SCT-ROXBURGH-L Archives

Archiver > SCT-ROXBURGH > 2002-10 > 1033840924


From: "Roy G. Perkins" <>
Subject: [SCT-ROXBURGH] BORDER REIVERS.
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:02:04 +0100


Hi All,

Herewith, something to argue about!!!

I have seen so many views expressed about the 'Border Reivers' both on the list and elsewhere that I thought I might bore you all for a few minutes with my own view as to their 'chronological fit' and historical significance. Please note that these are my own views and in no way are they advanced as definitive.

"The 19th March 1286 was a disastrous day for Scotland for it heralded the death, without a male successor, of King Alexander III. The two sons who Alexander had sired were both dead, David in 1281 and Alexander in 1284, leaving only Margaret, the 'Maid of Norway' as a lineal descendant. The ensuing chaos was to lead to almost continuous warfare with England for the next three hundred years, and inevitably the Borders were to bear the brunt of its excesses. So, "Is the time span of the Border Reivers roughly co-terminus with the period from the death of Alexander III to the crowning of James VI as James I of England?"

I suggest not, even though many illustrious writers have claimed that it was.

Despite the drafting of a 'tailzie' in February 1284 which ostensibly guaranteed the succession of the Maid of Norway, Alexander's Grandaughter,c there was deep unease amongst the Scottish nobility and a number of contenders for the Crown, not least John Baliol and Robert Bruce (senior). To cut a long story short it was decided to seek advice from King Edward I of England the upshot of which was the Treaty of Birgham (1290), near Roxburgh. This Treaty set out to secure the succession of the Maid of Norway and might have succeeded had not the Maid of Norway then contrived to die in 1290. Edward once more intervened this time demanding help from Scotland in his Wars against France and Scotland. The result was to drive the Scots into alliance with France and to War with England. The War actually started in 1296 at Carlisle and Berwick, virtually simultaneously, the Scots laying siege to Carlisle and the English to Berwick. The Scottish army foregathered at Caddonlee near Selki!
rk, in time honoured fashion. In1296 Roxburgh Castle was captured by the English along with Edinburgh and Stirling. This first war was really over by the end of 1296 but in 1297 a discernably different war broke out and this is where we encounter the shadowy figure of William Wallace. The Battle of Falkirk (1298) ended this war only to lead to a power struggle between Bruce and Comyn, the murder of Comyn and the enthronement (1306) of Robert Bruce at Scone. From 1306 to 1328 there was persistent warfare, what Colm McNamee has dubbed "The Wars of the Bruces" This is an interesting if rather neglected period during which a Celtic resurgence all-but overthrew the English hegemony in Britain. Certainly there was cross border raiding at this time: in 1314 an expedition apparently led by Edward Bruce, James Douglas and Soules, Lord of Liddesdale ravaged Northumberland and returned via Cumberland laden with cattle and livestock to Liddesdale, yet, I contend this was not reiving bu!
t a politically motivated raid driven by the exigencies of war and no doubt in large measure born of the confidence generated by Bannockburn. However even Robert Bruce's death on 7th June 1329 did little to ameliorate events. In 1331 Robert's son David was crowned to become David II. Though David inherited a successful and vibrant kingdom he was young and faced the mighty King Edward III of England rather than the weakling Edward II his father had defeated at Bannockburn, he also faced further challenges from the Balliol/Comyn line. Scotland therefore continued to face both international warfare and civil unrest not as a result of reiving but as a result of political machinations. Hence for example the siege of Berwick and the Battle of Halidon Hill, not reiving but international support for civil unrest. Similarly in 1346 raids into England were carried out ostensibly under the banner of John Randolph but according to the Lanercost Chronicle, King David II also took part, m!
ore political activity. And so the pattern goes wearily on until, it seems to me, a fateful day in 1485.

Market Bosworth is a long way from the Borders but 22nd August 1485 was to have a dire effect on life in England and particularly on life in the Borders. The Battle of Bosworth Field did not simply mean a change of dynastic ruler it meant a complete change in the style of government. The old style of the Plantagenet rulers was swept away by the Tudors and replaced by a centralized and bureaucratic style. The Tudor monarch's were insecure, nervous and without reliable supporters. Under the Plantagenets the Northern boundary of England had been presided over by a powerful ally of the ruler, (names such as John of Gaunt, Warwick the Kingmaker and Richard of Gloucester) the Tudor's had no equivalent allies on whom they could rely and so they resorted to bureaucratic solutions. They appointed more minor functionaries such as Wharton, Scrope, Forster and Cary as Border Wardens, hardly the same 'clout' or prestige. These men received constant blame and an occasional reward, forcing!
them to indulge in felony themselves in order to pay their way. There had been robbery and worse along the Border ever since it existed, and before it existed this was a violent land, much disputed by Selgovae, Votadini, Romans, Bernicians and many others. Now however the phenomenon was to change, in stead of marauding armies bent on political pursuits supplemented by numerous individual acts of plunder and robbery such as took place on borders all over the world, arose something new and unique: The Border Reivers. The Border Reivers were in fact independent warlords with no political agenda beyond self- aggrandisement. It is said that during the Tudor period Johnny Armstrong of Gilnockie could put 3,000 armed horsemen in the field in a matter of a few hours. Which state could equal that? There had been nothing like it before, the breakdown of the Border Laws was in my view the cause, but there were other contributors, men had to live, if people robbed them what were they t!
o do but replenish their larders elsewhere? The Borders had had a rough time for two hundred years men had been born and died knowing nothing but fighting and death, what other skills did they possess? They existed as best they could, made of it what they could, and above all struggled to survive.

The Accession of James VI to the crown of England as James I, brought the Union of the Crowns and James made a determined effort to stamp out the reiving. Many have suggested that this brought peace and tranquility, in fact it brought lynchings and deportation misery for thousands. Many of the leading reivers escaped through taking the side of the Crown and persecuting their erstwhile comrades whilst many innocent families were dispossessed in order to satisfy the greed of the 'King's men'.

Thus I would contend that true 'reiving' is a phenomenon restricted roughly to the period 1485 to 1603. Certainly there was robbery before 1485, but then so there was after 1603, but this was a different phenomenon, that of the 'moss-troopers' who were still much in evidence in the 1640's.

The Border Reivers represent a breakdown in law and order, of what we would term civil society, not just the occasional piece of banditry. This was a different way of live a different culture.

As to their historical importance the Reivers represent an interesting sociological study, but in terms of importance to the history of England and Scotland their importance was exactly ...........zero.



Regards



Roy


This thread: