THE BORDER REIVERS.

[Peter Hudson]

In observing my #1 at thread starter it occurred to me that I have not yet uncovered the answer to the main question...Here is the problem outlined at #1 THE BORDER REIVERS.
For my main reference I will lean heavily on a good solid base of information at Wikipedia and begin with a quote and a few questions since Sir Walter Scott is said to have quoted Elizabeth 1st as having said that "With ten thousand such men, James VI could shake any throne in Europe."

Thus my question is; If this was the case then why didnt the English recruit these superb horsemen into their order of battle and who were they and what became of them?




The main reason for that is because there is not simply one answer but a host of reasons for their decline some outlined at #13 on thread (viz; In about 1603 when the Union of the Crowns occurred and by then the Borders were extinct... not even the word Borders was allowed and new laws were in place essentially trebling the fines against thieves ...and being caught with a horse could mean jail and or the chopping block. Even the famous Galloway horse was doomed thus the famous Border Reivers were closed down, rounded up, and either transported or killed...) It is apparent that they were also hammered on all sides by not only legal factors but also pressure, threats and persecution often amounting to death penalties, execution without trial, torture and imprisonment from every angle from all levels of society, military tribunal, court orders Royal Decree and national and regional laws over a pressurised period from about 1530 through to probably 1644... The latter date suggested by me since that was the battle of Marsdon Moor which largely threw a huge spanner into the works when the Marquis of Newcastle fielded about 3,000 whitecoats (better known as Northumberland Horse "possibly" decended from Border Rievers...) both as Cavalry and Infantry and according to Prince Rupert arrived on the position late and drunk... and who were wiped out almost to a man as only about 30 survived) This over simplified version is something of a smoke screen and cannot have been the date on which the actual Border Rievers became extinct. I much prefer the huge dislocation and erosion of the disastrous period in Northumberland between 1542 and 1560.

Please See http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2743/

This will take you to a page of ABSTRACT (printed below) and above that see the sign PDF. Click on that and it opens.

The over riding document is a much more detailed, broadly based description of what the true answer is.

The final phase of the Anglo-Scots Wars (1542-1560) significantly affected Northumberland. The Tudor government attempted to use the militarised society of Northumberland a s a means of subduing Scotland. However, the ensuing conflict took a heavy toll on the Marches. Instability plagued the region, while leading military families feuded with each other. The efforts of the Tudors were not concerted enough to overcome the Marches' allegiance to kith and kin. March society proved to be remarkably inhospitable for Tudor state building, and in the end, the military community of Northumberland remained just as vulnerable to both internal and external threats as it had been before the wars. This work questions the success of Tudor state building տ the mid-sixteenth century. The analysis employs both State Papers and local documents to illuminate the political dialogue between central government and the peripheral frontier administration. Official correspondences of March officers also highlight the depths to which Tudor policy had taken root in Northumberland. An analysis of muster rolls suggests that Northumbrian society’s involvement in the wars greatly fluctuated over nearly a twenty-year period, only to see the military capacities of Northumbrians significantly wane by 1560. The personal testimonies of officers imply that the Tudors had some initial success in bringing significant military power to their side. However, the same documents also suggest that incoherent policies resulted from the rapid succession of three separate monarchs after the death of Henry V111. In the end, the Tudor state was unable to instil order in Northumberland, and the military necessities of frontier security remained problematic for the rest of the sixteenth century.

[urbanspaceman]

You can look no further than Newcastle, sometimes occupied by the Scots, sometimes the English, as an example of shifting loyalties... rather than divided loyalties - which, of course, constantly prevailed:

The North of England had long been viewed by those in the South as a den of Popery. "Half of the population is of the Popist faith and the other half are well-disposed towards it" wrote one Southerner. Actually, half of England's population were indifferent to religion back then, the remaining half were divided about 50/50: Catholic/Protestant.

In August 1688, the Mayor and Corporation of Newcastle sent congratulations to King James (VII/II) on the birth of his son: "…a blessing on the Prince of Wales". But in November of the same year, after the Glorious Revolution, that same Mayor and Corporation declared their allegiance to the Prince of Orange (William III) with the mob dragging the statue of a mounted King James from its base on the riverside and throwing it into the river.

The Romans made a right dammed mess of life around the Tyne - which was never a natural border, as observation of sheep farming practices will show.

Most of Northumberland remained essentially Scottish in the wake of the Roman occupation, but the loyalty of Northern barons, during the reign of King John, were never secure, and Westminster preferred to deal in bribery and corruption in an attempt to ensure a secure buffer zone. Hence the glorious opportunities for the clans.

[Peter Hudson]

Hi Kieth, You are right and it is clear that Religion also played into the mix. Even in recent history we have seen Catholic riots in the North East and the raft of arguements based on conflicting religious issues during and after Tudor reigns were common.

The question about whether Border Rievers could have been used as a kind of super battle group of top notch Cavalry is an interesting one although I sense it was more of a propaganda tool which may have worked or may have failed ~Im not entirely convinced. They were tough, good, troopers highly skilled but fell apart across the board though some at least may have retained jobs on the continent as horsemen to a certain degree although the question as to their ability to learn new tactics and change with cavalry warfare comes under pressure as does their loyalty... the latter being understandable under the circumstances.. Some became mercenaries while others used their expertise in foreign lands such as Ireland and in the Americas in such places as the Appalachians and where surnames like Nixon ...and Armstrong cropped up with many others....

Anyway their warlike nature despite their agressiveness took such a battering across the entire spectrum that they inevitably collapsed and many were uprooted and transplanted to other areas and countries. ...

The continued avalanche of rediculous laws and decrees must surely be where the problem caused or added to their downfall and disintegration. In the final years of their rise to fame it can be seen how their own self destruction and warring between families eventually eroded their chances of ever morphing into a crack English or British Cavalry outfit...where ten thousand of them could certainly have changed the outcome of many conflicts.

Therefor I conclude that ...as per the end of the ABSTRACT above in #57 The personal testimonies of officers imply that the Tudors had some initial success in bringing significant military power to their side. However, the same documents also suggest that incoherent policies resulted from the rapid succession of three separate monarchs after the death of Henry V111. In the end, the Tudor state was unable to instil order in Northumberland, and the military necessities of frontier security remained problematic for the rest of the sixteenth century.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

This is an extremely complex topic, and field of study, and to be quite honest, it was far too daunting for my own researches of many years back. However, the attached article I saved from 1996 reveals that I did have an interest in that I realized the importance of the Border Reivers in overall study of the history of British arms.

Actually, I did not realize the magnitude of this until meeting Peter and Keith some years ago, and though I cannot claim a full understanding of this key group of people, I have learned a great deal.
I know now that the 'Reivers' are an important link in Scottish and English history, and the likely source for many of the intriguing variants in these types of arms and armor so often encountered.

With regard to the political and potential of military viability of the Reivers, it does seem like in the beginning of the 17th century, English monarchs desperate for the union between Scotland and England launched many punitive expeditions into these regions. This effected mostly more intense descent into lawlessness and even less cohesiveness among these groups, who were more about family and clan than any recognized entity.

As numbered groups however, it does seem that they did have elements of martial viability, as noted,
"...as late as 1648, at the height of the Civil War, "English cavaliers" along with some "malignants of Scotland" numbering over 70 horsemen with a small number of foot came to Carlisle with ladders, scaled the walls, entered the castle, . broke open the gaol, released Moss troopers and other prisoners, wounded the gaoler and all marched off into Scotland".

Into the Jacobite rebellions, it is well known that these conflicts were not about Jacobite (for the Stuarts) vs. the English Hanoverians alone. The men fighting in these were about numerous disparate ajendas, not that alone.
Many were about religious reasons, defending their Episcopalian Faith. There were as many involved in clan disputes, vendettas and conflicts.

It was much like the Civil wars, both in England and America. Families had participants fighting against each other for separate ideals. In Scotland there were many separate groups, Highlanders, Lowlanders, Islesmen in the main categories.

With the Reivers, they were on the border(?) the ethereal divider between kingdoms, geographically. Stronger was the bond of clan, family and among Reivers, the fealty was equally divided as to which or to whom, and that could change at any time.

All of this is as Peter and Keith have well explained, and I only add my own notes to finally grasp it all myself.

As the descendant myself of Islesmen in the Highlands, and both Peter and Keith directly descended from Reiver families, it is intriguing to know our ancestors were in one way or another involved in these events in these times.
It has been the greatest adventure to learn all of this through them.
Thank you guys!

[urbanspaceman]

That is an excellent article Jim, I can see why it intrigued you. Accurate too.
Peter and I should visit the museum.
The man at the center of Reiver lore is Brian Moffat who I introduced Peter too.
He's up in Howick (pronounced howk) and what he doesn't know about the Reivers is not worth knowing.
He and his family have been battling for decades (he's a retired Copper) to establish a museum dedicated to the Reivers... we can't wait to visit.
As some of you are now aware I am of Graham descent and maybe proud of it.
Our troublesome rivals were the Armstrongs and the Robsons and remain so to this day.
Feuding is global of course.

[urbanspaceman]

Sir Walter Scott!!!
Don't believe a word.
He never let the truth spoil a good story.
He had a hell of a bonnie house as a result.
Images follow.

[urbanspaceman]

Snap shots of Sir Walter Scott's house.