"Naked, screaming, blue Pictish fanatics" Topic

I was a little disappointed to see no rules for the streaking Pict fanatics in the WAB Arthurian supplement. (Although ALL of the Attecotti are "fierce.") I wonder why this was left out. I mean if Mel Gibson was still painting himself blue and going berserk in the middle ages surely the Picts would have been doing the same in an earlier era >;)

Seriously though, what's the history on the notion of Picts fighting naked and/or having "berserk" troops? Is it just a fancy based on one totem stone, or what?

Also, what's the best way to represent them in WAB? Just make them a standard unit of warriors with the "fierce" attribute?

AX

By 400AD, the Picts were "civilized"! The Wodes were gone and possibly never existed. Calling someone savage and painted blue would make good propaganda for the war effort. you know, "Kill the savage!"

I think it is a fine omission. Of course, it is the dark ages. We don't really know how the Picts looked at this time. So do as you like. You won't be wrong!

If you look at photos of Pictish stones, you'll see ---mm.

You'll see an awful lot of hard-to-make-out figures and shapes. This is because most of them were not carved by classically-trained sculptors, many of them have symbols that don't immediately connect with our cultural understanding and, er, all of them have been standing or laying around out of doors in a cold, wet climate for a thousand years and more.

They didn't come with captions, either.

There are some figures who clearly MIGHT be naked. At least one of them also features a possibly-naked woman, and two ravens. Another might be two men doing a sword dance, clothed or otherwise. None of them show genitals, which (as we understand right away) are the defining features of nudity.

The best preserved stones all seem to feature better-defined figures in boring old cloakas and tunics.

However, the Roman monument known as the Bridgeness Slab (from the Antonine Wall) shows an auciliary cavalryman riding in triumph over several nekkid men who are dead/wounded/apparently thinking deeply about what they have done.

Only fierce people fight naked. It's a rule.

" Seriously though, what's the history on the notion of Picts fighting naked and/or having "berserk" troops? Is it just a fancy based on one totem stone, or what? "

Its balls! Nothing to suggest that they fought naked or of them having berserk warriors. Its the fiction of sad movie makers and sadder rule writers!!

The weather is so cold. If they were naked, they surely would be blue.

Mike B

Nothing to suggest that they fought naked or of them having berserk warriors.

But nothing suggests otherwise either. The beauty of the post Roman period. It is different things to different people.

John,

There's enough info etc in threads on the Arthur Warlist to suggest otherwise.

Well I certainly hope I didn't step on anyone's toes in far as suggesting their ancestors were "savages." Myself, I am German stock, and I always liked the idea that my forebears were ballsy enough to fight the Romans "sky-clad" and howling like wolves :D

There's enough info etc in threads on the Arthur Warlist to suggest otherwise.

Dare I say…there is plenty on Arthur Warlist to suggest either…at some point. I don't remember the whole thread(s) but I think the consensus was that the picts could be "blue" in the earlier times (1st century AD) or it could be propaganda by Agricola and company. Similarly, there is no reason to think that small numbers might be crazy berserker types in post Roman Britain who maybe even painted themselves blue!

Not saying they exist and not saying they didn't. I'm only saying we do not know for sure. And THAT is the beauty of this time period!

The Woads were androgynous waifs who were into bondage:

picture

Their pixie-ish appearance is probably what confuses them with Picts.

They didn't live in Pictland, but apparently resided on both the north and south sides of Hadrian's Wall, shifting to Wales for important celebrations.

The Picts, on the other hand, were a band from Shreveport.

I remember seeing one fellow at a Texas Renaissance festival who claimed to be a Pict. he had bright red hair, and wore nothing but a bunny-fur jockstrap. He had dusted himself all over with carpenter's chalk, so he was indeed blue.

And why should we expect anyone to know any better? All the evidence is in those horrid, repulsive things called books.

(Axabrax, I use BTD nekkid "wild Picts" for my Attecotti. They can stand in as caledones in a pinch.)

Allen

If the cold made them blue the giant biting gnats in that region would be sure to make them mad!

