THE BORDER REIVERS.

[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.

[Peter Hudson]

Some detail on the Marquis of Newcastle... thus a better understanding of what happened to the idea of Border Rievers and their potential as English Cavalry...

From The Web...William Cavendish
William Cavendish, Marquis of Newcastle, 1593-1676. Cultured aristocrat who became commander of Royalist forces in the north of England during 1642-4. He lost heart and went into exile after his defeat at Marston Moor.

At Marsden Moor in 1644 the Duke of Newcastle .. William Cavendish fielded about 2000 to 3000 soldiers... mainly dismounted infantry who were essentaially wiped out by a Scotish surge ... It is interesting to note that Sir Walter Scott Two Centuries later spoke of the Royalist contingent of The Marquis of Newcastle (The Whitecoats) were somehow absorbed into the English Cavalry and that at some point Queen Elizabeth 1 may have been impressed by their cavalry skills and they were the finest horsemen in Europe Etc Etc...

The Duke of Newcstle as preferring to die rather than surrender whereas that may not be quite how or why it happened because the attack on the Whitecoats was done by a group who were not only made up of Scottish soldiers but a large contingent of men from Sunderland.

On the map Sunderland and Newcastle are quite close however they didnt get on well...In fact they hated each other and indeed the Sunderland contingent were Covenanters... So not only were the Whitecoats outnumbered and on foot... but they faced an enemy which despised them greatly.

So it was that a long time after the battle In the 19th C. Sir Walter Scott wrote that detail ... in his self appointed role as latter day Tudor spin doctor ...See above detail in bold letters... Simply not true.


What seems to further confuse matters is that The leader of the Whitecoats then ran away to Europe and though he did return later he had no part in reorganising the Whitecoats ... He had in fact been an excellent trainer and exponent of Cavalry and Equestrian expertise but was not further involved in Cavalry doctrine or training. In fact another serious blow to English Cavalry selection was the fact that although there were Border Rievers who had been involved in European wars as members of English contingents ..that once these had reurned home they were demobbed immediately and thus took no further part in the story. The build up and aftermath of Culloden and the persecution of Border Rievers ...It was illegal to have a Galloway horse and Borderers could be executed even on suspicion of being a Riever...without trial...further diminished the chances of them being somehow included in the English Cavalry Orbat...It never happened.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

I read a good report on the English Civil Wars at https://www.worldhistory.org/article...sh-civil-wars/

I note the English Cavalry information...however that the detail and reasoning for following up the potential use of Border Riever cavalry is basically absent following the 1644 Battle Of Marsden Moor. After this it appears that history is absorbed into the thick fog of subterfuge and myth...taking with it a failure to use the Border Riever expertise using the sturdy Galloway Horses or to incorporate these and their tough Border Rievers into English Cavalry Orbat.

Peter Hudson.