A bit late to this (brought back by your wonderful Auldearn post) but surely one argument for a northern location is simply that the Annals of Ulster record it as a victory for the men of Fortriu ("la firu Fortrenn" - AU 904.4)?
Assuming the identification of Fortriu with the north is correct, and assuming the narrative of a shift in the centre of power to south of the mounth post-839 is also correct, it seems inherently unlikely that it would be the army of the (weaker) north that was defending the (stronger) south against vikings deep within southern territory in Strathearn in 904? Woolf argues against 904 being used as evidence for Fortriu being equated with Strathearn on the basis that "It could have been an away match", but in fact it would have been an away match for both sides - the Vikings and the men of Fortriu fighting each other within the heartland of southern Alba. A northern location of the battle, with the men of Fortriu defeating the Vikings while defending their own heartland in the hinterland of Forres does seem on the face of it more likely.
An alternative (or possibly complementary) interpretation of the AU description might be that the post-839 power dynamic between north and south was a bit more complicated. As you touched on in your earlier post of Forres, Woolf ("Pictland to Alba", pp223-224) and McGuigan ("Mael Coluim II", pp51-55) both suggest this, but come to diametrically opposite conclusions from the same evidence - that no descendants of Causantin mac Cinaeda died south of the Mearns, while only one descendant of Aed mac Cinaeda didn't. McGuigan argues that this shows that Forres was part of Clann Causantin's home territory, and that they were thus based in the north; while Woolf argues that it shows that Clann Causantin was based in the south, with Clann Aeda being based in the north, as the demise of Clann Aeda coincides with the rise of the Moray-based Clann Ruadri in their place.
If it is Woolf's conclusion that is correct, then Causantín mac Aeda's powerbase would have been in the north, which might explain why it was specifically the men of Fortriu fighting the Vikings in 904, wherever the battle took place. This might also explain the line immediately before the section you quoted from the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, which seems to directly equate the "men of Fortriu" with the "men of Alba" later in Causantín's reign in 918: "?918 Almost at the same time the men of Foirtriu and the Norwegians fought a battle. The men of Alba fought this battle steadfastly, moreover, because Colum Cille was assisting them".
But then, if Causantín mac Aeda's power was centred in the north, doesn't that itself make a northern location for 904 more likely?
In fact, thinking about this some more (and to continue my wordy rant!) - taken at simple face value, if both 904 and 918 were victories over Irish Sea Vikings for the "Men of Fortriu", as explicitly documented in two separate Irish sources, then it's far from impossible that Sueno's Stone could commemorate either or both of them, wherever they took place? I guess the presence of an image of a coronation on the stone would make 904 the more likely, as it follows only a few years after Causantin's accession?
And it seems very unlikely that it was a northern-based power that fought the Vikings twice in 15 years - evidently as part of a successful long-term campaign, for the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland follow up by saying that "For a long time after that neither the Danes nor the Norwegians attacked them, and they enjoyed peace and tranquillity" - but that this was under a king whose power base remained in the south, who nonetheless enjoyed a reign over the north of over 40 years?
If Causantin was northern-based and had led a successful Alfredianesque campaign against the Vikings, that might also explain why the famous "inauguration" at Scone in 905 took place 5 years after he took power. This wouldn't be an expression of southern dominance, but southern submission to a power that had established dominance from the north (Woolf actually mentions the possibility "that an interregnum existed between Domnall and Constantín during which Ímar effectively ruled the Tay basin (900–4)" p135).
One final thought, and contradicting myself by being against the idea that the Battle of Sraith Heren was in the north: if the 918 victory of the "Men of Fortriu" was one or both of the ambiguous Battle(s) of Tinemore/Corbridge (which is suggested by the reference to the killing of Oitir, though Corbridge's status as a "victory" seems tenuous) then this location is even more remote from Fortriu than the Perthshire Strathearn, which would weaken my "Away match" argument above.
All highly speculative, and open to being demolished by proper experts, but fun!
That two of the defining features of Causantin's early reign are explicitly and independently ascribed to the "Men of Fortriu", 60-80 years after Fortriu's power was supposedly destroyed by the events of 839 and 843 and power moved south, does seem worthy of explanation though.
Hi Daniel, thanks very much for all of this - and of course I am very pro the idea of the battle of Sraith Herenn taking place in Moray (and therefore, of Fortriu being the northern province of the kingdom).
In fact I'm coming back to this in my next post, about the many Eren/Erin/Heryn/Ern/Erne etc. place-names dotted around lowland Moray, not all of which (as Thomas Clancy noted about Auldearn) can be explained by their proximity to the Findhorn. I was very excited the other day to realise that Ulern/Vlerin, where Malcolm I died, according to some of the king-lists, and which is probably Blervie (since a 1221 land grant to Kinloss Abbey says that Ulern was next to Burgie), is another such name. Although that does shore up the existence of a "Schrodinger's Strathearn" to add to "Schrodinger's Fortriu" and "Schrodinger's Dún Nechtain", as places that could equally have been in the north or the south.
Further vague thoughts: if Causantín was based in the north and the north was Fortriu, it would lend weight to my wild theory that Dun Foithir was Burghead and not Dunnottar. When AEthelstan invaded Scotland in 934 and harried as far as "Dunfoeder et Wertermorum" (Woolf's "Dún Nechtain, Fortriu" p. 197) that would mean he went as far as Burghead and the plain of Fortriu, i.e. the Laich. Since Burghead seems to have been destroyed in the early 10th century, it may even have been AEthelstan's army that burned it down! But this is an extremely wild theory at present and I hope no proper historians are reading!
Finally, Alex Woolf (Pictland to Alba p. 130) suggests that the mention of Dunkeld in CKA's "In his third year the Norsemen plundered Dunkeld and all Albania" is evidence that the chronicle was being kept at Dunkeld and that therefore the southern Strathearn was a more likely location for the 904 battle. But I wonder if Dunkeld was singled out for special mention because that's where the relics of Columba were kept, and therefore it was a particularly holy place - making it especially outrageous that the Norsemen had plundered it. But this is probably just me seeing things I want to see.
All good fun, though, as you say - do keep the comments coming!
Ahh, so that's the basis of the Ulern/Blervie identification!
Definitely looking forward to that one.
It is funny given the pretty much universal acceptance of Fortriu being in the north that Woolf himself expressed a degree of nervousness that some evidence might turn up to show it wasn't true after all.
Excellent as always. Assuming the southern Stathearn this also fits with earlier raiding like the battle of dollar. The Roman road of course ran along strath Allan and strath earn and would be the obvious route for raiders from the coast trying their luck? Might the victory be explained by being caught too far from safety along the road. Lots of supposition of course!
A bit late to this (brought back by your wonderful Auldearn post) but surely one argument for a northern location is simply that the Annals of Ulster record it as a victory for the men of Fortriu ("la firu Fortrenn" - AU 904.4)?
Assuming the identification of Fortriu with the north is correct, and assuming the narrative of a shift in the centre of power to south of the mounth post-839 is also correct, it seems inherently unlikely that it would be the army of the (weaker) north that was defending the (stronger) south against vikings deep within southern territory in Strathearn in 904? Woolf argues against 904 being used as evidence for Fortriu being equated with Strathearn on the basis that "It could have been an away match", but in fact it would have been an away match for both sides - the Vikings and the men of Fortriu fighting each other within the heartland of southern Alba. A northern location of the battle, with the men of Fortriu defeating the Vikings while defending their own heartland in the hinterland of Forres does seem on the face of it more likely.
An alternative (or possibly complementary) interpretation of the AU description might be that the post-839 power dynamic between north and south was a bit more complicated. As you touched on in your earlier post of Forres, Woolf ("Pictland to Alba", pp223-224) and McGuigan ("Mael Coluim II", pp51-55) both suggest this, but come to diametrically opposite conclusions from the same evidence - that no descendants of Causantin mac Cinaeda died south of the Mearns, while only one descendant of Aed mac Cinaeda didn't. McGuigan argues that this shows that Forres was part of Clann Causantin's home territory, and that they were thus based in the north; while Woolf argues that it shows that Clann Causantin was based in the south, with Clann Aeda being based in the north, as the demise of Clann Aeda coincides with the rise of the Moray-based Clann Ruadri in their place.
If it is Woolf's conclusion that is correct, then Causantín mac Aeda's powerbase would have been in the north, which might explain why it was specifically the men of Fortriu fighting the Vikings in 904, wherever the battle took place. This might also explain the line immediately before the section you quoted from the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, which seems to directly equate the "men of Fortriu" with the "men of Alba" later in Causantín's reign in 918: "?918 Almost at the same time the men of Foirtriu and the Norwegians fought a battle. The men of Alba fought this battle steadfastly, moreover, because Colum Cille was assisting them".
But then, if Causantín mac Aeda's power was centred in the north, doesn't that itself make a northern location for 904 more likely?
Hi Daniel, argh, just wrote a long reply to this and then somehow deleted it! Will come back to you :)
In fact, thinking about this some more (and to continue my wordy rant!) - taken at simple face value, if both 904 and 918 were victories over Irish Sea Vikings for the "Men of Fortriu", as explicitly documented in two separate Irish sources, then it's far from impossible that Sueno's Stone could commemorate either or both of them, wherever they took place? I guess the presence of an image of a coronation on the stone would make 904 the more likely, as it follows only a few years after Causantin's accession?
And it seems very unlikely that it was a northern-based power that fought the Vikings twice in 15 years - evidently as part of a successful long-term campaign, for the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland follow up by saying that "For a long time after that neither the Danes nor the Norwegians attacked them, and they enjoyed peace and tranquillity" - but that this was under a king whose power base remained in the south, who nonetheless enjoyed a reign over the north of over 40 years?
If Causantin was northern-based and had led a successful Alfredianesque campaign against the Vikings, that might also explain why the famous "inauguration" at Scone in 905 took place 5 years after he took power. This wouldn't be an expression of southern dominance, but southern submission to a power that had established dominance from the north (Woolf actually mentions the possibility "that an interregnum existed between Domnall and Constantín during which Ímar effectively ruled the Tay basin (900–4)" p135).
One final thought, and contradicting myself by being against the idea that the Battle of Sraith Heren was in the north: if the 918 victory of the "Men of Fortriu" was one or both of the ambiguous Battle(s) of Tinemore/Corbridge (which is suggested by the reference to the killing of Oitir, though Corbridge's status as a "victory" seems tenuous) then this location is even more remote from Fortriu than the Perthshire Strathearn, which would weaken my "Away match" argument above.
All highly speculative, and open to being demolished by proper experts, but fun!
That two of the defining features of Causantin's early reign are explicitly and independently ascribed to the "Men of Fortriu", 60-80 years after Fortriu's power was supposedly destroyed by the events of 839 and 843 and power moved south, does seem worthy of explanation though.
Hi Daniel, thanks very much for all of this - and of course I am very pro the idea of the battle of Sraith Herenn taking place in Moray (and therefore, of Fortriu being the northern province of the kingdom).
In fact I'm coming back to this in my next post, about the many Eren/Erin/Heryn/Ern/Erne etc. place-names dotted around lowland Moray, not all of which (as Thomas Clancy noted about Auldearn) can be explained by their proximity to the Findhorn. I was very excited the other day to realise that Ulern/Vlerin, where Malcolm I died, according to some of the king-lists, and which is probably Blervie (since a 1221 land grant to Kinloss Abbey says that Ulern was next to Burgie), is another such name. Although that does shore up the existence of a "Schrodinger's Strathearn" to add to "Schrodinger's Fortriu" and "Schrodinger's Dún Nechtain", as places that could equally have been in the north or the south.
Further vague thoughts: if Causantín was based in the north and the north was Fortriu, it would lend weight to my wild theory that Dun Foithir was Burghead and not Dunnottar. When AEthelstan invaded Scotland in 934 and harried as far as "Dunfoeder et Wertermorum" (Woolf's "Dún Nechtain, Fortriu" p. 197) that would mean he went as far as Burghead and the plain of Fortriu, i.e. the Laich. Since Burghead seems to have been destroyed in the early 10th century, it may even have been AEthelstan's army that burned it down! But this is an extremely wild theory at present and I hope no proper historians are reading!
Finally, Alex Woolf (Pictland to Alba p. 130) suggests that the mention of Dunkeld in CKA's "In his third year the Norsemen plundered Dunkeld and all Albania" is evidence that the chronicle was being kept at Dunkeld and that therefore the southern Strathearn was a more likely location for the 904 battle. But I wonder if Dunkeld was singled out for special mention because that's where the relics of Columba were kept, and therefore it was a particularly holy place - making it especially outrageous that the Norsemen had plundered it. But this is probably just me seeing things I want to see.
All good fun, though, as you say - do keep the comments coming!
Ahh, so that's the basis of the Ulern/Blervie identification!
Definitely looking forward to that one.
It is funny given the pretty much universal acceptance of Fortriu being in the north that Woolf himself expressed a degree of nervousness that some evidence might turn up to show it wasn't true after all.
Yes, the Ulern/Blervie reference is in here: http://soas.is.ed.ac.uk/index.php/psas/article/download/4408/4386/ (hopefully you can open it, the link doesn't always open for me).
Excellent as always. Assuming the southern Stathearn this also fits with earlier raiding like the battle of dollar. The Roman road of course ran along strath Allan and strath earn and would be the obvious route for raiders from the coast trying their luck? Might the victory be explained by being caught too far from safety along the road. Lots of supposition of course!
Thanks Murray! Yes, my feeling is that it probably was the southern Strathearn given the other places mentioned in CKA, but who knows?