Talk:Kingdom of Strathclyde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map[edit]

The map of post-Roman southern Scotland from William Forbes Skene's Four Ancient Books of Wales (1868) is charming but almost invisible. Deipnosophista 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on it.potatoscone 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map discussion[edit]

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good idea. I won't respond to each individual post, but yes, your map is better for a whole range of reasons ... some of which you already mentioned; it should be used instead of the inaccurate one. I'd replace "Strathclyde" with "Alt Clut" (we're talking 800 here), and try as hard as possible not imply control beyond the Clyde valley (it's floating over Kyle and Carrick atm); also I'd replace "Northern Picts" with Fortriu, and delete Southern Picts (again, it's 800 rather than 700). I don't, incidentally, see why maps should be allowed to contain inaccuracies any more than text. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'm going to cut and paste your comment to the Talk:Mercia#Maps location, since that's where the main discussion is meant to be; hope that's OK. I will go ahead and make the changes to the map and reupload it soon. Can you at some point give me a source that supports those changes? I did the English and Welsh bits based on Campbell (I think it was); the stuff in Scotland came from a conversation with Angus and no doubt I didn't transcribe it perfectly. I'd like to add source info to the image page. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did we get upto with this? It still strikes me as odd that we don't have a map in the lead section. Is there not a public domain image that shows somekind of "traditional/conventional" extent of Srathclyde we could use? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19th and early 20th century historians conjectured that the kingdom of Strathclyde's borders could be worked out from the boundaries of the diocese of Glasgow. That is now thought of as pretty spurious, even for the kingdom at its death (the boundaries reflect where David I held overlordship of in the 1110s). We simply have no idea what the kingdom's borders were. It is fairly common to say, in the 10th and early 11th centuries, they included Cumberland, but that is no longer believed. Any map that has lines on it will be controversial and misleading (implying we have more info than we do). Better just to have a map with Alt Clut (Dumbarton), Govan and Cadzow, three presumed centres of the kingdom, perhaps with Clach nam Breatann marked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps display one of those 19th century maps, and in the caption explain just that? -- That the interpretation of its extent is now viewed as wrong/controvertial/disputed etc? I'm just thinking that any newcomer, student or interested party would expect (though wrongly as you point out) that Strathclyde spanned that area, something we can clarify succinctly for them? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to put up a map to both of your specification along the lines of THIS map or THIS map, and within reason revise to address always-needed tweaking and clarification; ad-hoc annotations are not a problem and "possible" extents can be shown under mild constraint. That might do until we can get more professional-looking cartographic sources.
I'm less fond of "borders" than Deacon, if that's possible, and bemoan the infestation of wikipedia by fictional maps that lend authority to POV's ... and let's not display an old map unless it omits POV speculations and is accurate (neither of which is true of THIS misleading map).
On the other hand, I wouldn't object if you think that including some other map or an old map is the best way to go for now. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just authored this map of medieval provinces in the region (my map skills suck though, so the borders are inexact). We often forget, Clydesdale is the English translation of Strathclyde, both meaning the "valley of the Clyde"; a map of the Clyde valley is hence core. Something like this map, expanded to include the Lennox and deanery of Carlisle in the north of England, marking Clydesdale as "core", but adding Annandale, Strathnith, Desnes Ioan, Carrick, Cunningham, Kyle, Strathgryfe, Lennox and Tweeddale, part of the diocese of Glasgow, and Cumberland, claimed by the 13th century bishops as part formerly part of the diocese, as "potentially" part of the kingdom. Just a suggestion. There are other possibilities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deacon, your map looks familiar! And I see that you, too, feel that topography is important in history, with "borders" along the ridgeline of the Southern Uplands and rivers and mosses relevant. Given that, then the passage between Kyle/Strathnith may deserve notice on the map as the line of communication between Strathclyde and points south.
I made this map for the whole island, from John O'Groat's to Land's End to the Isle of Thanet; all with rivers placed and modern names of rivers and lakes/lochs and modern cities placed ... I need only to pick and choose what to keep or not, then add info (preferably referenced) to accompany an article on any point in history. Let me think more on it a little, and get back to you with a suggestion and a couple of questions (eg, any other places to note besides Alt Clud, Govan, and Cadzow?). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)
Perhaps this map will do for now (preferred improvements welcome). It follows from the discussion above. Specific borders are unknown, and so are not shown. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like Strathclyde being printed over other areas, esp. other straths. You should get rid of those and use the other names (Strathnith, Strathannan, Lennox, Cumberland, and so on), though in smaller font. Possibly you could make it go further south to make the Rere Cross visible, but I dunno. No boundaries is fine, though the red color for the place-names makes it very hard to make them out. There's an argument for marking Hoddom and Glasgow. The latter was the centre of the bishop of St Kentigern, and Hoddom seems (according to recent research) to be a predecessor see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deacon, good points all. Extension to Rere Cross not a problem; will update. Am unsure of geographic extent of influence in Cumberland and Westmoreland ... do you think it included everything, or perhaps excluded the southerly side of the mountains to the coast (where lie modern Egremont, Windermere, Kindal, Barrow-in-furness)? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Map updated, is this better? More tweaking possible. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent map now. It think now this is what we need. A few things to make it even better. 1) Add Teviotdale too 2) Carlisle is a city, and that can be mapped as a spot, but not as a region; 3) the spot colors should be the same on the board as the map; 4) Add Lothian over the Edinburgh, West to MidLothian area; 5) There's an argument for adding Glasgow and Lanark too, as it did become the central administrative centre of the region in the Scottish period, but it's not important, esp. since you'd have to remove text. What program do you use btw? 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)
PS, not to be a fuss, but the term Strathclyde is only really thought appropriate by historians for the time after the sack of Alt Clut by the Norse. Maybe replace "500" with "900". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)
Should be getting better ... if you think of some more, let me know, including tweaks. I knew where Carlisle was, couldn't find a deanery (by some accounts, it's a level below a bishopric, so can be large). Have been drawing in Illustrator and copying for print to Photoshop or Imageready, all old versions ... expensive software unless academic pricing is available. I'm not very proficient, just persistent. The biggest time eater is looking up the info and getting information, placement, and descriptions right (too many maps, old and new, that are inaccurate).

