Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial thoughts[edit]

This is a lovely piece of work that appears to have sprung almost fully formed from the efforts of Ben MacDui. I don't have access to any references, and am assuming that the article hasn't been lifted from elsewhere. I'm neither historian nor Romanist. I was largely ignorant about these aspects of the country of my birth, despite visits to Hadrian's wall etc.

The evidence of things not seen is here.

Here are some thoughts:

I'm pretty sure this is on a trajectory to go beyond GA and end up as FA
The opening section needs to mention the Roman naming of Caledonia, before we get to the reference to the "Caledonian confederacy". Incidentally, the hyperlink to the Cal confed needs to be up front here, not two-thirds of the way through.

Fixes for both attempted. Ben Mac Dui 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one should contrast "genuine" history with protohistory. I think the opening should be something like this:

Scotland during the Roman Empire encompasses a period of time from the arrival of Roman legions in c. AD 71 to their departure in 213. The history of the period is complex: the Roman empire influenced every part of Scotland during the period, however the occupation was neither complete nor continuous. Analysis and interpretation is further complicated by the fact that the idea of both "Scots" and of "Scotland" as a discrete entity did not emerge until many centuries later. The period is marked by the appearance of the first historical accounts of the peoples of Scotland, as well as by extensive, if at times inconclusive, archaeological evidence.

Good - I like that and have amended the opening para per the above. Ben Mac Dui 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Caledonian confederacy" concept is a little confusing - does it indicate that the Scottish people recognised themselves as a political entity? Is it a label given to them by the Romans? Or is a historical label now being applied? This should be clarified. It may be better avoided in favour of direct description of the situation, eg. "an opportunitistic alliance of lowland clans" or "an army raised by clan chiefs" or whatever this 'confederacy' represents.

I have added a little more detail, but any understanding of the nature of aboriginal politics is pretty speculative. Ben Mac Dui 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the section on "Iron Age culture in Scotland" is too long, contains too much methodological information, and is almost an article in its own right. It mostly isn't linked to the actual subject of the WP entry. My suggestion is:

the first section of the article (after the intro paras) should be "Scotland before the Roman arrival", should contain a short summary of the current "Iton Age culture" section, and also mostly omit methodological matters (such as radiocarbon issues). It should incorporate a version of the first two paras of what is now "The Dawn of Scottish history"
this should be followed by the section "The Dawn of Scottish history", minus the two paras that were moved to the above.

Mons graupus: if any information exists, it would be good to know how these circumstance arose: how was it that the "Caledonians" came to raise such a significant, integrated, massed army? However, I realise that what you have written may be all that is known in the lit.

I cannot say for absolutely certain but I am not aware of any meaningful information that has been omitted. My own opinion is that at the very least the scale of the encounter was exaggerated by Tacitus, and I am sure that no information at all is available that would describe the Caledonians' preparations from their point of view. Unless someone stumbles upon the site we may never know much more. Ben Mac Dui 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These early sections would benefit from a map showing in general terms the locations (where known) / directions of campaigns, or where known locations are: we expatriates really haven't much of a clue!

Map added. I'll see if something useful can be added to the description.Ben Mac Dui 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian's Wall: there needs to be an account of views about why it was constructed - it is the purpose of Hadrian's wall that links this feature to the article's subject (Scotland) rather than to England where it is physically located. Obviously it appears to be a defensive structure (and this is mentioned already), but was its construction linked to particular attacks? Can the section make an explicit link to threats to trade or to towns from Caledonian / Maeatae tribes? (There is reference in the following seciton to "Hadrian's containment policy", and perhaps the key is to make this an explicit subject within the Hadrian's Wall seciton.)

Attempted. I'm not aware of any specific attacks it was designed to circumvent. Ben Mac Dui 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Painted Ones: This section comes kind of 'out of the blue'. It isn't clear why we've started to hear about Picts, and even after I read the article, I wasn't sure how they related to either the Caledonians or, indeed the Romans. Not being a Scot, I never really frmed a picture of where the Picts would be found in the Scottish geography. This whole section sits wierdly with all the rest, which is outstanding. I'm struggling to work out a suggested solution, though I accept the material is relevant and some of it extremely interesting. Maybe someone else will have suggestion...

There has been some discussion about the scope of the article. It's important to bear in mind that its about Scotland during the time of the Roman Empire, and fills a gap that exists after Prehistoric Scotland and before the later Iron Age. It is not exclusively about the Roman Empire in Scotland. The emergence of the Picts is therefore part of the subject matter. Having said that I will see if I can pare the Picts section down as it does have its own substantial article.

If the Iron Age Culture section were cut back it would result in a more-or-less complete loss of the information as there is no existing "main article" on the subject. I'll come back to this later. Ben Mac Dui 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on legacy is excellent.

Thank-you.

I loved reading this article, and look forward to it ticking along. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

This is looking good. To make it to FA, I would suggest the map of Scotland would have to be one that is custom-prepared: one that specifically has marked on it those place names and regions discussed in the article. (or a "map of Roman Scotland", if one exists - I have a big Ordnance Survey paper map of Roman Britain - i had in mind some sort of version of this. I don't know anything about creating maps online, however).

Agreed - and unfortunately I have not managed to commence an initiation into this mysterious art either.

If the article is about Scotland between the prehistoric period and the later Iron Age, would it be better titled "Scotland in the Iron Age"? I'll leave that thought for others to think about.

The challenge is that the Iron Age begins circa 800, the Romans and the first written records appear, then the Romans leave and Iron Age culture simply re-asserts itself. Ideally there would be a "Scotland in the Early Iron Age" which would then be a "main" for the existing "Iron Age culture" section. This is probably the best solution in the long run.

Leaving the previous point aside, I think the simplest solution to begin with is to introduce the "Painted Ones" section slightly differently. Start it with a sentence along the following lines: "The intermittent Roman presence in Scotland coincided with the emergence of the Picts, a confederation of tribes..." etc.

OK & done.

I'm not sure whether the last three Paras of the 'Picts' section are still specifically about the Picts, or have moved on to settlement in Scotland generally. If they are about the Picts, then they're fine. If they are more general, they may need their own sub-heading, and be moved into the main section on "towns and southern brochs".

Clarified.

Apart from the following point:

Is the last para of the 'Picts' section (re Ravenna Cosmography) still to do with Picts? What is a loci? I mustn't have been reading carefully the first time, because this para further lacks context. I checked the WP Ravenna entry and was not further enlightened (!). To be honest, I would drop this para altogether, particularly as it is not clear what Ravenna's loci actually are, let alone to what locations they correspond.

Clarified and moved.

I'll stick in a more explicit 'main article' link to the Picts. If you want to tinker with the Picts section in particular, and taking on board your comments about the need for the Iron Age to be retained, I reckon it's about there for GA.

Thanks and will do. Ben Mac Dui 13:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the above is now attempted or explained. I'll have a look at the "Scotland in the Early Iron Age" option asap. Ben Mac Dui 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]