many of the nobles were very much part of a culture with major ties to Norman, English and other cultures that were in just as important in determining this.

Once you mix these all together you get a very different and new culture.


RPM

[Thom R.]

The "retreat" (if you can call it that pardon my bad pun) of the gaelic language in Scotland and later in Ireland is a rather fascinating subject in and of itself but I don't know enough to talk intelligently on the subject.

as a side note, I have been reading documents pertaining to the O'Malleys and Galway lately and it is clear that by the early 16th century, the seasonal scots (not all were mercenary fighters there were what today we would call seasonal or migrant laborers too) and the western irish who hired them had a hard time understanding each other. I think the modern analogy would be a cajun talking to someone from the congo, both speak french but enough of a difference with accent and slang that it would be a bit of a struggle to fully comprehend each other......

[Randall Moffett]

Thom,

Very much so. The change of language is a major function of the 13th and 14th century in much of the British Isles. It is interesting that much of Scotland and England and to a lesser extent Wales has similar shift all around similar times. The website on Scot Gaelic I posted has some good info on this shift and resources form more materials on it.

An interesting story regarding the migrants and their language issues. It is a rather common occurrence. As the nobles families ties to France their language skills also decline and Anglo-Norman/French becomes more and more unlike French and this happens within just a few hundred years. Ultimately a great example of language change are the Romance languages, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian all were based in large part on Latin but then changed enough that they are completely different languages, though we still can see similarities and at times in part understand each other.

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Hmm...to add a bit of fuel into the fire, wasn't Robert the Bruce's own name originally French (de Bruis), as was Balliol's (de Baillieul), not any sort of Gaelic?