‘If Jesus Christ were amongest them, they would deceave him,’
Richard Fenwick 1597

SBJ8FRKY7GSB Thus is was said of the Border Reivers. The Reivers view of religion was the result of a number of factors. To begin with the church had little presence on the border. Due to the state of the border there were few members of the clergy who would wish to take up residence and the challenge of converting cattle rustlers, theifs and murderers. Nor was this simple paranoia, as the clergy that were present on the borders were often at as much risk as any other resident.
It was not unknown for the Reivers to target the clergy and their churches during raids. For example during an undertaking by some 500 men from Liddesdale, amongst a number of places hit, Ingram church had its roof torn down with the lead presumably carried away. These attacks on religious places were soley the domain of the Reivers as many generals during war would often target churches and Abby’s, presumably as they are visible representations of that particular society. Not only were the churches the targets of the Reivers, but the clergy themselves were not immune from their attentions. Kidnapping the clergy also seemed to be an amusing (for the instigators) past-time. Seemingly no-one was ‘out of bounds’ as far as reiving went.

The church, however, did not put forth a chaste and goodly front. Many of its clergy within the Borders had what were at best suspect personal images. Its clergy, whom there were never enough, often did little more than pay lipservice to the teachings of church, in conjunction with

Peel Tower by Darrell J. Rohl

much superstition. The clergy themselves were often accused of scandalous behavior. Will Patrick priest of Bewcastle and his curate John Nelson, were named amongst 500 other Englishmen within a complaint by the Scots in 1552. Priests were often found to be armed themselves, and it should come as no surprise that some of the clergy may have found that the sword was in fact mightier than the pen. In some cases they may not have had any other choice as the clergy were included in the watches, a Border Law which stated it was everyones duty to watch the fords and passes.

The churches response in matters of complaint were limited. Many Reivers were excommunicated, removing them from the church, that is a church they cared nothing for. A response with limited effect. Even when excommunicated the Reivers knew that they could be reinstated. Early in the 16th century The Archbishop of Glasgow’s ‘Monition of Cursing’ against the Border Reivers went one step further. In comparison to an excommunication a Monition cannot be revoked. This Curse went on for some 1500 words and curses the Border Reivers for everything imaginable. Presumable this was of much amusement to the Reivers.
Probable the most visible evidence of the rocky history of border religion can be seen in the presence of a number of Vicar’s Peels. As can be seen from the photo above a particularly fine example can be found at Corbridge. Built in the early 14th century and standing within the grounds of St. Andrews Church. The Tower, as with many buildings along the Border was built from Roman worked stone pillaged from nearby ruins. With its original door and a stone table and washbasin the solid structure of the Peel bears witness to the turbuland times. Due to the ever present danger of ones home being burnt to the ground, some additions to the household would be built in stone. This can be seen within the Vicars Peel, where sloping stones act as a book rest. The less there was to burn, the least amount of damage could be done.

This is a superb addition to the Osprey series of publications, and manages to pack a quart into the pint pint of its slim volume. It gives a succinct but comprehensive account of Border fortifications from castles to bastles, via churches, peles and tower houses. It also manages to place these in the context of the wild and lawless Border society and the ongoing conflict between England and Scotland. The captions are excellent and informative with superb photos and drawings. As someone who knows most of the places mentioned I can vouch for its accuracy, and it is sure to whet the appetite of anyone with an interest in order history or fortifications. A highly recommended and beautiful book.

Figure 1 (Border Miniatures, Keswick)

The one indisputable fact concerning the Border Reivers was their supreme ability in the art of theft and guerilla warfare. A lifestyle which required specialist equipment. The fully equipped Reiver represented an elite light cavalryman, capable of navigating rough terrain at night with practiced stealth, and when required implementing deadly force. Figure 1 (Border Miniatures, Keswick) represents a Border Reiver c. 1590. The mount of the Reiver was as specialised as the equipment they used. It was small and sure footed ideally suited to the rough terrain of the border. Known as ‘hobbys’ or ‘hobblers’ they were capable of traveling around 60 – 80 miles per day (G Fraser, The Steel Bonnets p86). These abilities saw the mounts well suited to both ‘peace time’ raids, and their use as wartime scouts or light cavalry. Horses were extremely important to the Reivers, both for their status and the basic fact that they were vital for raids.