My experience is that I usually think of more things after awhile, as well as while it's ongoing ... if you think of other stuff, don't wait to let me know, and if you think of something later, let me know then, too. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. It's pretty much finished. Perhaps get rid of the e in Westmorland, but that's not important. Excellent map! Is there a blank one uploaded somewhere btw? I couldn't find it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will make Westmorland's superfluous 'e' disappear in time; let me know if you think of anything else. Looked for a way to upload hi-res map of the island, but have memory issues at my end. Can upload a relatively lo-res map of the island, suitable for communication (similar to what was done with your map here), or subareas of near-arbitrary resolution. These can be textured mono/color topo, w/wo rivers, w/wo river names, w/wo modern towns, mixed in any combination ... and I'm still adding 'features'. Suggestions welcome here. I'd like to be out of the major loop (ad hoc involvement is ok, though), and surely editors would like a bare hi-res map so they can develop their own theses and display them in their own way, without going through someone else to do it. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Goidelic settlement'[edit]

"It is not possible to say whether any Goidelic settlement took place before Gaelic was introduced in the High Middle Ages during the 11th century."

As 'Goideic' is not an ethnic term or the name of any political or national grouping, it is not clear to what this phrase is referring. 'Scots/Scottic settlement'; 'settlement from Dalriada'; 'Irish' ? It wouldbe best to replace the word 'Goideic' with a term which speficies from where this settlement might have come.

