| Author |
Message |
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
 Posted: Sun 14 Sep, 2014 1:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: |
Lewis, my understanding is that galloglagh is a specific Irish term for Hebredian (hence Gall) mercenary families setting up "shop" in Ireland not a general term for mercenaries. Later Highland mercenaries were considered distinct from Galoglaigh. Yes Highland and Scots mercenaries fought all over Europe. I'm not sure they were particularly prized though. Again outside Gaelic Ireland/Scotland I am not that well researched and would be interested to read more. |
I've always understood "Gall" to mean "foreigner" or "stranger", as in Galloway (an Gall-Ghaidhealaibh) meaning "Foreign Gaels".
In the case of the Galloglagh, I believe the term implies "foreign warriors", i.e. mercenaries.
Interestingly, the old name for France (Gaul) comes from the Germanic word Walha meaning "foreign" - a reference to the Gallic and Celtic tribes who inhabited the region. The Germanic Angles and Saxons likewise referred to the native Pretani who inhabited Britain as Walha "foreigners". This is the origin of the Scottish surname Wallace.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Sep, 2014 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: | | Stephen Curtin wrote: | | On the topic of Highland mercenaries being sought after outside of the Garlic world. Does Highlanders fighting on the continent indicate that they were sought after, or that they themselves were seeking out employment? |
The Garlic world?
Hmm, are you asking about Scottish mercenaries in Italy?
Maybe that is where the Scotto family originated.... |
Ah. Stupid auto-correct on my phone strikes again.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
 |
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Sep, 2014 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Lewis,
Yes the theory might be wrong it does make sense to me though. Scottish and Irish Gaels were not really foreign to each other.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | Hi Lewis,
Yes the theory might be wrong it does make sense to me though. Scottish and Irish Gaels were not really foreign to each other. |
And yet the Galwegians of Galloway were known as Gall-Gaidhel ("foreign Gaels") in Scotland....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: | | Neal Matheson wrote: |
Lewis, my understanding is that galloglagh is a specific Irish term for Hebredian (hence Gall) mercenary families setting up "shop" in Ireland not a general term for mercenaries. Later Highland mercenaries were considered distinct from Galoglaigh. Yes Highland and Scots mercenaries fought all over Europe. I'm not sure they were particularly prized though. Again outside Gaelic Ireland/Scotland I am not that well researched and would be interested to read more. |
I've always understood "Gall" to mean "foreigner" or "stranger", as in Galloway (an Gall-Ghaidhealaibh) meaning "Foreign Gaels".
In the case of the Galloglagh, I believe the term implies "foreign warriors", i.e. mercenaries.
Interestingly, the old name for France (Gaul) comes from the Germanic word Walha meaning "foreign" - a reference to the Gallic and Celtic tribes who inhabited the region. The Germanic Angles and Saxons likewise referred to the native Pretani who inhabited Britain as Walha "foreigners". This is the origin of the Scottish surname Wallace. |
The English “Welsh" and the Danish Vælsk“ both from *Walha can also be seen in the Queen of Danish King Hrothgar (Old Norse Hróarr) in Beowulf.
She is called Wealhþēow in Anglo-Saxon. She is a Helming [some think that would be the Wulfing line (probably East Götaland)], but her name might show a Walha-element -> If wealh-þēow means “Foreign Servant“ [which not all scholars agree on] denoting perhaps some maternal "Walha"-line in her dynasty. She is also described as “frithu-sibb folca“ = "peace-pledge between nations" so a female married off to seal peace between two peoples. She is clearly a queen and not a servant in spite of her name, yet Beowulf's own father is Ecg-þeow (edge servant) and he is a King [likely of West Götaland].
Personally I think her name comes from her queenly roll of taking care of guests to the hall (many foreign) by being the one going around with the cup [as Beowulf's father was a servant to the sword edge]. This motif of the queen offering the traveller a cup is seen in Viking iconography and is what valkyries do when warriors reach valhalla.
Vælsk in Danish at least covered all western europeans not being Germanic (so also Romans both western and eastern) and in later times actually mostly french and italian. Old Norse “Val-land“ is “France“ and southern Belgium is called Wallonia today (where the Franks actually came from originally and they were even Germanic!). Southern Germans called Italy for Welsch-land (Danish Vælsk-land, but that is likely a loan from German).
So Welsh/Vælsk doesn't denote only Gauls/Celts as a people, but “foreign westerners/southerners“ while Slavic people are called Wends and Sami people are called Finns (and later also finns from Finland).
The word is loaned into slavic as “vlach“ and Wallachia for latin (Romanian) people!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Lewis,
I think the "Gall" in Gall-Gaidheal refers to the Norse component. Like Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Irish.
"On the topic of Highland mercenaries being sought after outside of the Gaelic world. Does Highlanders fighting on the continent indicate that they were sought after, or that they themselves were seeking out employment?"
Great question, I have often wondered about the story behind Durer's Galloglass.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | | Great question, I have often wondered about the story behind Durer's Galloglass. |
Well then you might find this interesting
http://www.ucc.ie/en/news/newsarchive/2012/fu...51-en.html
I'm not sure if I believe that Durer based his painting on this particular account, but it does raise the possibility that he never actually saw any Irishmen in person.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | Hello Lewis,
I think the "Gall" in Gall-Gaidheal refers to the Norse component. Like Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Irish.. |
Yes, Gall means "foreigner" in Gaelic, just as Walha means "foreigner" in Germanic. The Norse-Gaels would have been looked upon as foreign Gaels by the Gaels proper.