Towards the end of the 16th century there was a change within arms and armour and consequently military thinking. It was the age of gunpowder and the demise of the chivalrous knight in shining armour. This change had been ongoing for some time, and the end of the dominance of the knight had already been highlighted with the longbow. Representing one the most decisive weapons ever used, the longbow in the hands of the humble peasant had long since taken the shine from many a knights armour. This fact is probably one of the reasons for the ‘backwards’ view many had towards guns. A practiced archer was, at the beginning, capable of shooting more arrows with greater accuracy than any gun. At the beginning this wasn’t all that difficult as on the ascendancy of Queen Elizabeth a practiced archer could fire 12 arrows per minute, while the new arquebus could manage 10-12 shots per hour. Naturally by the end of the 16th century this rate had risen to 35-40, but many were still not convinced. Batches of guns sent to the North were of varying quality, with some reports of injuries, while the quality of the gunpowder was also questionable. Early weapons wouldn’t work in the rain and due to their firing technique were useless for mounted cavalry. All of these reasons probably explain the small crossbow hooked onto the saddle as it could be used with some confidence and little worry of losing a limb if it misfired. Though it is worth noting that guns in the form of ‘calivers’, ‘arquebuses’, and dags (heavy hand gun) were beginning to be used throughout the border. This is mainly due to the wheel-lock mechanism which wasn’t affected by the wet weather. A number of wealthy Reivers would in fact carry two pistols as reloading would take too much time, and they were still prone to the occasional misfire.

The Reiver could also be armed with a sword, a dagger and a Border lance. The lance appears to be a very popular weapon of the Reivers. Measuring from 6 to 13 feet long (more likely around 8 foot) the Reiver became highly adapt in its use. The weapon could be used couched, for throwing or for thrusting at a foe. More than any other weapon, the Reiver was acknowledged as the master of the lance.

The role of the Reiver and the coming of the gunpowder age dictated the type of armour that was used. Though there would have been those who could have afforded plate mail, the Reiver by necessity needed the best compromise between protection and weight. In order to cover the miles, it was not practical to wear full armour on a raid. The wealthier Reiver began to wear just back and breast plate. Many others would often be wearing whatever they inherited or occasionally stole. The universal protection worn by the common man is known as the ‘jack’ or ‘jack of plaite’. This item of protection can be seen as the direct result of the gunpowder age and the need for light armour and maneuverability. The jack featured small overlapping iron plates stitched into two or three layers of quilted cloth. Often fronted with another material such as leather, the jack offered the perfect balance between cost, effectiveness and weight. It was often even the choice of the lords whom preferred it against the heavier plate armour. Again this is due to its effectiveness against sword cuts, and the plate armours uselessness against the up-and-coming guns. The Reiver could also wear gloves of steel or leather, some being made in a similar fashion to the jack. Legs as shown below were rarely protected by anything more than knee length riding boots.

The helmets worn by the Reivers ranged from the simple steel cap to the sallet in the 1500’s. These offered good protection but with the added problem of restricted visibility. By the mid-16th century the burgonett (featured in the picture above), a light open helmet began to take over. Offering an unrestricted view, and a solid design occasionally peaked with protected cheek plates with a projecting peak at the back to cover the neck. It also often featured a strengthening strip of metal over the centre with an added lining of leather (presumably for comfort and to cushion any blows). The helmet may also be covered over or ‘blackened’ to protect it from the elements, and possibly to ensure no tell-tale reflections from the moon occur at inopportune moments.

Possibly the most famous head gear of the Reiver was the morion, a style which became fashionable in the 1580’s, featuring a curved brim, comb and occasional ear pieces. The most common design was known as the Spanish morion, but it also appeared as a ‘cabacette’ morion and the most distinctive ‘combed’ morion. Each style was produced to varying standards of quality and decoration.