JF42 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've missed out the start of the sentence: "Due to the series of language changes in the area, it is not possible to say...". Obviously, 'Goidelic' is a language group, "Scots" is a misleading piped link to Dál Riata, a different geographical area which was only one of the areas where Goidelic was spoken. "Scots" has multiple meanings, including the Inglis language, which makes this misleading for modern readers. In accordance with WP:BRD, I'll revert this misguided change, and ask you to discuss this fully to reach consensus on any changes. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the only references to Goidelic are unreferenced ones in the lead, I suggest deleting the last sentence of the second paragraph and the mention of Goidelic in the third paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This passage clearly needs revision as it is not clear what is being stated. Dalriada would have been the primary root source of speakers of Gaelic, although by the C11th it had spread widely into other areas of Scotland, so what might have been the origin of this posited settlement in Strathclyde? 'Goidelic,' as a lingusitic term, is not useful to describe ethnic or political groups. If settlement of incoming Gaelic speakers is meant, it would be better to say so and perhaps to explain from where this might have come, though of course, change in language use does not necessarily indicate a change of population. In any case 'Goidelic settlement' is not a helpful phrase here. What is the underlying historical fact being referred to?
If no one objects, I will make the changes I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here JF42 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issue here is the that evidence from 12cent+, toponyms, etc, show that Gaelic had a substantial presence in areas associated with Strathclyde, and that places such as Ayrshire and Lennox were prob. entirely Gaelic speaking by 12th century. In the past, that phenomenon was ascribed to Scottish expansion from north of the Forth; now historians think the Gall-Goidel/Galwegians were responsible, that the penetration may have come from Argyll directly or even from Ireland. Unfortunately people, including historians, often confuse 'settlement' with language change; languages can change and drift without significant settlement by outsiders. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that the link between the Gall-Gaidhel of the C9th Annals and inhabitants of the north Solway lands of Galloway (Galwegians or Gallovidians, if you like) is uncertain. As Donnchadh O'Corrain puts it "the word is the same, the people need not be." In general the extent of Norse settlement in Galloway has still to be demonstrated and a British population "with strong Irish, Hebridean and Anglian influences and probably Dublin-Norse overlordship" remains the most likely picture. If so, then Gaelic (etc) is as likely to have come over the water directly as from the Scot kingdom to the north.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Strathclyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Strathclyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

What is the background of this weird name "Alt Clut", which looks half Anglo-Saxon and half British, or perhaps half Irish and half British? The traditional historian's names for this kingdom are not this, but Strathclyde or Dumbarton. Publicising this ugly alternative looks like someone's pet Wikipedia project: what is its basis in the sources? Deipnosophista (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a ref for the name to Tim Clarkson's Strathclyde and the Anglo-Saxons. It also extensively referred to, as Alclud, in Thomas Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons, the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That doesn't seem a long or particularly authoritative list. I haven't got any of the big books on my shelves, but if one's looking at popular works, Leslie Alcock's Arthur's Britain, Michael Wood's In Search of the Dark Ages and Breeze and Dobson's Hadrian's Wall all use the name "Strathclyde". Of course, "Strathclyde" and "Dumbarton" are both modern names (though so are "Rome", "Britain", "Gaul" &c, and none the worse for that). But "Alt Clut" doesn't sound any better. Where does it come from in the manuscript sources – did the inhabitants really call the kingdom that (rather than, say, "Cymru" or "Cymrai")?
I'm no etymologist, but it looks a bit like "allt" (Irish for river), along with "clut" (which reminds one of the Old Cornish "cluth" meaning a ditch, and perhaps by association also a river, and could well be the origin of the name "Clyde"). In other words, it seems one of those irritating names you get when the (e.g.) Saxon newcomers turn up and say to the locals "What's that called?", the British locals say "That's called a river" ["afon" in Welsh], and the newcomers turn to each other and say "Ah, that's called the River Avon" – so it ends up being called "River River" in two languages! That may have its own charm, but it's not the "original" name, and is no more authoritative than the [?] eighteenth-century one we've grown used to. Ah, well! Deipnosophista (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway[edit]

