Border horse/Border Staves in Scots armies prior to Flodden

[Jim Webster]

Someone asked me, can Scots armies have border horse, and my initial thought was "sure, of course they can" and then I actually tried to find examples. It seems they don't really appear until the 16th century (Battle of Melrose/Linlithgow Bridge) 1526 being on example of a Scots v Scots battle.
Can anyone come up with examples from 'pre-Flodden'

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

The best I have found is this Wikipedia article on 'Border Reivers', which ascribes a 13th-century date to the first examples without expanding on this.  http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Border_Reivers

It does give a fair bit of background about raiding practices generally, much of which will be familiar to readers of Nigel Tranter novels.

Is anyone with good mediaeval knowledge able to elucidate the origin and timespan of Scots 'border horse'?

Patrick

[Mark]

There are references to "hobblers"/"hobylers"in Percy's army in the 14th century, and also there are provisions in that period to deal with the issue that the border captains weren't too keen on fighting one another (so at least two thirds of any English army had to come from outside the Borders). That implies that both sides (Percy and Douglas at least) had them. You'll find more references to them fighting for the English (Henry VIII had them in his invasion of France, earlier in 1513), but I'd suggest:

- there were actually 4 significant factions in the region in the high middle ages - England (two or more English factions during the WOTR), Scotland, Northumberland and Douglas - and access to border troops was mediated by the attitude of the latter two. Stewart and Douglas were at odds for much of the period of James I and James II (who was, unluckily it turned out, also pro-artillery siege) and James III spent much of his career trying to establish an alliance with England, so the reivers were as likely raiding, fighting as mercenaries or for the other side against the Scots.

- when used, they were an effective light horse, analogous to other "badlands" light horse such as stradiotti, and Scotland didn't have access to heavy horse to put alongside them. England could put up a better "combined arms" Renaissance army. Scotland alongside France is another matter. And such armies really came into their own around the end of the 15th Century.

Note - much of the above is mere opinion.

[Jim Webster]

Having looked at dates etc, I do think that most come from 'Post Flodden'.
Ignoring raiding and private activities it seems that they may have appeared as part of factions in Scottish 'civil wars' or 'minor political disagreements'
But the question you have to ask, when facing an English army between, say, 1350 and 1480, which is strong in excellent longbowmen, would you prat around in front of them on an unarmoured horse wearing nothing more than a padded jacket and a tin hat?

It strikes me that for 'proper battles against the English' the tactical advantages of heaving more heavily armoured men at the front of the spear/pike block, perhaps carrying a really big shield/pavise when compared to the tactical disadvantages of being a horseman in a longbow heavy environment carried the day 

Jim

[Duncan Head]

I'd sort of vaguely assumed that border light horse developed at some stage from hobelars - with whom Scots mounted infantry are compared, IIRC.

[Mark]

Go onto Google books, do a search on the word "hobyler" and you'll find a number of references. If you search within a book called "Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, vol 1" (collected by Sir Walter Scott) there is an account of their use by an invading Scottish army in Yorkshire in 1319, battle of Mitton.

In general, and to Jim's point, against formed up English armies with longbows, they would probably be pretty short lived (I believe there were border troops in the Lancastrian army at Towton), but they would be good for harrying troops on the move - maybe this is why on one hand they have this great reputation in the 15th century but aren't mentioned so much in battle accounts.

[tadamson]

It might be better to look at it from a different perspective.

Scots levy from the border regions often had horses (and most rules/lists have them as mounted infantry or similar).  There are several clear references to 'armies' entirely or predominantly mounted. And several battles have some action involving a few mounted Scots other than men at arms/knights etc.  I think that the key difference between 'mounted infantry' and 'light horse' (in the medieval sense of light armour rather than dispersed skirmishing which men at arms often indulged in  ) was tactical more than anything else.  Against any contemporary army, 'light horse' were more of a liability in battle so most/all dismounted as spear men. Come the lawless raiding of the later 15th C on and the adoption of missile weapons by raiders (crossbows and firearms) light horse become tactically and strategically dominant. They remain a small part of major battles though.

Tom..

[Erpingham]

I would tend to agree that border horse evolved from the mounted infantry employed by both sides from the early 14th century onwards.  The question of at what point these troops thought of their battlefield, as opposed to campaign,  station as sitting on a horse is confused by a lack of detailed accounts of battles involving them in the 15th century.  Neither side seem to have used light cavalry at the battle of Sark in 1448, for example.