Border Reivers--An armed society is a polite society

This little history lesson is a repost from my blog inspired by one our anonymous commenter's remarks that:

"A life lived without honor is worth less than a life not lived at all. A criminal who threatens my life is worth less than anything they might want."

That pretty much summed up this time in British History. I should also add the "enforced migration" to the Northern Irish Plantation and North America. Those who came through Ulster were called "Scots-Irish". That attitude may have been passed on to our anonymous poster:

Yes, Robert Heinlein's quote from Beyond This Horizon where duels may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted is attributed as a custom that keeps order and politeness. The pro-gun crowd has latched onto this cliche from Science fiction rather than looking at a time and place where the citizens were armed, and things were far from polite, the Border between England and Scotland during the 14th through 17th Centuries.



Reiver comes from "reive" is an early English word for "to rob", from the Northumbrian and Scots Inglis verb reifen from the Old English rēafian, and thus related to the archaic Standard English verb reave ("to plunder", "to rob")---they were robbers. This is a society that is probably far closer to what the "gunloons" want than the Western Frontier of the US.

England and Scotland were frequently at war during the late Middle Ages and Tudor period prior to the joining of the Kingdoms under the Stuarts beginning with James VI of Scotland (I of England) . During these wars, the livelihood of the people on the borders was devastated by the contending armies. Even when the countries were not at war, tension remained high, and royal authority in either kingdom was often weak. The authorities in the area could be just as corrupt as the citizenry. The fact that the area was pretty much a lawless zone usually made people a target for depredations rather than conferring any security. They looked to their extended families for security and a "code of law".

There were other factors which promoted a predatory mode of living. Among them was the survival in the Borders of the inheritance system of gavelkind, by which estates were divided equally between all sons on a man's death, so that many people owned insufficient land to maintain themselves. Also, much of the border region is mountainous or open moorland, unsuitable for arable farming but good for grazing. Livestock was easily rustled and driven back to raiders' territory by mounted reivers who knew the country well. The raiders also often removed "insight," easily portable household goods or valuables, and took prisoners for ransom.

The reivers were both English and Scottish and raided both sides of the border impartially, so long as the people they raided had no powerful protectors and no connection to their own kin. Their activities, although usually within a day's ride of the Border, extended both north and south of their main haunts. English raiders were reported to have hit the outskirts of Edinburgh, and Scottish raids were known as far south as Yorkshire. The main raiding season ran through the early winter months, when the nights were longest and the cattle and horses fat from having spent the summer grazing. The inhabitants had to live in a state of constant alert, and for self-protection, they built fortified tower houses. They also built fortified barns known as bastle houses> These buildings are a common characteristic of this area and period.

During periods of nominal peace, a special body of customary law, known as Border Law, grew up to deal with the situation. Under Border Law, a person who had been raided had the right to mount a counter-raid within six days, even across the border, to recover his goods. This Hot Trod had to proceed with "hound and horne, hew and cry", making a racket and carrying a piece of burning turf on a spear point to openly announce their purpose, to distinguish themselves from unlawful raiders proceeding covertly. They might use a sleuth hound (also known as a "slew dogge") to follow raiders' tracks. These dogs were valuable, and part of the established forces (on the English side of the border, at least). Any person meeting this counter-raid was required to ride along and offer such help as he could, on pain of being considered complicit with the raiders. The Cold Trod mounted after six days required official sanction. Officers such as the Deputy Warden of the English West March had the specific duty of "following the trod".

Far from being a polite society, the Borders were a lawless and violent society where brawling was commonplace. The border region has produced some of the best soldiers. The reivers were considered among the finest light cavalry in all of Europe. After meeting one Reiver (the Bold Buccleugh), Queen Elizabeth I is quoted as having said that "with ten thousand such men, James (VI) could shake any throne in Europe." Reivers served as mercenaries, or were forced to serve in English and Scots armies in the Low Countries and in Ireland.

I should add that it's perfectly safe these days and a super place to visit for tourism!

Resources:

George MacDonald Fraser: The Steel Bonnets: Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers
Alistair Moffat: The Reivers: The Story of the Border Reivers
Robert Borland: Border Raids and Reivers
Philip Nixon: Exploring Border Reivers History
Keith Durham and Angus McBride: The Border Reivers (Osprey Men-at-arms Series)
Keith Durham and Gerry Embleton: Border Reiver 1513-1603 (Osprey Warrior Series)
Keith Durham and Graham Turner: Strongholds of the Border Reivers: Fortifications of the Anglo-Scottish Border 1296-1603 (Osprey Fortress Series)

ITV series The Reivers And The Making Of The Borders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Reivers
http://www.borderreivers.co.uk/
http://www.borderreivers.net/wordpress/
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/border_reivers.htm
http://www.nwlink.com/~scotlass/border.htm
http://www.theborderers.info/

Tourism:
http://www.thereivertrail.com/
http://www.visitnorthumberland.com/site/attractions/castles-and-historic-sites/border-reivers
http://www.catswhiskerstours.co.uk/tours_subdyn.asp?inst=4&id=3178
http://www.iknow-scotland.co.uk/tourist_information/scottish-borders/hawick/discount_cashmere_hawick.htm

http://www.squidoo.com/borderreivers

The World According to Jim, and Why He Is Wrong

Jim appears to have a simple one-size-fits-all solution to difficult problems - shoot them.

Doesn't seem to really matter what the issues are or the circumstances; Jim and those who think like him believe that guns are a solution, all the time, any time, and where they don't appear to be working, the answer is MORE guns and more shooting.

As a person with a better grasp than average of strategy and tactics, and good analytical skills, I evaluate the spectrum of possible solutions to achieve the desired end goal. 

In the case of the London rioting, where I just heard on the national broadcast news that the police are considering using plastic (not rubber) bullets, it occurred to me that an explanation of that thinking, to think out loud essentially, might be useful.

The goal in London is to end the rioting, not to spark more rioting - not more locations, not more people, not rioting that continues over a longer period of time.  History has not reflected well on shootings of unarmed people by authorities, particularly if those people were acting out in protest of an inequality.  To their credit, the Brits tend to take the long view, and have been criticized by students of history internally and externally, when they resorted to simple brutality.

More than that, historically it has not worked.  I would point to the past year's events in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in northern Africa and Asia minor.  It is a failing strategy in Syria, it has not been successful in Yemen, it is not successful in Libya.

I would suggest that those stupid, simplistic fools who think the answer to the riots in London is simple brute force, and that anything less is simply being namby-pamby towards criminals should acquaint themselves with the very important work of an author by the name of Gene Sharp.  Probably the most useful of his writings for purposes of analyzing and problem solving the riots would be "From Dictatorship to Democracy", which can be read online for free - just click on the title.  This was one of my Penigma.blogspot.com posts in response to discussions over on MikeB's blog; if I recall this was before I formally joined as an admin and author.

To apply more subtle and complex analysis than the ' ya just gots to shoot 'em, shoot 'em all, then shoot some more' approach of Jim, look first at the catalyst for the riots.  A man was shot, by a police officer.  That man shot at the police officer, embedding a bullet in his cell phone.  The police officer shot back, a move which, if the police account is correct, seems fairly justified.  But right or wrong, THIS is what started the riots, this is what touched off simmering, unresolved tensions into full blown conflict.

So........what do you think would be the response if the police (or military supporting the police) were to start shooting civilians, a mix of old and young, male and female, who were unarmed except for the most primitive use of the occasional bottle or rock?  There is a finite number of police in London; there is a finite number of police in the countryside surrounding London.  There is no abundant surplus of resources here, and there is a growing, not declining, number of people with whom they have to contend in opposition.  IF someone were stupid enough to incite further violence by more shooting - the likely outcome given the catalyst events - then those forces would be overwhelmed.  Further, there are limited resources available to the police; budgets have been cut to the bone........so how would people like Jim propose to fund the massive escalation of people and material required to respond to a massive escalation on the side of the rioters?  How much of London and the surrounding area, metro and beyond, would be left vulnerable to other crime or violence?

How many people on either side, police/ authorities or rioters would be dead or injured? How much MORE property would be damaged in an increase in rioting.  And the ultimate question - would that move the conflict closer or further away from any kind of resolution.

If the authorities did take the resolution that Jim seems to favor, I guarantee you that the Cameron government would topple, and be replaced - and NOT by another conservative either.  Any number of upper level authorities in the police and in civil government would be tossed out on their collective asses, because of the likely unpopularity of that kind of largely avoidable escalation in violence and increased instability.  It would further raise the risk of a marked increase in sympathy and support for the rioters, against the police and/or military.  Whenever either is required to fire on people, people with whom they identify, you further run the risk of a breakdown in the discipline of authority forces due to identification with the people who are the targets, especially if they include women and children - as these riots do.

There is sometimes a great deal of truth in the axiom that violence begets violence.  Sometimes a solution of force cannot be avoided; but when it is the solution that is necessary, it must always be minimal, and surgical in precision.  The solution Jim appears to advocate is neither of those.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them; Jim appears to be one of those who is history illiterate, as are those who think like him.  Whereas the less violent solution is cost effective, and it is far more likely to produced the desired ending of the riots, sooner, and with the least risk to all parties involved.

You can work rough, or you can work smart.  The Brits work smart, and more power to them; this is a rough and dangerous situation for them to get under control.