Talk:Caledonians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Caledonians is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
Colin Reader should have been Dr. Colin Martin. The confusion may have been from his book a Reader in Scottish History.--Seàn B. 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picts/Caledonians
I had always been led to believe that the Picts weree a race apart, and the Caledonians were the British ancestors of the Strathclyders. I know this is dealt with in the relevant section, but it's contentious and shouldn't be asserted in the introduction.
- I don't think that's contentious (although there's plenty of contentious stuff in the article). The lands of the Caledonii were, if we are to believe Ptolemy, in Perthshire, which would make the Caledonians Picts from the 3rd century. As for the kingdom of Strathclyde, that was in the region where Ptolemy placed the Damnonii. Angus McLellan 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge article?
I am thinking the article should be merged with Caledonia. Laurel Bush 09:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC).
- I could see it being merged with an article on the Caledonii themselves. Currently we are using Caledonia to describe all of Scotland north of the Antonine Wall in many sources even though the Caledonii were one tribe amongst the Vacomagi, the Taexali and the Venicones all inhabiting the area. Many history books define Caledonia much more tightly and exclude these tribes, limiting Caledonia proper to the area around the Great Glen and a bit further southwards. I think we need to define how we are going to use Caledonia: in its poetic sense as a name for all Scotland, in the Roman historians' sense as a name for just northern Scotland or as the more precise sense as the land of the Caledonii. I will try to find out if anyone has any theories about which tribes made up the Confederacy. adamsan 14:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me the problem with getting 'precise' about Caledonia and the Caledonii is that precise defintions tend to be very speculative, different historians tending to have rather different defintions. Indeed defintion and counter-definition seems to be something of a minor creative industry. However, I have no problem with Caledonia and Caledonian Confederacy as items within an article called Caledonii. I believe Caledonia is quite derivative of Caledonii as used by Ptolemy. Laurel Bush 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC).
- What should it be then folks? The recent new edits have consolidated tribe and confederacy together, is this the way to go? I would argue with the new assertion that the Caledonians forced the Romans to abandon Scotland, there are other, much-discussed, factors to consider, as outlined in the Roman Britain article I think. A few points about Caledonian political organisation seem to have been lost in the recent changes and I do sense that some passages no longer represent the known sources, eg the use of 'resistance' as a term in areas that were not officially occupied and where an uprising and southward invasion is better historically attested. adamsan 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that Google hits are not always an effective tool for deciding on an article topic. Caledonians can refer to a number of different modern organisations as Google clearly shows. The issue I feel about the Caledonian Confederacy was that it may be preferable to treat it separately, as a name given by historians to a losely defined group of tribes, whilst the Caledonii/Caledonians and the archaeological knowledge about their society could be better served under Caledonii. Thoughts
? adamsan 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