Thus the Reiver was armed and ready for war or piece. When reading about the Reivers and their deeds it should always be remembered how skilled they were. Anyone who has visited the borders of England and Scotland will realise the skill it must have taken to traverse the bogs and rough terrain at night. Doing this while armed and rescuing some stray sheep (sheep were ever straying) the Reivers were a bread like ne other.

Scots Dike - The Debatable Lands

This is a stretch of land measuring, at the longest, 12 miles by 4 miles, but its size bears little relation to the trouble it caused. It had been called the Debatable Land as early as the 15th century, because its ownership was in dispute between England and Scotland. By the 16th century the Debatable Land was a thorn in side of both opposing countries. As neither England nor Scotland would recognise its ownership to the other, neither could hold the other responsible for its occupants behaviour. The most notorious borderers soon saw this Debatable ground as the ideal place for residence. As the area became worse, one way to deal with it was to lay it to waste. This was done on numerous occasions, one example is that of William, Lord Dacre, Warden of the English West March in 1528. Lord Dacre assembled a force of 2000 riders for a surprise attack on the Armstrongs of the Debatable Land. Unfortunately, an ‘English’ Storey, had tipped off the Armstrongs who subsequently repulsed the attack. In a later attack Dacre did manage to destroy Johnnie Armstrong’s tower at Hollows on the Esk. Unfortunately for Dacre, while he was attacking the Armstrongs tower, the Armstrongs were plundering and destroying Netherby and a mill belonging to Dacre at Gilsland.

This not only gives an idea of the type of forces that the Debatable Land could muster, but also the cross Border loyalties that existed. By 1552 the Scots Dyke was built (pictured above) which was meant to divide the land, and the straight line of this is clearly visible on the map found on page vi. This may have allowed the English and Scottish governments to say which part belonged to who, but the people who lived there had scant regard for this trench that had been dug in their land.

Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth (c. 1560 – 12 April 1639) was an English nobleman and courtier.

In assessing the extent of the powers of Sir Robert Carey and his effectiveness as Warden of the Middle March, this work has taken a number of factors into account. The Introduction has focussed on looking at the history of the Border to give an idea of the general problems Carey faced, and why and how they came about. Carey as a person was the focus of Chapter 1, in order to assess his own character and ability to carry out the duty of Warden. The next Chapter examined the Border Laws to provide a general understanding of the powers a Warden had, and as an indication of the problems within the Marches. The laws produced by the Commission of 1597 were also looked at in an attempt to again show the powers of the Warden, and to give an idea of the problems that were prevalent only a year before Carey took office. The final Chapter looked at Carey’s time as Middle March Warden and gave examples to show both Carey’s Wardenship, and how the laws and people effected it. Now all these factors will be examined together in summing up the power of Carey as Middle March Warden, and the effectiveness of his rule.

Carey himself was a very capable Warden, not only did the assessment of his character show this, but also his actions. Carey seems to have been of strong character who both knew his job and how to go about it. On entering the March Carey quickly realised that the reivers would only be contained by a firm hand, where hanging and strict rule were the only measures they would respond to. This is not because Carey enjoyed capturing outlaws in order to execute them, merely that he recognised the only thing that would work was for the reivers to see justice done.

Carey’s character did sometimes cause trouble for himself, an example of which can be found after the Tarras Moss incident of 1601. In acquiring the bonds from the Liddesdale men Carey obviously felt quite impressed with himself,¹ and thought he deserved recognition. On writing to Cecil on July 8th about the gentlemen that had accompanied him to the ‘wastes’, Carey states that ‘They deserve thanks, unless greater affairs cause this place not to be thought of? Pardon me if I offend, but I think myself too slightly regarded.’² Unfortunately for Carey, thanks had been sent, only it had been delayed in the post, and his mumbled apology can almost be heard as he wrote to Cecil complaining of the ’slackness of the posts’, and that he hoped his honour would ‘forgive and forget’.³ Carey’s letter about being ‘too slightly regarded’ could be taken to be somewhat arrogant, and to an extent it was a reflection on Carey’s, possibly deserved, opinion of himself. It is also a sad reflection of the way the Wardens and the Border were looked at, where relations with the opposite kingdom were almost more important than the actions of the Wardens. Carey’s arrogance, if that is what it was, could also be seen as another good characteristic for the Border, as if anything, the most notorious of the reivers such as Sir Robert Kerr, were often arrogant in the extreme.

