THE BORDER REIVERS.

[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.

[Peter Hudson]

Secrecy, subterfuge and spin doctoring were part of the Tudor program as well as being employed later ... People vanished and executions took place all over the shop... The big names in the lying game were those with a close connection to the rulers and Sir Walter Scott was certainly up there with the best of them..even though he didnt appear for a few hundred years after the event he is creditted with actually inventing the name of the wars... The Wars of the Roses... The biggest spin doctor in Tudor times was William Shakespeare who had carte blanche to write anything he liked (or rather, the Tudors liked) . This we now call "propaganda".

For utter and total lies and myths simply look at The Wars of The Roses which were largely inventions of the various muddle of lies where one side having run out of arrows took to throwing black puddings at the enemy whilst the others replied it is said by pelting them back with Yorkshire puddings. Much poisoned ink flowed through other exponents of this technique and Richard 111 falls into that category.

Here is a great video presentation on this very subject.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bs0hn The Title is revealing .. The Biggest Fibs in British History. And among that lot are the many lies and twists of the Border Riever story during which many people were hung or had their heads removed on the block or were simply drowned...often based on heresay or lies or complex stories passed by laws but often without trial...I believe this resulted in a complete erosion of trust in the Borders and locked the doors on the idea of these warriors ever becoming part of the ORBAT in The English Cavalry.