The Crisis of the Third Century › Picts » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- The Crisis of the Third Century › Ancient History
- Picts › Antique Origins
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
The Crisis of the Third Century › Ancient History
Definition and Origins
The Crisis of the Third Century (also known as the Imperial Crisis, 235-284 CE) was the period in the history of the Roman Empire during which it splintered into three separate political entities: the Gallic Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Palmyrene Empire. These breakaway empires, as well as the social turmoil and chaos which characterized the period, resulted from a number of factors: a shift in the paradigm of leadership following the assassination of the emperor Alexander Severus (222-235 CE) in 235 CE by his own troops, increased participation by the military in politics, lack of adherence to a clear policy of succession for emperors, inflation and economic depression caused by a devaluation of currency under the Severan Dynasty, increased pressure on the emperor to defend the provinces from invading tribes, the plague which heightened fears and destabilized communities, and larger armies which required more men and decreased the agricultural labor force.
After the assassination of Alexander Severus, the empire would see over 20 emperors rise and fall in the almost 50 years between 235-284 CE as compared with the 26 emperors who reigned from the time of Augustus Caesar (27 BCE - 14 CE) to Severus, 27 BCE - 235 CE, a period of over 250 years. The empire was restored through the efforts of Emperor Aurelian(270-275 CE) whose initiatives were developed further by Diocletian (284-305 CE) who is credited with ending the crisis and ensuring the future survival of the empire.
THE CRISIS BEGINS
Septimus Severus (193-211 CE), who founded the Severan Dynasty, began the policy of placating the military and buying their loyalty through increased pay and other measures. Septimus Severus raised a soldier’s pay from 300 to 500 denarii annually, which was long overdue, but at the same time enlarged the armed forces in order to meet the challenges from beyond the borders which Rome now faced. In order to pay his soldiers, he debased the currency by adding less precious metal to the coinage. Although this initial debasement did not cause any economic problems, it set a precedent for later emperors to do the same.
THE EMPIRE WOULD SEE OVER 20 EMPERORS RISE & FALL IN THE ALMOST 50 YEARS BETWEEN 235-284 CE.
Further, by playing to the military, Severus weakened the traditional standing of the role of the emperor and made the position dependent on the loyalty of the army. Even though the emperor always relied on the support of the military to one degree or another, the courting of the military by the emperor became far more pronounced. Although throughout the Severan Dynasty the danger of this shift in the traditional model – in which the emperor was supreme by right of succession – posed no problem, it would become apparent after the death of the last emperor of the dynasty, Alexander.
Alexander Severus was dominated by his mother, Julia Mamaea, and grandmother, Julia Maesa, who directed him from the start of his reign as a young boy. In spite of a number of positive policies initiated, he was never able to break free from the hold of his mother and this would eventually lead to his downfall. Alexander’s mother was already unpopular with the troops because of the pay-cuts she had initiated in order to save money for her own purposes. As it became more and more apparent that Alexander was only a puppet of his mother, the troops lost respect for him, and the final insult came on a campaign against the German tribes.
He followed his mother’s advice to pay off his opponents for peace instead of engaging them in battle. While his mother regarded the option as the most prudent, Alexander’s decision to follow her advice was seen as dishonorable and cowardly by Alexander’s troops; he and his mother were both assassinated by his commanders. The Thracian soldier Maximinus Thrax(235-238 CE) then took control and became the first of the so-called “Barracks Emperors” who would come and go quickly throughout the crisis of the next 49 years.
THE BARRACKS EMPERORS
The “Barracks Emperors” is a term coined by later historians referring to the Roman emperors who came from and were raised to power by the army. Whereas in the past an emperor came to power through a system of succession – either as the son or adopted heir of the sitting emperor – he was now chosen by the military based on his popularity with the troops, generosity toward the military, and his ability to produce immediate and discernible results. When any of these criteria were disappointed – especially the last – he was assassinated and replaced by another.
Between the reign of Alexander Severus and that of Diocletian, there were over 20 emperors who rose and fell in fairly swift succession. These were:
Maximinus Thrax (235-238 CE) who was killed by his troops when they tired of the constant warfare, foreign and domestic, he continued plunging them into. Further, he was considered an ineffective leader in the face of famine, plague, and large-scale civil unrest.
Maximinus I
Gordian I and Gordian II (238 CE, March-April) were a father and son, made emperors by the Senate, who took part in the attempt to overthrow Maximinus. Gordian II was killed in battle fighting pro-Maximinus forces, and Gordian I committed suicide upon hearing of his death.
Balbinus and Pupienus (238 CE, April-July) also opposed Maximinus but were quite unpopular with the people and were killed by the Praetorian Guard.
Gordian III (238-244 CE) co-ruled with Balbinus and Pupienus until they were assassinated and was then proclaimed emperor by the military supporters of Gordian I and Gordian II. He was assassinated, probably by his successor Philip the Arab.
Philip the Arab (244-249 CE) was the Praetorian Prefect under Gordian III and made his son, Philip II, his co-emperor. He was killed in battle by his successor Decius, and his 12-year old son and co-emperor was then murdered by the Praetorian Guard.