Can someone with a good understanding of the history of this kingdom put in a paragraph or so on the status and ethnic make-up of the Galloway region during the exsitence of this kingdom? It is given very short shrift in the article - even the infobox map blocks it out - despite it being of obvious strategic importance immediately south of the core of the kingdom. Every map I've seen made of the old kingdom seems to show it as a province, sometimes looking semi-autonomous and sometimes with a diverse ethnic composition. It just seems to be an obviously important area that is maybe mentioned in passing once or twice in the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund I's conquest of 944[edit]

In the article it says that Edmund I's invasion in 944 and subsequent handing over the kingdom to the king of Scots probably didn't happen (no source). It says this is to follow John of Fordun's account too literally. These events are described by the earlier Roger of Wendover, so this implicity claim that it didn't happen needs substantiation. It seems to have been only of temporary effect anyway as I read that the exiled king Dunmail soon found his way back to his throne anyway. This all from 'The Age of Athelstan' by Paul Hill. LastDodo (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broader focus wanted?[edit]

The focus in this article is very much on political, linguistic and military issues, which is understandable as these are prominent in what sources we have and were undoubtedly very eventful areas during the time of this Kingdom. However, I would argue for extending the article to explain more about social organisation and other issues. I suspect there is little evidence available in this area, and one thing which would be useful to have would be an outline of what specialist sources there are (for example, the Wikipedia article on the laws of Wales makes reference to the legal customs and terminology of the Britons of Strathclyde, citing Lloyd, John Edward, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, 1912 – this is not exactly an up-to-date source, and I for one would be interested to know where Mr Lloyd got his knowledge and what modern scholars think of it; this article would be a suitable place for such information). Similarly what original sources are available for, or work has been done on, religion in the kingdom, or literature or social organisation, would enable the article to present a more rounded picture. Deipnosophista (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know there are no primary sources covering these aspects. The best secondary sources are probably the books by Charles-Edwards and Clarkson. Driscoll provides a brief summary of the archaeology. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Site protection[edit]

There was no reason for some imbecile to put a lock on this page. All content must be able to be sourced, including introductory paragraphs. The enteries on Wikipedia are in constant flux and it is up to the populace to keep them as accurate as possible. That means dealing with the uneducated, the snooty high brows and vandals alike. Putting a block on a page is akin to muzzling the freedom of speech. Sic semper tyrannis 96.61.91.149 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

origins section, second paragraph says the Northern border was Hadrians wall. Hadrians wall is to the south, the Antonine wall is to the north. 146.90.57.85 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording means that Hadrian's Wall was the northern border of Roman Britain, except for the period when the Romans advanced north to the Antonine Wall. I have revised to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes[edit]

An IP argues that "a region the Welsh referred to as Yr Hen Ogledd" should be "a region the Welsh tribes referred to as Yr Hen Ogledd. That is wrong. Historians do not refer to Welsh tribes for this period. The Welsh were divided into kingdoms or territories, not tribes. See Wales in the early Middle Ages, which makes this point specifically. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are incorrect. However before I get to that; please explain to me why for the past three plus years you have had no issue with the word tribes being used. Then for some unknown and quite unnecessary reason someone decided to rewrite the article. Now you have an issue with the word being included. Funny that. Now to the issue, you should know better then to try and reference another Wikipedia article as a source of information. All the minor ‘petty’ kings would have liked to think their people were part of a kingdom but the people were woefully independent; and tended towards tribal/family ties. See King Henry the second’s letters where he describes first hand the manner of the Welsh people. And this being hundreds of years later then the time in question. 64.35.203.197 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Welsh were divided into kingdoms which frequently changed their boundaries, Dyfed, Powys, Gwynedd etc, as different dynasties rose and fell. Rory Naismith says that loyalty to a lord was a paramount virtue and he does not mention tribes (Early Medieval Britain, pp. 258-259) If tribes were important in this period then their names would be very well known, but I am not aware of any. Can you name any early medieval Welsh tribes or cite a reliable source for them with details of the title and page numbers? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Strathclyde&oldid=1209797965"