Claims of succession in my opinion are often times far fetched and stretched. Scottish nationalists for example see themselves as the successors to the Picts north of Hadrian's wall. Even the very name Scot is derived from a Celtic Gaelic tribe. However the vast majority of Scots speak and live a primarily Germanic life in the sense of Scots/English and few if any actually can speak any Gaelic. Culturally and historically they have more in common with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors to the South but that is how identity politics works. We make links even if they are tenuous in order to establish a semblance of order and stability for the modern state we reside in.
Very well analysed, dear Sir, and I note with the greatest respect that you are yourself a legatee of one of the most ancient of heritages. You bear the name of those who, as the remote tribe of the Uttara Kamboja, might be identified with the Scythians of the extreme north-east corner of the Achaemenid Empire of a millennium later - spread across the provinces of Sogdiana and Chorasmia (later Khwarizm), and of Sattagydians, Gandharans, Dadicae, Aparytae, of whom you might recognise the Dadicae, the Daradas, specifically identified with the Kamboja, living to the north and the north-west of the Kashmir Valley, roughly in Gilgit. I feel that it is difficult to separate them completely from the fierce cavalry mounted on magnificent horses that assisted the wrong side during the Mahabharata War, stopping Arjuna in his tracks on more than occasion with their slashing charges, and thus linking them with the Scythians of the Ferghana Valley whose horseflesh caused such heartburn among the Chinese.
Some of the better known Pakistani cricketers of today and yesterday might identify with the Aparytae, but that is another story.
As for the Scots, they really need to make up their minds. The Picts are not Gaelic, but the Scots were, and are identified with the ancient people of Ireland. They spread across the Irish Sea and formed the ancient kingdom of Dalriada, and from there, expanded slowly right through today's Scotland, ironically, uniting with the Picts after a disastrous defeat at their hands (together, they formed Alba). This was roughly during the end of the 8th century and beginning of the 9th century; the slowly expanding kingdom of the Scots, as the successor kingdom to Alba was called, coexisted with the Anglo-Saxons, fighting with the Northumbrians, and marrying into the Aethelings, until well into the 12th century, when with the Norman Conquest, there was a 'Europeanisation' of Scotland, and what you have described became the dominant social theme, an identification with the Anglo-French ruling class of England, leading to the Scots themselves being ruled by a race mixed between old Scottish stock, the ancient Mormaers of the 9th century onwards, who turned into the great Earls, and the Anglo-Norman kin of the Normans in England.
Strange how identity politics goes.
It is always a pleasure to read your posts; they strike sparks from the flinty stuff that some of us are condemned to carry between our ears.