Decius (249-251 CE) was a regional governor raised to power by his troops. He followed Philip’s policy and made his son his co-emperor in order to ensure a smooth succession, but both were killed in battle fighting the Goth coalition under the leadership of King Cnivaat the Battle of Abritus in 251 CE.
Hostilian (251 CE, June-November), the younger son of Decius, died in office from the plague.
Gallus (251-253 CE), a commander under Decius, also made his son, Volusianus, co-emperor; both were assassinated by their own troops who elevated Amelianus.
Aemilianus (253 CE, August-October), a regional governor chosen by the troops, who proved disappointing and so was assassinated in favor of Valerian.
Valerian (253-260 CE) made his son Gallienus co-emperor. He was captured by the Sassanid Persians under Shapur I(240-270 CE) on campaign and died as their prisoner. According to some reports, his body was stuffed after his death and displayed in the Persian court for visiting dignitaries.
Gallienus (253-268 CE) was an effective ruler and military leader who initiated a number of important developments in the military (most notably expanding the role of the cavalry) and also culturally. Even so, he could not escape the climate of the times and was assassinated by his own troops on campaign in a conspiracy involving the future emperor Aurelian.
Claudius Gothicus (268-270 CE) who received his honorary epithet “Gothicus” following his victories over the Goths. He is said to have been reluctant to accept the position of emperor and avenged the murder of Gallienus. He showed great promise as an effective emperor but died of the plague only two years into his reign.
Quintillus (270 CE), the brother of Claudius Gothicus, came to power briefly following the latter’s death but died soon after, probably assassinated by Aurelian.
Aurelian (270-275 CE) was one of the few Barracks Emperors to make a concerted effort to place the good of the people and security of the empire above his own personal ambition. He reunited the empire by defeating the Gallic and Palmyrene breakaway empires and bringing them back under Roman control and was also victorious over a number of different hostile tribes, thus securing the borders. In spite of his successes, he was assassinated by his commanders.
During the next nine years, Tacitus, Florianus, Probus, Carus, Numerian, and Carinuswould rule – all following the same paradigm of elevation by the troops and, in most cases, assassination by them – until Diocletian took power. In the years all these men were fighting with each other over who would rule or should rule, the empire they sought to lead was falling apart. Since the death of Alexander Severus, the would-be emperors required larger and larger armies and more supplies and, lacking the funds to pay for these, they debased the currency again and again.
In response to the economic and social chaos of the time – and the uneven quality of leadership in dealing with a number of pressing difficulties – it is not surprising that the vast empire should split apart and leaders should arise who felt they could do better for their people without the drama and bloodshed that had become the government of Rome. In 260 CE the regional governor of Upper and Lower Germania, Postumus (260-269 CE), broke away to create the Gallic Empire comprised of Germania, Gaul, Hispania, and Britannia, and c. 270 CE Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (267-272 CE) in the east formed her own empire – the Palmyrene – which stretched from Syria down through Egypt.
THE BREAKAWAY EMPIRES
Although Postumus and Zenobia are often characterized as rebels against Rome, they were not. There is nothing in Zenobia’s official actions, and little in those of Postumus’ after his initial strike, which could support a definition of “open rebellion” against the state as they were wise enough to recognize that, even with Rome’s problems, it could still pose a substantial threat.
Instead of confronting Rome with a new potential enemy, Postumus assured the Roman Senate and the emperor that he was acting in Rome’s best interest by securing the provinces and, in the east, Zenobia followed this same policy and even made sure to issue coinage with Aurelian’s image on one side and her son Vaballathus’s on the other. Zenobia seems to have hoped that her son would be considered for the dubious honor of becoming the next emperor of Rome and so the popular characterization of her empire as a rebellion is untenable. Postumus, although clearly acting on his own to the point where he created his own senate and government bureaucracy, also honored Rome in his policies and courted its favor.
Roman Empire 271 CE
Rather than open rebellions, the Gallic and Palmyrene empires should be regarded as natural and common-sense reactions to the chaos into which the Roman Empire had degenerated. Although it seems clear from a distance that both Postumus and Zenobia were vying for power and independent sovereignty of their realms, they did so at all times under the guise of acting on Rome’s behalf and in the hope of some future reward or acknowledgement from the Roman government.
For most of the period of the Crisis of the Third Century the emperors were too busy fighting each other or driving off invading forces to pay much attention to the breakaway empires on their borders. When Aurelian came to power, however, he made the reunification of the empire a priority.
AURELIAN’S RESTORATION
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus – better known as Aurelian – was a commander of the cavalry under Gallienus and a popular and able leader. He was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Gallienus, but before he could take power, Claudius Gothicus usurped the throne, and after his death, his brother Quintillus. Aurelian most likely disposed of Quintillus and was supported by the army in his coup.
He had already proven himself an exceptional and ruthless commander and between 270-272 CE elevated his reputation with campaigns against the Vandals, Alamanni, Juthungi, and Goths – among others – securing the borders of the empire. Once this was accomplished he turned his attention east and marched on Zenobia.