A year or so ago I read an interview with an NFL defensive lineman who was bragging about how he and his teammates were gonna play a December football game that promised to be in sub-zero weather with their light, short sleeved jerseys rather than wear sensible long-sleeved thermals under them. I thought he was an idiot, but it does go to show that young men are willing to do completely stupid, even detrimental things in order to "prove" how "tough" they are. (And let's not even discuss the fans, who don't have the excuse of hard exercise as a source of warmth.) Heck, if it hadn't been for decency laws and the coaches (who at least seem to have some sense), I think this guy and his buddies would have jumped at the chance to "go Braveheart."

Given that human nature has not changed in several hundred thousand years, I have no problem whatsoever conceiving of Picts stripping down and painting themselves blue, ignoring weather, common sense and the fact their opponents had very sharp weapons, simply to convince each other they had huge "stones." Plus, I can imagine such attacks would stand out to the Roman soldier first encountering them— "Holy Jupiter, Flavius, that lunatic is naked!"— and would become a part of his "glory days" stories later on— "Yes, girls, they had less on than a bath slave on a hot day, and it was colder than Pluto's throne. I tell you not less than twenty of them came running at me, dripping head to naked toes in that wild blue paint, screaming their heads off." "Oooo!" "But I wasn't worried. One glance told me that those crazed Picts were no match for Roman… manhood…" (He winks. Girls giggle.) "… and I proved it to the lot of them. Come a little closer and I'll show you my scars." (More giggling.)

So, I'll buy the legend. It's more fun, anyway.

Well,

My personal thought (not that's it worth anything, really,) is that the reason someone would strip naked before battle is that he didn't plan on coming back. After all, if you plan on dying, or likely not returning, it makes a lot of sense to give your clothes and personal items to your family/ or clan, or whomever, rather than let it fall into the hands of the enemy.

There's also likely a who;e slew of various drugs involved. Mushrooms, whatever. Ask any cop who has ever dealt with someone on PCP or Meth how much of a fight those folks put up. You'll usually need 3 or 4 men to take one down. Now imagine a whole slew of them. screaming, waving big blades or spears and charging right at you.

If I were to include some sort of fanatical, naked blue-dyed Pict or Celt, I'd pattern them on the Viking Berserkers. A few here and there, but not any real unit of them.

That's my 2-cent's worth, anyway.

Respects,

The " blue " thing is a result of an australian anti-semitics mind. Pity people took something out of a film based on events centuries after the Picts disappeared and applied it retrospectively.

The Picts were still applying tattoos in the 7th century. There is record of the Saxon bishop of Northumbria getting angry about it as they were also using christian symbols as well as Pictish ones.

From " Who were the Picts? "

link

In 787 CE, we find Bishop George of Ostia, during a visit to Northumbria, ranting about certain people tattooing themselves.
"For God made man noble in grace and form, but the pagans with their diabolical instinct put most hideous scars upon themselves….. For he who defiles and disfigures his own creature, clearly does injury to the Lord. Certainly, if one were to suffer this injury of staining on behalf of God, he would receive for it great reward. But whoever does this from superstition of the gentiles, it does not lead him to salvation…"
From this, it is clear that Bishop George wants to make a clear distinction between those who wear Christian tattooes, and those who wear heathen markings, but with a wish to have a general prohibition on the practice altogether.

Well, I for 1 just ordered a dozen "Wild Picts" from BTD. They are 50% off! And yes, I will be painting them blue with tats!

From " Who were the Picts? "

Tattooing is a bit different from painting one's skin blue and acting like brutes. Tattoos were probably popular amongst all of the indigenous people in Britannia. George was probably over blowing things in the name of God. That's the usual way of labeling someone as a heathen.

Well, I for 1 just ordered a dozen "Wild Picts" from BTD. They are 50% off! And yes, I will be painting them blue with tats!

You go! "Pict"ures when they are done?

Actually consider the fact that if the Picts used these natural "drugs" to get all fired up then a side effect of many of them is an increase in body tempurature you'd want to strip off all your clothes.

I always thought "painting yourself blue" meant tattooing.
Simple tattoos are usually just blue.

Blasted romans, why couldn't they have another word for tattooed, rather than just saying 'painted'.
It would have saved us so much trouble.

As far as I am aware, tattoos and "painting one's self blue" are NOT necessarily the same thing. Other cultures would daub themselves with paint for certain occasions, without resorting to permanent tattoos. It would appear that those in the North did tattoo themselves, but that is no reason to suppose it was a common or even a dominant habit. Argueably, it may well be more fashionable today than it was then!

Personally, my vote is "no blue woad, no naked savages"

Religous festivals might call for nakedness perhaps, but combat? Really? That's not brave or heroic, it's just stupid. Going naked into a football game to "prove how tough you are" is – well stupid enough. But when you are going into battle and your very life will be at stake, when you have to be at your very best or potentially forfeit your life? (indeed, when that could still happen even if you ARE at your best) What? A warrior would do THAT naked? Caledonia/Pictland was NOT the Mediteranean or the wild west. Nobody was going to be impressed/intimidated by a naked savage with shrunken genitalia – they would more likely just laugh at the stupidity of it and the absurdity of the warrior's appearance. And with the warrior's appendage flapping around unrestrained, its likely to be the first thing that gets cut – and lets be frank, what man would really risk that?

Also, it's not like its going to be a wrestling match where nakedness might actually be an advantage. Sharp pointy things are going to be coming your way at an alarming rate – and that's just the terrain!

So all in all, personally, I don't see nakedness in battle occuring much, if at all. Bare chested (so "bare" in that sense) yes. Totally truly naked? no. If such nakedness in battle did occur, then I would suggest that it was by a very small minority of particularly foolhardy idiots (who were probably too young to know better). I bet they didn't do it a second time.

Art is art, monuments are monuments, but were they reflecting reality or a heroic "artistic licence" portrayal to honour their subject? In the time honoured tradition of artists everywhere since art was invented, very few have actually portrayed reality. Most, if not all, have gone for artistic convention. A work of art is not a photograph. As for Roman sources (i.e, their monuments and writings, almost all of which are biased inacurate works of propoganda) well, they aren't reliable at all!

I do find it funny that we who aim to play "historical" games go for the Hollywood fantasy look so much.

Well apart from smelly old cloths causing a wound infection I do not see a protective difference between being just bare chested with a kirtle and breach cloth ot trews and being nude

If you are fighting a man in armour and you are un-armoured then the less mobility you have the more chance of being killed

I think a lot of our preconceptions and scepticism are based on millennia of Christian teaching

Personally Black Tower, I was thinking of the cool wet climate and the prickly shrubs. A nude warrior in Pictland/Caledonia/early Scotland (take your pick) would be cut by shrubs, soaked from rain more often than not and therefore feeling battered and getting cold or/and catching pneumonia from said wet and the chill in the air, long before he even crossed swords with the enemy. Your "mobility" advantage would be cancelled out by the warriors numbness and shaking hands. Such a warrior would be very far from being at his "best" on the day when he would need to be more than ever, at risk of forfeiting his life. I know they were a hardier lot back then but surely there are limits?

Its not entirely about weapons, although they are of course a factor. Unless you are in an arena with nothing but sand to worry about, or only have an hour of sport to endure before rushing back into warm changing rooms, naked is just so…impractical. Stupid even.

Didn't we discuss the myth of 'woad' a few months back?

In Morgan Llewellyn's superb BARD an army of Gaels go into battle in the 'traditional' manner… naked & 'excited'… to intimidate the enemy. Not sure what source she based the idea on… but I note all the naked fanatics on the market have a droop on.

Bloody hard to cast for a start.

Nekkidity is perfectly feasible… temperature is pretty relative, vide Patagonians swimming round naked in icey seas, & Egyptians going round in jerseys in their Winter while tourists are sweating it in T-shirts & shorts…

Past generations grew up without footwear & ended up inured to ground conditions that would cripple us.

Also most of the 'icy northern barbarian regions' were a darn sight warmer than they are now…

The linguistic place name evidence strongly suggests the Picts were British Celts. The climate suggests they wore clothes. The Irish often wrote about Picts and iirc never mention naked warriors although they often mention things which could indicate specific warrior cults. But we don't know. The problem with Roman sources is that they lie a lot. However as Goldsworthy noted in acknowledging this without them we don't have much.

i read the place name evidence indicates they were Finno-Ugric. All the ancient sources said the picts were 'scythians'

Well Steve that is not the case as scholarship stands today. The Picts/Scythian conflation seems to have been inspired by the practice of tatooing and iirc enjoyed popularity as a theory much later in history.

Any classical reference to 'Scythians' needs to be treated with scepticism (except in those situations where actual Scythians are directly involved, which restrict the issue to the Pontic steppe regions before, what, 2-300 BCE?).

Roman sources refer to almost anyone from east of the Germans or north of the Danube as 'Scythians'. Goths are Scythians, Huns are Scythians. It's no more specific than 'eastern barbarians'.

In the same way, Byzantine sources refer to the western Europeans as 'Celts' or 'Franks' long after these terms had any real meaning.

Hmmm./. the book I read cited various names in Scotland that are meaningless in Celtic languages but which are meaningful in Finno-Ugric group languages. Its not a bizarre idea, we know Slavonic Wends were settling in England

"---- we know Slavonic Wends were settling in England."

We do?

Yeah from all the places called 'Wendsbury' etc.

So i'm told. the bloke who wrote the pict book I read could have been mad & all the etymological books I read written by people talking through their hats, of course…

I'm sure genetic mapping would solve this question eventually. (or has it already?)

I dont want to buy into the argument of who were the Picts but immigration is an nteresting topic.
I was reading about the Amesbury archer: in England at the time of the building of stonehenge but hailed from the Alps.
And there's quite a few other discoveries of foreign bodies in Ba & early IA Britain.
So why not a bunch of Wends migrating nto Britain. Not an invasion but a wandering clan?

Its a longway from Wendover to Pictavia. Theories about the Picts abounded from Scandinavians to pre Celtic survivors none of them stood scrutiny.

I have read that 'Wend' is an eastern Germanic word that mirrors the western German 'Welsh' -- i.e. foreigner.

So a use of the word 'Wend' in a British context may indicate more about the origins of those who named it (our cousins from the far side of the Elbe) than the subjects.

Plus its scope to be a corruption of 'Woden'?

yeah from all the places called 'Wendsbury' etc.

Excuse me, I'm a local

That's Wednesbury actually, and it's far more likely that northern Europeans gave it its name.

The first known written spelling of town's name was Wodensbyri at the end of the 10th century. It was most likely named for Woden's Hill (as there's a hill on the edge of the modern town which is one of the higher elevations hereabouts. It has two churches on it and is bordered on one side by Ethelfleda terrace. Which may be another clue to the town's origins).

link

In the Domesday Book it's Wadnesberie

Not really a link to Slavonic Wends at all, but a nice try.

"Naked" was upon occasion used simply to mean "shirt-less".

A bunch of screaming naked madmen charging at me with pointy objects would give me pause, the first time I saw it. After that it would be "here come those nut jobs again".

I have had the pleasure of figthing inpartnership with a young lady, both of us stripped to the waist and using tunics as shields (it's better than nothing, but not by much), we had a hell of an advantage on the first encounter… after that, well let's just say you can used to anything when battle is on the line.

If you look at the place names of Scotland excluding the Gaelic speaking west and English speaking Lothian you will see that they are 'Welsh'. The odd Scandinavian name comes later with the Vikings. The Irish who had lots of experience of Picts called them Cruithni that is to say British.

Somehow wargames orthodoxy arrived at naked Picts and Picts in loinclothes with no evidence at all. Instead we could have had Pictish women warriors and specific warrior cults with aninal totems with at least some evidence. Strange isn't it.

Connard- Wasn't thinking of Wednesbury (Although good example of how 'Woden' shifts to 'Wends') Think Wendle Hill is one & there are others…

Wasn't thinking of Wednesbury

What were you thinking of when you wrote

yeah from all the places called 'Wendsbury' etc.

then?

Because there isn't a 'Wendsbury' in England :)

Your theory is looking a little shaky, and as far as I'm aware no-one else has postulated a Wend/Woden shift. There's still argument in some quarters over Woden/Odin

Yeah I grant I wrote 'Wendsbury' but I was faultily remembering Wendle Hill (& else where) so shoot me

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends

No mention of britain here

From memory this was from an OSPREY that showed C5th Angles etc with a Viking era Thor's hammer and a shield with 4 not 5 rivets (& no bibliography as I recall) so the whole concept may be bo-loques