Social myth. People to this day pretend Scotland was divided by this while historic documents don't mention it until the 16th century and not regularly until the 17th.
And then it's easily disproven by the fact the majority of the Jacobites were from the "lowlands" and things like the kilt were worn across much of the same area.
>historic documents mention it from the 1500s, regularly so from the 1600s
Sounds like it was a historical concept that people put some stock in, based on your own statements that it is referenced in documents from 500 years ago.
>historical concept that people put some stock in
Try curing your mental illness and read the rest of my post
"And then it's easily disproven by the fact the majority of the Jacobites were from the "lowlands" and things like the kilt were worn across much of the same area. "
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the rest of your post is correct. But that doesn’t really matter if people from the 1500s and 1600s are mentioning a division that could’ve been for other reasons, before the kilt took its modern form and before the cult of Jacobitism really sprang up after the 1700s. I’m just going by what you’re saying. Tell me why they were noting some distinction before 1700?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>are mentioning a division that could’ve been for other reasons
People mention it now despite it having no relevance >asons, before the kilt took its modern form and before the cult of Jacobitism really sprang up after the 1700s
Aberdeenshire men wore the kilt in the 1600s >Tell me why they were noting some distinction before 1700?
Because they didn't care
The Lowlands are Germanic, the Highlands are Gaelic. They're two distinct peoples who LARP as one.
Two distinct peoples who as I said already didn't have mention until the 1600s essentially
Cheers for confirming you know nothing!
1 month ago
Anonymous
There are no records in the sources that Lowlanders and Highlanders didn't even speak the same language?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>didn't even speak the same language?
In the 1600s large parts of the "lowlands" spoke Gaelic and parts of the Highlands spoke English
Further 4/5 of placenames in the "lowlands" are Gaelic
1 month ago
Anonymous
Source for any of this? A book?
1 month ago
Anonymous
The history of Galloway and Stirling are easily available
>book
If you have to ask them you aren't ready
1 month ago
Anonymous
I’ve read a couple books on Scottish history and they generally say the opposite of what you’re saying—I’m definitely not an expert though, obviously. But you’re making a lot of claims and some source or sources backing you up would go a long way. Link a book or an article or something, anything about all the stuff you’re saying in this thread.
1 month ago
Anonymous
See
Also Thomas Craig who was only 2nd to the top judge in Scotland in the early 17th told that during his youth the Gaelic language was spoken throughout as far Dumbarton and even in the 20th century in these areas Gaelic was still spoken
1 month ago
Anonymous
That’s not a source or a citation
1 month ago
Anonymous
…I myself remember a time when the inhabitants of the shires of Stirling & Dumbarton spoke pure Gaelic. But nowadays that tongue is relegated… …so that one rarely comes upon any who speak it…
Thomas Craig
1 month ago
Anonymous
What book is that from, where did he say that, what article is mentioning that, etc. Is that from his personal memoirs, in some letter, or whatever. And is it mentioned in a larger work that proves your point, which is what I’m asking for. Is there a study that mentions him and other instances supporting what you’re saying?
You’re actually a fricking moron. Even if you’re right about this topic, you’re so fricking dumb.
1 month ago
Anonymous
His tract on the union of Britain >You’re actually a fricking moron. Even if you’re right about this topic, you’re so fricking dumb.
Says the one who couldn't even find a book so your insult really just shows you don't want evidence and just want to hide the truth
1 month ago
Anonymous
But predominantly there was already a clear difference in language.
1 month ago
Anonymous
No as seen by Galloway and large parts of the northern shires.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You didn’t answer my question. You said people mentioned distinctions in historical documents in the 1500s and 1600s. >Because they didn’t care
That isn’t an answer and doesn’t make sense. Forget meme kilt shit, no one cares about that and what people mention today. By your statement, someone mentioned it in the 1500s and 1600s. Why would those documents make a distinction back then if there wasn’t one? Can you even name these historical documents?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You said people mentioned distinctions in historical documents in the 1500s and 1600s.
Yes >meme
So you're only argument is diminishing evidence >Why would those documents make a distinction back then if there wasn’t one?
Because they were inaccurate generalisations.
Also Thomas Craig who was only 2nd to the top judge in Scotland in the early 17th told that during his youth the Gaelic language was spoken throughout as far Dumbarton and even in the 20th century in these areas Gaelic was still spoken
Where's the myth? The dark green part certainly has higher elevation.
Social myth. People to this day pretend Scotland was divided by this while historic documents don't mention it until the 16th century and not regularly until the 17th.
And then it's easily disproven by the fact the majority of the Jacobites were from the "lowlands" and things like the kilt were worn across much of the same area.
All wrong
>historic documents mention it from the 1500s, regularly so from the 1600s
Sounds like it was a historical concept that people put some stock in, based on your own statements that it is referenced in documents from 500 years ago.
>historical concept that people put some stock in
Try curing your mental illness and read the rest of my post
"And then it's easily disproven by the fact the majority of the Jacobites were from the "lowlands" and things like the kilt were worn across much of the same area. "
Yeah, the rest of your post is correct. But that doesn’t really matter if people from the 1500s and 1600s are mentioning a division that could’ve been for other reasons, before the kilt took its modern form and before the cult of Jacobitism really sprang up after the 1700s. I’m just going by what you’re saying. Tell me why they were noting some distinction before 1700?
>are mentioning a division that could’ve been for other reasons
People mention it now despite it having no relevance
>asons, before the kilt took its modern form and before the cult of Jacobitism really sprang up after the 1700s
Aberdeenshire men wore the kilt in the 1600s
>Tell me why they were noting some distinction before 1700?
Because they didn't care
Two distinct peoples who as I said already didn't have mention until the 1600s essentially
Cheers for confirming you know nothing!
There are no records in the sources that Lowlanders and Highlanders didn't even speak the same language?
>didn't even speak the same language?
In the 1600s large parts of the "lowlands" spoke Gaelic and parts of the Highlands spoke English
Further 4/5 of placenames in the "lowlands" are Gaelic
Source for any of this? A book?
The history of Galloway and Stirling are easily available
>book
If you have to ask them you aren't ready
I’ve read a couple books on Scottish history and they generally say the opposite of what you’re saying—I’m definitely not an expert though, obviously. But you’re making a lot of claims and some source or sources backing you up would go a long way. Link a book or an article or something, anything about all the stuff you’re saying in this thread.
See
That’s not a source or a citation
…I myself remember a time when the inhabitants of the shires of Stirling & Dumbarton spoke pure Gaelic. But nowadays that tongue is relegated… …so that one rarely comes upon any who speak it…
Thomas Craig
What book is that from, where did he say that, what article is mentioning that, etc. Is that from his personal memoirs, in some letter, or whatever. And is it mentioned in a larger work that proves your point, which is what I’m asking for. Is there a study that mentions him and other instances supporting what you’re saying?
You’re actually a fricking moron. Even if you’re right about this topic, you’re so fricking dumb.
His tract on the union of Britain
>You’re actually a fricking moron. Even if you’re right about this topic, you’re so fricking dumb.
Says the one who couldn't even find a book so your insult really just shows you don't want evidence and just want to hide the truth
But predominantly there was already a clear difference in language.
No as seen by Galloway and large parts of the northern shires.
You didn’t answer my question. You said people mentioned distinctions in historical documents in the 1500s and 1600s.
>Because they didn’t care
That isn’t an answer and doesn’t make sense. Forget meme kilt shit, no one cares about that and what people mention today. By your statement, someone mentioned it in the 1500s and 1600s. Why would those documents make a distinction back then if there wasn’t one? Can you even name these historical documents?
>You said people mentioned distinctions in historical documents in the 1500s and 1600s.
Yes
>meme
So you're only argument is diminishing evidence
>Why would those documents make a distinction back then if there wasn’t one?
Because they were inaccurate generalisations.
Because they hate the truth
Including
The Lowlands are Germanic, the Highlands are Gaelic. They're two distinct peoples who LARP as one.
Also Thomas Craig who was only 2nd to the top judge in Scotland in the early 17th told that during his youth the Gaelic language was spoken throughout as far Dumbarton and even in the 20th century in these areas Gaelic was still spoken