Zenobia in Chains
Aurelian was a soldier, not a politician, and so was uninterested in Zenobia’s motives for taking Egypt nor in any of her actions which were allegedly done in service to Rome. Upon entering her territory, he implemented the same scorched earth policy which had worked so well against his other adversaries and destroyed every city he came to until he reached the outskirts of Tyana. This was the home-city of the famed philosopher and mystic Apollonius of Tyana, and in a dream, Apollonius appeared to Aurelian and told him to be merciful if he wished for victory. Aurelian spared the city, and word of his mercy spread quickly; the other cities in the region opened their gates to him without resistance upon his approach.
Zenobia assembled her armies under the command of her brilliant general Zabdas and met Aurelian at the Battle of Immae in 272 CE. Aurelian ordered his cavalry to engage and then retreat as though in a rout, forcing the opposing cavalry to pursue. Aurelian’s strategy was to lure his opponents into a trap by tiring them out and leading them to a site of engagement of his own choosing, and this worked exactly as he had planned.
At a certain point, the Roman forces wheeled about and drove into the advancing Palmyrenes in a pincer movement which crippled their charge and killed most of them. Zenobia and Zabdas escaped the battle, regrouped, and fought again at the Battle of Emesa where Aurelian was again victorious using exactly the same strategy.
Zabdas was probably killed (he is not mentioned again), and Zenobia was taken prisoner by Aurelian. Although she is famously depicted as being paraded through the streets of Rome in golden chains, this is most likely a fiction. Aurelian would not have wanted to call any more attention to Zenobia than was necessary as it was already considered an embarrassment that he had to expend so much effort against a woman.
Once the regions of the east were restored to the empire, Aurelian marched west to subdue the area Postumus had claimed as his own. Postumus himself was dead by this time, killed by his own troops in 269 CE, and the Gallic Empire was led by Tetricus I (271-274 CE). Aurelian’s reputation preceded him on his march west, and Tetricus I seems to have had little desire to meet the emperor on the field. Even so, the two armies met at the Battle of Chalons in 274 CE where Tetricus I’s forces were nearly annihilated by Aurelian.
AT THE BATTLE OF CHALONS IN 274 CE TETRICUS I’S FORCES WERE NEARLY ANNIHILATED BY AURELIAN.
Much debate and speculation surround the Battle of Chalons since early reports claim that Tetricus I wrote to Aurelian before the event asking to surrender or, at least, for the emperor to spare him and his son. In the event, Tetricus I and his son were spared and Tetricus I lived out the rest of his life as an administrator, and this is seen by some as proof of Aurelian’s later claims that Tetricus I betrayed his troops.
The claim makes little sense, however, as Aurelian would have been far better off sparing the entire army and simply accepting Tetricus I’s surrender before battle. Although he won a decisive victory over Tetricus I, it still cost him in men and supplies, which were important resources in maintaining the empire. Further, he could have made ample use of the army Tetricus I fielded for the battle instead of slaughtering them.
A more likely reason for Tetricus I’s survival is the lesson Aurelian learned on the Palmyra campaign regarding the benefit of mercy. In sparing Tetricus and his son, Aurelian showed himself a leader who did only what was necessary to restore order and who forgave, instead of punishing, transgressions.
It is probable that Aurelian thought this policy would work in his favor in the future, should any others decide to secede from the empire, but he did not live long enough to find out. He was assassinated by his commanders who were under the mistaken impression that he intended to execute and replace them.
CONCLUSION
The Imperial Crisis ended not so much with the restoration of the Roman Empire to what it had been as with a fundamental change in the most important aspects of government. Diocletian dealt firmly with every one of the aspects which had contributed to the chaos of the 50 years which preceded him. Building upon Aurelian’s initiatives of securing the empire’s borders and elevating the position of emperor above the common people or military, Diocletian went further in creating an aura of divinity around the position while reducing a ruler’s reliance on military support.
Roman Emperor Diocletian
He decreased the power of the military by implementing a policy of defense-in-depth whereby mobile forces within the empire would reinforce stationary forces garrisoned at the border, which meant he no longer needed large standing armies in forts who might become attached to their commander or regional governor. The mobile armies also took care of another problem: the propensity for soldiers to serve in their home regions. While this policy had been considered an advantage – as one would fight for one’s home more resolutely than for a stranger’s – it also allowed for greater bonds forged between the men and their regional commander than between the men and the emperor.
Diocletian also issued a more stable currency and curbed the rampant inflation and, to ensure a smooth succession and a more stable government, enacted the tetrarchy (rule of four) whereby the responsibilities of governing the vast empire were divided between two separate rulers whose successors were already in place when they assumed their positions. His final solution to the problems of the empire was his famous division of the realm between the Eastern and the Western Roman Empires, which made each more manageable under the reign of their respective emperors.
The efforts of Aurelian and Diocletian would sustain the Western Roman Empire for almost 200 years and the Eastern Roman Empire (known as the Byzantine Empire) until 1453 CE. The legacy of Rome, however, continues to the present day and has significantly affected generations of people around the world for centuries in a way it might not have if it had not survived its crisis in the 3rd century CE.