The Gaelic names Fingall and Dugall mean "fair stranger" and "dark stranger", referring to the Norse and the Danes accordingly.
Hence the component Gall in the term Galloglass refers to "foreign [mercenary] soldiers".
It's worth noting that according to early British history, when the Romans left Britain around 427 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were invited to come to Britain as mercenary soldiers by Vortigern, the King of the Britons, to help defend Britain from the frequent and threatening incursions being carried out by the Scots, who were then a tribe of Irish Gaels and had not yet established a permanent settlement in Britain, which would come several decades later around 500 AD.
The Angles and Saxons are said to have murdered their hosts, the native Briton noblemen, and set about to conquer Britain, which they largely did; at least as far as the Pennine mountains in England. It was the Germanic Angles and Saxons who referred to the native Britons (Pretani) as Walha or "foreigners", and from this Germanic term the modern words Welsh and Wales developed, as did Gaul, based on the Germanic term Walha as applied to the Celtic and Gallic tribes who then inhabited what we call France.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | On the topic of Highland mercenaries being sought after outside of the Gaelic world. Does Highlanders fighting on the continent indicate that they were sought after, or that they themselves were seeking out employment? |
I've never seen any specific requests for Highland troops in Swedish or Danish documents, they simply request that Scots troops be recruited. Gaelic speaking Scots were in fact regarded with some suspicion since they were often seen as "Irren" (Irish). The Irish had a poor reputation among Protestant nations following the defection of Irish troops serving with the English in the Netherlands during the 80 years war and the Swedes had experienced their own problemes with Irish units during their war with Poland-Lithuania 1600-1610.
For a good study in English of the Scots mercenaries serving in the Danish and Swedish armies during the 30YW I recomend James A Fallon's phd thesis "Scottish mercenaries in the service of Denmark and Sweden, 1626-1632"
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.508442
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Neal Matheson wrote: | | Great question, I have often wondered about the story behind Durer's Galloglass. |
Well then you might find this interesting
http://www.ucc.ie/en/news/newsarchive/2012/fu...51-en.html
I'm not sure if I believe that Durer based his painting on this particular account, but it does raise the possibility that he never actually saw any Irishmen in person. |
Did Vital's account include much detail in terms of his description of their swords? I note that Durer has one of the kerns armed with a ring-pommel sword, while another carries what might be Durer's attempt to depict a claymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep, 2014 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Lewis. No the swords are not described. Although if you check out the link below, it says that Vital made a pen sketch to go along with his account. Unfortunately I've never seen this sketch. So I can't varify wheather or not Durer based his work on it.
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T500000-001/
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: | | Neal Matheson wrote: | Hello Lewis,
I think the "Gall" in Gall-Gaidheal refers to the Norse component. Like Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Irish.. |
Yes, Gall means "foreigner" in Gaelic, just as Walha means "foreigner" in Germanic. The Norse-Gaels would have been looked upon as foreign Gaels by the Gaels proper.
The Gaelic names Fingall and Dugall mean "fair stranger" and "dark stranger", referring to the Norse and the Danes accordingly.
|
Which is very weird since Norwegians and Danes basically look exactly the same, so it must have some other meaning.
It seems both Norwegians and Danes were more red haired back then, so neither really fits.
So Fingall might be Norwegians because they the “first strangers“ and the Dugall were the “new strangers“ (Danes) as I have seen attempt to explain the difference.
It could be a difference in dress, banners or something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fellow forumites. I'm afraid I've made a mistake which may have gotten some of your hopes up. In the preamble to Archduke Ferdinand's visit to Kinsale. Dr. Hiram Morgan (director of the CELT project) mentions a "pen portrait" in Vital's account. I mistakenly took this to mean a sketch. After contacting Dr. Morgan, it turn out that by "pen portrait", he meant the descriptive language used in the text itself. I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That resource is great Stephen, do you think Durer drew the image from the descrptions given by the court, helped perhaps by eyewitnesses? There are a few interesting features of the famous picture but on the whole it seems to accord with other images and descriptions. Could Durer have also seen or met Irish warriors as well?
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neal. Personally I believe that Durer never actually met any Irishmen himself, but like you said, based his work on eyewitness accounts. Coincidentally, I just came accross another image of an irishman, on the continent, that I've not seen before.
http://warfare.uphero.com/Irish/Abraham_de_Bruyn-Irish.htm
Clearly this image is very similar to the sketch by Casper Rutz, and I believe that there must be a connection between these two works.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, thanks Stephen, I thought the same thing. I think that'll cause quite a stir among the British Horse archers though.
Thanks Sean I think I did read those threads, I'll go and have another read. There is something of the "ring of truth" to Durer's painting that makes me think he drew it from life, just a feeling really. The bow is the wrong way round though, which is quite an interesting "mistake".
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Durer, strikes me as the kind of artists that wouldn't make mistakes, if he was working from life, but might if he was basing his piece on the work of other less skilled artists. The main thing about Durer's depiction of Irishmen that seems wrong to me is the leine on the figure to the far right. It just doesn't look right to me. Everything else seems legit though.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic