Originally posted by sasquatch672Yes but one thing which stands out from reading histories of the celts is that, although they may have much in common, they spectacularly failed to unite against a common enemy - anglo-saxons - and spent so much time in-fighting that they were easily defeated. Even the welsh couldn't unite against Edward I.
I think an interesting point to be made is the differences between the English and the Irish and Scots. One could make the argument that the Irish and Scots had a great deal more in common during their times in conflict - a hatred of England, a desire for home rule, an affinity for a hard land and climate - than they had separating them. Perhaps it wa ...[text shortened]... ave them the experience to be able to divide two peoples with so much vested in an alliance.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Personally I think tribalisation was the reason. Things had always worked like that, then the anglo-saxons came along with their more united, centralised (loosely pehaps at first), effiicient system and triumphed.
And that really is amazing. To what do you attribute this? Was it the clan structure of the society? From what I've read, Scot power at the time was certainly decentralized. It seemed that even little things needed vast and unwieldy coalitions.
It had happened before when the Romans came along.
Originally posted by sasquatch672That's correct, and Scotch is whisky (and not anything else).
England & the IRA have certainly enjoyed a long cease-fire. To what do you attribute this? Was there a single event, or a series of events? How well is the Northern Ireland government holding?
Sorry, we've gotten off of Scottish sectartianism.
BTW - can you clarify for me when "Scot" is proper & when "Scottish" is correct? Scot seems to refer to a person or group, and Scottish seems to describe a trait.