Picts › Antique Origins
Definition and Origins
The Picts were a people of northern Scotland who are defined as a "confederation of tribal units whose political motivations derived from a need to ally against common enemies" (McHardy, 176). They were not a single tribe, nor necessarily a single people, although it is thought that they came originally from Scandinavia as a cohesive group. Since they left no written record of their history, what is known of them comes from later Roman and Scottish writers and from images the Picts themselves carved on stones. They are first mentioned as "Picts" by the Roman writer Eumenius in 297 CE, who referred to the tribes of Northern Britain as "Picti" ("the painted ones"), ostensibly because of their habit of painting their bodies with dye. This origin of their name has been contested by modern scholarship, however, and it is probable they referred to themselves as some form of "Pecht", the word for "the ancestors". They were referenced earlier by Tacitus who referred to them as "Caledonians" which was the name of only one tribe.
The Picts held their territory against the invading Romans in a number of engagements and, although they were defeated in battle, they won the war; Scotland holds the distinction of never falling to the invading armies of Rome, even though the Romans attempted conquest numerous times. The Picts exist in the written record from their first mention in 297 CE until c. 900 CE, when no further mention is made of them. As modern scholars point out, their absence from written history does not mean that they mysteriously vanished or were conquered by the Scots and annihilated; it simply means no more was written about them as they merged with the southern Scots culture, who already had a written history by that time, and the two histories became one from then on.
ASIDE FROM THE OCCASIONAL RAIDS BY ONE TRIBE AGAINST ANOTHER, THE PICTS SEEM TO HAVE LIVED PEACEFULLY UNTIL THREATENED BY OUTSIDE FORCES.
ORIGINS, CLANS, & NAME
Although it was accepted history in the past to date the arrival of the Picts in Scotland to sometime shortly before their mention in Roman history, or to claim a "Pictish Invasion", modern scholarship offers a much earlier date with no full-scale invasion. According to the Collins Encyclopedia of Scotland, "the Picts did not 'arrive' - in a sense they had always been there, for they were the descendants of the first people to inhabit what eventually became Scotland" (775). Historian Stuart McHardy supports this claim, writing that "the Picts were in fact the indigenous population of this part of the world" by the time the Romans arrived in Britain (32). They originally came from Scythia (Scandinavia), settled first in Orkney, and then migrated south. This claim is further supported by archaeologist and professor at Aberdeen University, Dr. Gordon Noble, who states, "All evidence points to the Picts being indigenous to northern Scotland...they began to coalesce during the late Roman period and formed some of the most powerful kingdoms in northern Britain in the early medieval period" (Wiener, 2). They lived in tightly-knit communities and built their homes out of wood, although their skill in stone carving is evident from the many engraved standing stones still extant throughout Scotland and housed in museums. These carved stone slabs are the only record the Picts left of their history; the rest of their story is told by later Roman, Scottish, and English writers.
McHardy credits the Picts with building the megalithic structures (such as the Ness of Brodgar), which can still be seen in Scotland in the present day (33). They established themselves in small communities made up of families belonging to a single clan which was presided over by a tribal chief. These clans were known as Caerini, Cornavii, Lugi, Smertae, Decantae, Carnonacae, Caledonii, Selgovae and Votadini (McHardy, 31). These clans (known as "kin") acted in their own interests, often raiding each other for cattle, but banded together when threatened by a common enemy and elected a single chief to lead the coalition. The kin (which comes from the Gaelic word for "children") would continue to follow and protect their chief, but that chief would obey the warrior all had agreed upon as group leader. Regarding the role of the chief, the historians Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry write:
The head of the kin was a very powerful man. He was looked upon as father of everyone in the kin, even though he might only be a distant cousin to most. He commanded their loyalty: he had proprietary rights over their land, their cattle; their possessions were in a sense his. His quarrels involved them and they had to take part in them, even to the point of laying down their lives (33).
This emphasis on the importance of family and a reverence for the father-figure may actually be the origin for the name "Picts" as the people have come to be known. McHardy, and others, cites the word "Pecht" as "a general catch-all term for 'the ancestors' within Scotland" (36). McHardy and the other historians claim that the people of Northern Scotland referred to themselves as "Pecht", meaning both that they honored the ancestors and were themselves of ancient stock (i.e. the indigenous people of the land). McHardy cites the historian Nicolaisen who shows how "the Roman 'Picts' corresponds closely to the Old Norse Pettir and to the Old English Pehtas" and that these names, and others from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, "do not derive from each other but from a common source - probably a native name" (McHardy, 36). Given this, McHardy writes, "it is highly unlikely that [the Picts] were given their name by the Romans and therefore the idea of the term meaning 'the painted ones' has no basis in fact" (37). This claim, like many concerning the Picts, has been contested. Whatever they may have called themselves, and whatever it meant, the coalition of tribes ranged across the whole of Northern Scotland as far north as Orkney and as far south as the Firth of Forth. The males of the tribe were all warriors but, when not called upon to defend their clan or land, were farmers and fishermen and the females also farmed, fished, and raised the children. Aside from the occasional raids by one tribe against another for cattle, the Picts seem to have lived fairly peacefully until threatened by outside forces.
Pictish Stone, Invereen, Scotland
THE COMING OF ROME
Rome’s first incursions into Britain were in 55 and 54 BCE by Julius Caesar but began effectively in 43 BCE under Emperor Claudius. In 79/80 CE, Julius Agricola, the Roman governor of Britain, invaded Scotland and pressed on to a line between the rivers Clyde and Forth by 82 CE. After establishing fortifications, he invaded northern Scotland in 83 CE and was met by the Pictish leader Calgacus in battle at Mons Graupius. The historian Tacitus recorded the battle and, in so doing, was the first to give a written account of Scottish history. It is from Tacitus' account of the battle the oft-misquoted line, "they make a desert and call it peace" comes. The actual line as set down by Tacitus is, "They make a solitude and call it peace." Mons Graupius is an example of the Picts gathering together under a single leader to combat a common enemy. Tacitus does not call Calgacus a king nor a chief but writes, "One of the many leaders, named Calgacus, a man of outstanding valour and nobility, summoned the masses who were already thirsting for battle and addressed them" (McHardy, 28). Tacitus records that Calgacus had 30,000 men under his command whom he encouraged prior to the battle through his famous speech (which many historians claim is Tacitus' own creation). Calgacus began his address to his warriors thusly:
I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace (29-38).
Agricola faced the Picts with 11,000 soldiers of the 9th Legion and defeated them. The Picts attacked in the same form they would have grown accustomed to in tribal warfare, while the Romans held their position in strict formation and repulsed the charge, then counter-attacked. Tacitus writes, "the Britons, when they saw our ranks steady and firm and the pursuit beginning again, simply turned and ran. They no longer kept any formation or any touch with one another, but deliberately broke into small groups to reach their far and trackless retreats." McHardy notes, however, that what Tacitus perceived as a rout was actually a tactical maneuver. He writes how the Picts "had retreated back into the forests and mountains" and then goes on to note:
Tacitus presents this as a result of their defeat but another way of considering this is that they had gone back to their scattered communities to regroup. It is a telling fact that no other Roman source talks of a formal battle like Mons Graupius in the north during the rest of the period of Roman occupation of southern Britain. Although there were later major outbreaks of warfare like the Barbarian Conspiracy of 360, it would appear that the native warriors learned quickly that there was little use in fighting the disciplined Roman fighting machine in set battles, particularly when their own skills had been learned in the process of small-scale, fast-moving raids. The scattering referred to can be seen as the Caledonians reverting back to smaller-scale raiding groups after the battle. Something like modern guerilla warfare was clearly called for and would appear to have become the norm for the next 300 years (48).
Although the Romans won the battle, allegedly killing 10,000 Pictish warriors, they could not capitalize on this victory. Unlike other nations which the Romans invaded, the northern reaches of Britain had no central cities which could be conquered. McHardy notes that, "By the time the Romans arrived in the northern half of the British Isles they had already overrun most of Europe and had developed a methodology of conquest and control. The lack of clearly defined central locales as seats of political power was perhaps part of the ongoing problem they had in trying to subdue this part of the world" (41). The Romans, in fact, never conquered the region which would become Scotland although they would make repeated attempts. The tribal nature of the Picts meant that they could move quickly from one locale to another, they were not tied to one single settlement in a geographical region, and they were adept at living off the land. The Romans, therefore, found themselves facing opponents who had no central cities to conquer, no farmlands to burn, and who, after Mons Graupius, refused to face them in the field as other peoples had done. The Picts were unconquerable because they presented the Romans with a new paradigm which Rome could not adapt to. The Roman legions had not yet encountered this kind of guerilla warfare (which would also prove effective in the Goth resistance under Athanaric to Roman invasion of their lands in 367-369 CE) and so were unable to subdue an enemy who lived, moved, and fought unlike any opponent they had faced before. The historians Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry write:
Tacitus described Mons Graupius as a great Roman victory; who can blame him. But was it? The fact remains that Agricola retired southwards when it was over. Moreover, when he left Britain a few months later, the frontier between the Romans and the Caledonians was nowhere near [the site of the battle]. It was more than 150 miles south, and over the years that followed, the Roman occupation of Scotland contracted and contracted. It probably never consisted of more than the holding of key forts and fortlets, and as time went by less and less of them (25).
Pictish Warrior with Drinking Horn
In 122 CE the emperor Hadrian ordered the construction of his famous wall which ran for 73 miles (120 km), sometimes at a height of 15 feet, from coast to coast. In 142 CE, the Antonine Wall was constructed further north under the reign of Antoninus Pius. These walls did nothing to discourage Pictish raids. The Frys note that, "both Hadrian's and the Antonine Wall were psychological as well as physical barriers. They marked boundaries, as it were. But neither side for a moment imagined them to be impregnable. Perhaps the Romans did not even intend them to be" (27). The walls served as a demarcation line between the southern lands under Roman domination, which were considered "civilized", and the barbarian wilderness of the north which was controlled by the Picts. When the Romans left Britain in 410 CE, the Picts still lived in the regions north of the wall as they always had. Whatever effect the Roman presence may have had on them is unknown, but the carvings the Picts left on their standing stones show no major differences in lifestyle from before the arrival of Rome to after the departure of the legions.
THE COMING OF CHRISTIANITY
During the time of the Roman occupation of Britain, the Roman Empire had adopted Christianity as the state religion, beginning with the emperor Constantine's decree of religious toleration, the Edict of Milan, in 314 CE. Christian missionaries began inroads into the lands of the Picts beginning with St. Ninian in c. 397 CE. The efforts of these missionaries, combined with the growing power in the south of the kingdom of Northumbria, would have lasting effects on the Picts. As McHardy observes, "Where the Roman Empire failed to conquer the Picts, the Christian Church succeeded" (93). The Picts practiced a tribal paganism which seems to have involved goddess worship and a devotion to nature which involved great respect for specific sites of supernatural power across the land where the goddess lived, walked, or had performed some kind of miracle. Women in Pictish society were regarded as the equal of men and succession in leadership (later kingship) was matrilineal (through the mother's side), with the reigning chief succeeded by either his brother or perhaps a nephew but not through patrilineal succession of father to son. There seems to be no record of the concept of "sin" in Pictish belief (the same as in other forms of paganism) and, as the goddess lived among the people, the land was to be venerated as one would the home of a deity. Christianity introduced a new paradigm of how the universe worked. McHardy writes:
The new religion brought in new concepts. The idea of an all powerful, often vengeful, male God was accompanied by the concept of all humans, and particularly women, as being essentially sinful. This, in a society where the likelihood was that women were at the very least equal to men, but where there was belief in a Mother Goddess, and possibly some sort of matriliny, suggests major change. There were other radical changes. The old goddess was within the landscape, the new God was in some unidentified stellar heaven. This would have to mean changes in people's perceptions of both themselves and the environment they inhabited (94).
While Ninian's efforts to convert the Picts had some effect, his later successor, St. Columba, would achieve major advancements in spreading Christianity. Ninian established Christianity among the southern Picts at some point in the reign of the Pictish king Drust I(also known as Drest I and Drust son of Irb) who ruled from either 406-451 CE or 424-451 CE (to name just two of the possible dates of his reign). Columba arrived from Ireland in c. 563 CE when the Pictish king Brude son of Mailcon ruled. Brude (also known as Brude I or Bridei) united the northern and southern Picts and, depending on which source one accepts, either became a Christian after meeting Columba or was already of the faith when Columba arrived.
A FORMER TRIBAL WARLORD IN IRELAND, COLUMBA KNEW HOW TO MOBILIZE & INSPIRE LARGE GROUPS OF MEN & MADE USE OF THIS TALENT IN HIS CONVERSION OF THE PICTS.
A former tribal warlord in Ireland, Columba knew how to mobilize and inspire large groups of men and made use of this talent in his conversion of the Picts. It is from the time of Columba's missionary work around the Pictish stronghold of Inverness that the legend of the Loch Ness Monster derives. St. Adamnan, who wrote The Life of St. Columba, includes the story of a large monster who lived beneath the waters of the River Ness and had already eaten inhabitants of the region when Columba arrived. Columba rescued one of his companions from the monster by invoking the name of God and commanding the creature to depart at which point, "the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes." This defeat of the monster is supposed to have greatly impressed the Picts who then converted to Christianity. Although the story deals with the River Ness, not the Lake Ness, it is considered the basis for all later stories about the Loch Ness Monster. Columba's other feats of wonder, including besting Pictish sorcerers at their own game (very like Moses with the Egyptian priests in the Book of Exodus) enhanced his reputation further and made Christianity a more attractive alternative to the traditional Pictish beliefs.
By the time Columba died in 597 CE, the Picts were mostly Christianized and had largely left their earlier way of life behind. The conversion of the Picts was not always a peaceful one, however. As late as 617 CE Picts were still resistant to the new religion, as evidenced by the martyrdom of Saint Donnan along with fifty-one of his followers by the Picts on the island of Eigg. Although records such as Adamnan's Life of Columba, or the works of Bede, present a narrative of Christian missionaries steadily, and successfully, advancing the faith, other works, such as the Annals of Ulster, make it clear that the conversion process did not go so smoothly. Even in 673 CE some segments of the Pictish population were still resistant to the new faith as evidenced by their burning of a monastery in Tiree.
NORTHUMBRIA & THE BATTLE OF DUN NECHTAIN
The Picts' way of life was not only under assault by the Christian missionaries within their borders but also by a growing power to the south. The rise of the Anglican Kingdom of Northumbria, which made regular incursions into Pictish land, necessitated strong central leadership in the form of a king of all the tribes, instead of the old system of many tribal chiefs uniting for a time under the guidance of a single leader. Although it is unclear why the Picts felt the need for a central government, it is thought that they may have attributed the Northumbrians' effectiveness in conquest to their kings and so sought to protect their lands by employing the same system of government.
Northumbria had the resources and manpower to take large portions of land from tribes such as the Scots, who had arrived from Ireland and settled in Dalriada and Argyll, and the Britons of Strathclyde; both of whom were then subject to the Angles of the Kingdom of Northumbria. The Angles had also seized parts of the Pictish lands to the north, subjugating the people and installing kings whom they felt would serve their purposes. One of these Pictish kings was Bridei Mac Billi (better known as Brude Mac Bile) who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the Pictish kings for halting the advance of the Angles of Northumbria and freeing his lands of their influence. In doing so, he would also remove the Northumbrian yoke from the Britons and the Scots to the south, as well as other tribes, and more or less set the early boundaries of what would later become England, Scotland, and Wales.
Battle of Dun Nechtain
The Northumbrian king Ecgfrith, who was Brude's cousin, may have helped him to power on the condition that Brude would regularly send tribute and would work for Ecgfrith's interests. This claim has been contested, however, and it is also thought that Brude came to power after the Northumbrians defeated the king of the Northern Picts, Drest Mac Donuel at the Battle of Two Rivers in 670 CE. However Brude came to power, it is clear that he was expected to send tribute south to Northumbria. Brude, however, had no intention of doing so and, although it seems he initially did send tribute in the form of cattle and grain, this practice ended soon after he had consolidated his power. Ecgfrith was hardly pleased with this development but became more upset by Pictish raids into his kingdom south of Hadrian's now crumbling and undefended wall. Ecgfirth decided it was time to remove Brude and teach the Picts an important lesson but was advised to try diplomacy before battle.
At the same time, Brude was further consolidating his power by subduing rebellious Pict sub-chiefs. In 681 CE he took the stronghold of Dunottar and by 682 CE he had a navy of adequate size and strength to sail to Orkney and subdue the tribes there. Following this victory, he took the Scots' capital of Dunadd to the west so that, by 683 CE, he had secured his northern, eastern, and western boundaries (Orkney, Dunnotar, and Dunadd) and only had to concern himself with an attack directly from the south.
This attack came in May of 685 CE when Ecgfirth could no longer tolerate Brude's threats to his rule and refused the counsel of his advisors to try further diplomatic measures. He mobilized a force of cavalry (possibly numbering around 300) to put down what he saw as a Pictish rebellion in his lands. The Picts under Brude lured the Angle force deeper and deeper into their territory and then struck at a place known in English chronicles as Nechtansmere and in Welsh chronicles as Linn Garan; the Annals of Ulster refer to it as Dun Nechtain and this is the name most commonly referenced by historians. The Angle forces found themselves between the Pictish army, which is said to have numbered in the thousands, and the marshes of the lake. Ecgfirth, realizing his dangerous position, opted for a full-scale charge of his cavalry uphill to break the Picts' line in the center. Brude, however, fell back, feigning retreat, and then turned and held the line. He repulsed the charge, sending the Angles reeling in retreat back down the hill and toward the marshes; then, he counter-charged. The historian Bede, who gives the most detailed account of the battle, writes:
The enemy pretended to retreat and lured the king into narrow mountain passes, where he was killed with the greater part of his forces on the twentieth of May in his fortieth year and the fifteenth of his reign...Henceforward the hope and strength of the English realm began to waver and decline, for the Picts recovered their own lands that had been occupied by the English, while the Scots living in Britain and a proportion of the Britons themselves regained their freedom. Many of the English at this time were killed, enslaved, or forced to flee from Pictish territory (McHardy, 124).
The Battle of Dun Nechtain broke Northumbria's power and secured the borders of the lands of the Picts which, later, would become Scotland. It also drove the Christian missionaries of the Angles out of Pictish lands which allowed for the original Columban brand of Christianity to take hold in the highlands instead of the Roman brand which had been accepted by the Angles. Brude continued to rule until his death in 693 CE; by which time his kingdom was secure and at peace. He was succeeded by an unpopular king, Taran, who was deposed after four years and succeeded by Brude Mac Derile who defeated another Anglican invading force in 698 CE and issued the famous decree, set down by St. Adamnan, known as the "Law of the Innocents" which set guidelines for the waging of war in order to protect women, children, clergy, and other non-combatants.
THE RELIGIOUS WARS & THE SALTIRE
Brude Mac Derile died in 706 CE and was succeeded by his brother, Nechtan Mac Derile, who favored the Angles' version of Christianity over the Columban, or Celtic, church. The primary source of contention between the two was the dating of the celebration of Easter as well as secondary issues such as how the monks should wear their hair and conduct themselves. The more serious underlying issue, however, was that the Celtic church was locally based while the Anglicans had chosen to place themselves under the dictates of the Pope in Rome. This meant that the Celtic church owned its own lands while churches to the south were effectively owned and operated from Rome; priests in the land of the Picts came from the local community, those to the south were appointed by Roman Catholic authorities in Italy. It is not clear why Nechtan favored the Roman Catholic version of Christianity but, in 710 CE, he issued a royal decree to all the churches in his realm that they should accept the Roman Catholic dating of Easter and comply with Roman Catholic dictates in other regards.
NECTAN ABDICATED THE CROWN IN THE FACE OF GROWING HOSTILITY TO HIS RULE & RETIRED TO A MONASTERY.
This decree was seen by the Picts as a surrender to the Angles of the south, but they obeyed it, however reluctantly, until 724 CE when Nectan abdicated the crown in the face of growing hostility to his rule and retired to a monastery. As soon as he had left the throne, the land erupted in civil war between adherents of the Celtic Church and those who had come to favor Roman Catholicism. For five years the land of the Picts was divided by almost daily conflict between these two sects but the fighting would actually last longer, until c. 734 CE, and none of the kings who followed Nechtan seemed to have the power to stop the killing. Finally, in 734 CE, Oengus son of Uurguist came to the throne and took control. It seems he was able to unite the Picts by focusing their hostilities against an enemy other than themselves or the Angles: the Scots of Dalriada. He invaded Dalriada in 734 CE and, in 736 CE, captured the citadel of Dunadd. The Scots were defeated and subjugated by 750 CE and Oengus then turned his attention to the Britons; but was defeated at the Battle of Mocetauc.
Following Oengus, other kings ruled with more or less distinction until the rise of Constantin son of Fergus in 780 CE who consolidated the victories of Oengus into one kingdom under his rule. Constantin united the Picts and the Scots and was the first Scottish ruler to be known as Ard Righ -`High King' - of the Scots. When he died in 820 CE, his brother Angus son of Fergus took the throne. Angus is best known as the ruler who saw the vision of St. Andrew's cross in the sky, white clouds forming an `X' against the blue background, which would later come to be known as the Saltire, Scotland's flag. The Angles were again invading the land of the Scots and Picts and had gathered their forces at Mercia. The night before battle, St. Andrew appeared to Angus in a dream and promised him victory in battle if the king would dedicate a tenth of his riches to the service of God. Angus agreed to this and, the next morning, the white cross appeared in the sky as confirmation of the deal. The Scots-Picts coalition defeated the English under Athelstan and Angus adopted the white `X' on a blue background as his standard.
KENNETH MAC ALPIN & UNIFICATION
Although the Picts and the Scots had been joined under Constantin, history regularly credits this to the later king, Cinaed Mac Alpin, better known as Kenneth Mac Alpin. A popular story, long in circulation and still cited in history books, relates how Kenneth was a king of the Scots who, through intrigue and trickery, was welcomed by the court of the Pictish king and then murdered the royal family and seized the throne. Modern historians and scholarship reject this version of events completely. The original sources explicitly name Cinaed Mac Alpin as "king of the Picts", not of the Scots and his name is Pictish, not Scottish. The story of his "swindling or slaughtering the Picts all survive only in medieval manuscripts, with no earlier provenance" (McHardy, 167).
It is widely recognized today that Kenneth Mac Alpin was descended from King Aed Find of Scottish Dalriada and Constantin son of Fergus of the Picts; he was therefore an agreeable choice as king to both the Scots and the Picts. The claim that he wiped out the Pictish nation with a Scottish force after murdering the noble Pictish court is untenable. Firstly, there was no `Pictish Court' as it would have been imagined by later medieval writers and, secondly, as noted, Kenneth Mac Alpin had a legitimate claim to the throne of the Picts and would have had no need to exert force to claim the title of king. Kenneth Mac Alpin united the Picts and Scots more securely than Constantin, leading them in campaigns against the English to drive them completely from the region which would become Scotland. He came to the throne in 843 CE and, in eight years, extended his kingdom further than any other ruler of the region before him. By the time of his death in 858 CE, the borders of Scotland as a nation were recognizable in its present form and the English had been driven south into their own lands.
Besides the English encroachments, Kenneth Mac Alpin routinely had to fend off the increasing raids by Vikings who harassed the coast. He moved the relics of St. Columba from the holy island of Iona to Dunkeld (the new ecclesiastical seat), to secure them from Viking raids and is also credited with setting the Stone of Destiny at Scone as a symbol of national pride and power to inspire his people. After his death, the Viking raids continued and, as McHardy notes:
Many of these raids were extremely brutal. Surviving Annals from both Ireland and England tell of repeated raids year on year. The raids continued for much of the century and in time were accompanied by the Vikings settling. While many of the raids were carried out by handfuls of longships with up to a couple of hundred raiders, there were also some years when the Northmen arrived in much greater force. They were successful in taking over most of Scotland north of Inverness, the Hebrides and the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland, and they came close to totally conquering the Picts on at least one occasion (161).
In response to the threat of the Viking invasions, the Picts and the Scots became even more unified. Giric, son of Donald Mac Alpin, Kenneth's brother, is the last ruler mentioned as `king of the Picts' and, after his death in c.899 CE, the Picts are not mentioned in history again. McHardy writes: "the tribal peoples of Pictish and Scottish origin combined to form the new political entity of Alba which in turn became Scotland" (175). Dr. Gordon Noble supports this claim, stating there was "an increasing amalgamation of Picts and Scots - probably because of increasing Viking pressure on the native kingdoms of northern Britain" (Wiener, 3). The Picts of the ancient world did not disappear nor were they conquered and destroyed; they remained, the indigenous people of northern Scotland, and their ancestors still walk their lands and fields in the present day
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License