The extent of the powers Carey ruled by were fairly comprehensive for dealing with the reivers of the Border, and if they were in place within the centre of a united country they would probably have been entirely successful. No-where in England or Scotland was there a government appointed post with such powers as the Wardens of the Marches had. When looking at them the Wardens were basically running large stretches of land, all under their control, with central government watching from afar. As shown in Chapter 2 the Border Laws were a comprehensive set of rules, which when instigated, could keep the country in a state of Marshal Law. The laws which gave the Warden his powers were not without their problems, especially when, as in the case of the Border Council, they are never implemented. This is curious as the Border Council must have been put forward due to the apparent failure of the Days of Truce, and there is no mention of why they never appeared.

Carey had the power to meet with the opposite Wardens once a month in the Day of Truce, to administer justice. Here Carey could present all the Bills against the opposite Warden to be filed, and he in return received the complaints against his March. On receipt of the opposites Bills, Carey was then responsible to get the defendant to turn up to the next Day of Truce. The defendants charge would then be heard in one of four ways⁴ whereby justice was done.

Carey also had the power to follow a reiver on the Hot Trod, whereby if he caught up with the thieves he could probably save everybody some time and kill the culprit red-handed. As a Warden Carey also had the blanket-offence known as March Treason, which could be used against a particular reiver who had caused more trouble than his worth. Unfortunately life was never this easy for Carey, nor for any other Warden, and if he tried to set up a Day of Truce, the opposite would be found using stalling tactics. When Bills were presented the defendant often didn’t feel it worth while turning up, possibly due to the fact that he didn’t feel like paying back what he quite skilfully stole. Justice was never easily carried out, and finding avowers or 12 jury members to sit in an assise was often a challenge. Even following in a Hot Trod was never a simple matter, with the reivers setting ambushes, or turning to fight, it was a very risky adventure. Been able to hang people by March Treason was all well and good, but was of little use if the reivers were holed up within the Debatable Land or Liddesdale.

Sir Robert Carey did have extensive powers as Warden of the Middle March, but having such powers and been able to put them into effect are two entirely different matters. As the Border Commission of 1597 showed, it had been recognised that the Wardens of some Marches, for example that of the Scottish Middle March under Sir Robert Kerr, were not always forthcoming in their quest for justice. This was the reason for the clauses concerning the restrictions on the Wardens themselves, where it had been recognised that pledges were needed from each of the surnames if the Wardens were to get any of the Bills filed and delivered. In all, the powers of Sir Robert Carey were enough, but the cross Border co-operation that they relied so heavily on was rarely seen, especially within the first few years of Carey’s Wardenship.

The problem with assessing the effectiveness of anything is how to measure it, and when considering Carey’s rule as Warden, it must be looked at within the context it was set. When Carey first entered it was only one year since the last Commission had met, and attempts were underway to carry out its findings. All of the Marches of England and Scotland were in a bad state of repair, with the reivers wreaking havoc throughout the Borders. It was within these conditions of blood feud, constant raiding, and a certain lack of effort on some officials part, that Carey’s effectiveness should be measured.

Given these conditions it would have to be concluded that Sir Robert Carey was an effective Warden when his rule is examined in its context. As mentioned in Chapter 2 the official duties of the Wardens of the Marches were to guard the frontier against Scottish inroads; to meet with their opposite Warden to administer justice for the area, in their endeavour to suppress crime; pursue fugitives; muster the March for defence; and generally to keep good rule throughout the March.

Carey certainly carried out his duty to guard against Scottish inroads and to muster the March for defence,⁵ especially when the Tarras Moss incident is considered, when he guards the English frontier against Scotland by meeting the Scottish reivers on their own grounds. This event really did show Carey’s ability to the full, whereby he used his experience at directing a small force to hit at the heart of the enemy. Carey also tried to guard the frontier earlier in 1598, which has been covered in Chapter 2, in the form of the Redesdale hunting incident. This incident showed the intervention of politics within a Border affair, which was one of the main restraints on the power of the Warden. It is difficult to say how well Carey managed this as no-one is entirely certain how it occurred, though it did show that Carey had been making some progress within his March, as he began protesting for the return of his Deputies after some 20 raids.

