THE BORDER REIVERS.

[Peter Hudson]

Indeed the terrain would have decided what sort of tactics were used thus the light cavalry style must have been used as dictated by the hills and mountains. Reivers were not all horse born and anyway the ability to ride into battle and skirmish on foot as required would have been normal...I see no reason to go against the idea of the left hand dagger and sword working in unison where required and where available the possible inclusion of firearms...I think sword blades would have been foreign and marked Andrea Ferrera and or with hogsback marks as well as occasional Solingen wolf marks. Hounslow Hangers could also be expected...

Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

In the varying terrains of these regions the tactics would be pretty dependent on conditions and type of terrain as Peter has noted. It seems another of the most deterring factors in mounted attack has often been boggy or sodden ground from extensive rain. In cases of some of the celebrated 'charges' known in history, the 'hell for leather' sort of charge simply did not happen as depicted in embellished accounts, and much of the event was simply a trot or canter.

The interesting horses described as common to the Reivers seem to be forms of pony, smaller than war horses, but effective transportation. It would seem that in many cases, dismounted action as done by dragoons would have been common. Still the favored use of the couched lance would indicate considerable mounted action took place.

It is good to be getting more into the weapons used by the Reivers, and as would be well expected, there would have been a considerable range of forms. As noted, the lance/spear was much favored as a simple and readily available weapon, while swords and daggers of well known 16th century forms were at hand as well. There was some presence of firearms, but limited.

The 'whinger' (sic) was basically a short saber/hanger/cutlass or whatever vernacular term might be chosen. As Mark noted, these were typically the kinds of short heavier blades that were curved and resembled the Italian storta, whose North European counterpart was the 'dusagge'.

Many of these had developed basket type hilts such as those known as 'Sinclair sabers' which Whitelaw (1902); Jacobsen (1940) and Blair (1981) have thought were likely an influence on what became the Scottish basket hilt (in these times termed the 'Irish' hilt, collectively =Gaelic).

Along with these were the full length swords known as 'katzbalgers' as used by landsknechts (German mercenaries in Europe) which often had the same types of developed guards (many were with simple figure 8 guard) in their hilts which were of course included in these influences.

It does seem that in certain cases, there were cases of rapiers in use, and in the 'smoke and fire' analogy, surely the 'main gauche' (left hand dagger)were present with them.

More common were the daggers known as 'ballock' daggers colloquially (for the obvious anatomical resemblance in the hilt shape) but which became known also as the 'dudgeon' dagger, for the wood of the box tree used in the hilt. These were the precursor for the Scottish dirk, again showing the 'Reiver' factor in the development of these Scottish weapon forms along with the famed basket hilt.

The term 'dudgeon' in its foreboding connotation seems to be another term whose place with the origins of various terms have come from the Reivers.
Shakespeare uses the term in MacBeth, "..on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood".
The term dudgeon refers to the 'handle' (of that wood), in those days hilt referred only to the guard of the sword.

[Peter Hudson]

Here is a superb Reference https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3200...-h/32005-h.htm

[Peter Hudson]

There are some excellent video presentations as under;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r10C...VuDnM&index=13

Here everything is covered and readers can chose which sections of The Border Reivers to study. Other important video stories are vital in the Mediaeval history of England Ireland and Scotland.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

An interesting item I found as I continue researching aspects of the Reivers topic,refers to the term 'marches'.

I discovered that 'marches' refer to the regional divisions of border territories indicating the 'border' was not just a simple line of division between Scotland and England, but a well buffered expanse that seems akin to a DMZ.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

An interesting item I found as I continue researching aspects of the Reivers topic,refers to the term 'marches'.

I discovered that 'marches' refer to the regional divisions of border territories indicating the 'border' was not just a simple line of division between Scotland and England, but a well buffered expanse that seems akin to a DMZ.

Jim, it also points to similar rules across Europe as I discovered by applying for a definition at Wikipedia" I QUOTE. "

British Isles

: Welsh Marches and Scottish Marches
The name of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the midlands of England was Mercia. The name "Mercia" comes from the Old English for "boundary folk", and the traditional interpretation was that the kingdom originated along the frontier between the Welsh and the Anglo-Saxon invaders, although P. Hunter Blair has argued an alternative interpretation that they emerged along the frontier between the Kingdom of Northumbria and the inhabitants of the River Trent valley.