Carey also appears to have attempted to meet the opposite Wardens to administer justice, but again this was not always possible, which was not something within Carey’s powers to change. It is though interesting to note the change within the frequency of the Border meetings on the approach of the ever increasing likely-hood of James VI’s succession. Carey does then appear to have generally kept good rule within the context of the conditions he faced. The extent of the powers that Carey held would appear to have been sufficient to allow him to rule the Middle March of England effectively, though, while writing his Memoirs as the Earl of Monmouth,⁶ he would likely have recalled how much easier his rule would have been without characters such as Sir Robert Kerr⁷ and the Armstrongs of Liddesdale.

1. It should be noted that by March 17th 1602 the Liddesdale men were in bond to the West and Middle Marches, but were now found to be active within the East March.
2. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p764.
3. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p764.
4. See Chapter 2.
5. Sir Robert Carey would seem to have favoured an aggressive defence.
6. Sir Robert Carey became the Earl of Monmouth on February 7th 1626.
7. Sir Robert Kerr became the Earl of Roxburgh, showing that his help in clearing the Borders once he realised the tides were soon to turn, paid off.

I’ve long been a fan of MacDonald Fraser’s ‘Steel Bonnets’ so I was interested to see what Alistair Moffat’s book would add.

The hardback is just over 320 pages, grouped into two main parts, four chapters in the first, and three in the second. Add to this five appendices, the bibliography and a concise and easy to use index, there’s a lot here to immerse yourself in. And in the centre of the book you have the illustrations, thirty-two superb colour photographs of the landscapes of the Borders that do so much to evoke the mood of the era. They compliment the text admirably.

As you cruise through the book you often have additional box inserts that take the reader off into interesting sidelines of yet more fascinating information. There are just to many to mention, and all add to the flavour that the author provides the reader, with his view of the troubled times of the sixteenth century.

I have to say that from start to finish, I couldn’t put this book down. It adds to MacDonald Fraser’s work and is a ‘must-have’ for anyone interested in the hardy doughty folk of the Border, their lawless ways and customs, the feuds and the politics that shaped their life. An inspiring read.

Also available: The Reivers and the Making of the Borders DVD

Choose a review from the drop down menu

The definitive guide to the lives and times of the Border Reivers.

This book is highly entertaining. George MacDonald Fraser successfully relates the life and times of the Border Reivers in a way which had me laughing one minute and horrified the next. One could make a comparison between the Borders of Scotland and England and the American Wild West or indeed the Sicilian Mafia. Reading this book has really opened my eyes to a phenomenon of the past which is still present at many frontiers all around the world.

This is the definative guide to the history and times of the border reivers

King James V of Scotland gathered together an army to meet the English, but upon Henry VIII withdrawal King James’ nobles disbanded having little trust in their King. James again gathered another army of some 15-18000 strong. This army headed South West from Edinburgh to Cumbria and Carlisle. The army was under the temporary command of Oliver Sinclair the ‘Kings hated Favourite’. The Scots army burnt their way across the Debatable Land pushing the infamous Grahams into the hills. Thomas Wharton, the Deputy West March Warden, decided to meet the Scots army with his Carlisle garrison of 3000 men. As the Scots began to ford the river Esk the ranks of the army were hemmed in by the banks of the river and the marshland known as the Solway Moss. Whaton deployed 700 to 800 men to act as skirmishes, harassing the army as it slowly made its way across the ford.

Quickly a dispute arose amongst the Scots commanders and the army began to fall into disarray suffering numerous casualties. The retreat became a rout with the army taking further punishment from the Grahams and others of Liddesdale. Some 1200 prisoners were taken by Wharton, with his own casualties not even reaching double figures.

To see individual entries in this section chose an entry from the list below.