Latinizing the Anglo-Saxon term mearc, the border areas between England and Wales were collectively known as the Welsh Marches (marchia Wallia), while the native Welsh lands to the west were considered Wales Proper (pura Wallia). The Norman lords in the Welsh Marches were to become the new Marcher Lords.

The title Earl of March is at least two distinct feudal titles: one in the northern marches, as an alternative title for the Earl of Dunbar (c. 1290 in the Peerage of Scotland); and one, that was held by the family of Mortimer (1328 in the Peerage of England), in the west Welsh Marches.

The Scottish Marches is a term for the border regions on both sides of the border between England and Scotland. From the Norman conquest of England until the reign of King James VI of Scotland, who also became King James I of England, border clashes were common and the monarchs of both countries relied on Marcher Lords to defend the frontier areas known as the Marches. They were hand-picked for their suitability for the challenges the responsibilities presented.

Patrick Dunbar, 8th Earl of Dunbar, a descendant of the Earls of Northumbria was recognized in the end of the 13th century to use the name March as his earldom in Scotland, otherwise known as Dunbar, Lothian, and Northumbrian border.

Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Regent of England together with Isabella of France during the minority of her son, Edward III, was a usurper who had deposed, and allegedly arranged the murder of, King Edward II. He was created an earl in September 1328 at the height of his de facto rule. His wife was Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville, whose mother, Jeanne of Lusignan was one of the heiresses of the French Counts of La Marche and Angouleme.

His family, Mortimer Lords of Wigmore, had been border lords and leaders of defenders of Welsh marches for centuries. He selected March as the name of his earldom for several reasons: Welsh marches referred to several counties, whereby the title signified superiority compared to usual single county-based earldoms. Mercia was an ancient kingdom. His wife's ancestors had been Counts of La Marche and Angouleme in France.

In Ireland, a hybrid system of marches existed which was condemned as barbaric at the time.[a] The Irish marches constituted the territory between English and Irish-dominated lands, which appeared as soon as the English did and were called by King John to be fortified.[10] By the 14th century, they had become defined as the land between The Pale and the rest of Ireland.[11] Local Anglo-Irish and Gaelic chieftains who acted as powerful spokespeople were recognised by the Crown and given a degree of independence. Uniquely, the keepers of the marches were given the power to terminate indictments. In later years, wardens of the Irish marches took Irish tenants.[12][13][14]".UNQUOTE.

Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Peter! That really deepens the texture of these border regions in this more complex understanding. MOST interesting! Thank you.

[Peter Hudson]

Readers could be mistaken into thinking that Moss Troopers were some sort of extension or follow on from The Border Reivers but that is not the case...From https://carrotherscarruthers.wordpre...moss-troopers/ I QUOTE"

MOSS TROOPS
The term ‘Moss trooper’ is often, but quite erroneously applied to the Anglo-Scots border reiver of the sixteenth century. In fact there was an important difference between them in that most border reivers were otherwise respectable farmers and landowners, who from time to time set forth from their castles to steal livestock from their neighbours – ideally but not invariably on the other side of the border.

Moss troopers on the other hand were landless bandits, usually operating in wandering gangs, lurking in the mosses and maintaining themselves by highway robbery and petty thievery as well as cattle rustling. Initially the moss troopers who preyed on Cromwell’s stragglers and dispatch riders were just such bandits. But once they began to be organised under the command of regular officers such as Augustine (probably Captain Augustine Hoffman, formerly of Leslie’s Horse), and Patrick Gordon, alias ‘Steilhand the Mosser’, they developed into first-class light cavalry." UNQUOTE.

[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.

[Brian Moffatt]

Way off subject I know...
But anyone interested in blade construction may find my recent posting on Shotley Bridge Swords of interest.
The Border Reivers and very much more....
In addition we are now putting the finishing touches to the Borderlands Museum... and hope to have it up and running in the New Year...
This is the result of 62 yrs continuous work by this family, and their associates... may of whom are now classed as "absent friends."
Best way to keep updated is on my blog.. the link to which is below...
All the Best to Everyone...
Brian Moffatt.
Senior Curator.
The Borderlands Museum.

(A Shrine... A Memorial... and an Art Installartion.)

https://fallingangelslosthighways.bl...word-with.html

[Peter Hudson]

Thank you Brian Moffat and I look forward to seeing your museum in the new year...

Regards,
Peter Hudson.