The Battle of Flodden 1513 E-Book

John Sadler

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

The Battle of Flodden in 1513 was the largest battle ever to take place between England and Scotland. James IV himself led an army of 30,000 men over the border into England, ostensibly in revenge for the murder of a Scotsman, but in reality to assist their ally the French by diverting the forces of Henry VIII. Yet the Scots were hampered by old-fashioned weapons and tactics, whereas the English deployed more accurate artillery and their vaunted longbowmen. When King James IV was killed while leading a charge, and many of their officers died, the Scots were left in disarray and the English victory was decisive. As the first new history of the battle in a decade, this authoritative and eye-opening account marks the 500th anniversary and brings our knowledge of the conflict up to date. Expert knowledge and detailed maps look at the key events, the 1135 campaign and the minor battles of Millfield and Norham, and a full profile of the respective forces and deployments, and convey the battle's course concisely and clearly. A key read for those interested in military history or the period in general.

Leseprobe

Not of the princes and prelates with periwigged charioteers

Riding triumphantly laurelled to lap the fat of the years,

Rather the scorned – the rejected – the men hemmed in with spears;

The men in tattered battalion which fights till it dies,

Dazed with the dust of battle, the din and the cries,

The men with the broken heads and the blood running into their eyes

Not the be-medalled Commander, beloved of the throne,

Riding cock-horse to parade when the bugles are blown,

But the lads who carried the hill and cannot be known.

Others may sing of the wine and the wealth and the mirth,

The portly presence of potentates goodly in girth; –

Mine be the dirt and the dross, the dust and scum of the earth!

Theirs be the music, the colour, the glory, the gold;

Mine be a handful of ashes, a mouthful of mould.

Of the maimed, of the halt and the blind in the rain and the cold –

Of these shall my songs be fashioned, my tale may be told.

John Masefield, ‘Consecration’

This one is for all those involved in the Remembering Flodden and Flodden 500 Projects

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This fresh story of one of Britain’s bloodiest battles comes as a consequence of several convergent elements. Both writers have an ongoing obsession with the landscape of Northumberland and the Borderland, matched by an endless fascination with three long centuries of endemic strife which so shaped the souls of all who can claim descent from those hardy and resilient marchers.

The authors would like to express their thanks to the following for their assistance and courtesy: Chris Burgess, Manager of Northumberland Conservation and County Archaeologist; Chris Bowles, archaeological officer at Scottish Borders Council, Dr David Caldwell of National Museums of Scotland, Dr Paul Younger of Newcastle University, Nicky Clarke at the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Library, the staff at the Literary and Philosophical Society, Newcastle; the Northumberland County Archives at Woodhorn, the National Archives, Adam Goldwater and colleagues at Tyne and Wear Museums, Tony Ball and staff at Newcastle Keep, colleagues from the North East Centre for Lifelong Learning, Sunderland University; Barbara Spearman of English Heritage, Ailsa MacTaggart at Historic Scotland, Shona Corner at National Galleries of Scotland, Stuart Ivinson of Royal Armouries, Clive Hallam-Baker, Jenny Vaughn, John Nolan, Ann and John Ferguson, Frank Robinson and all those involved in the Remembering Flodden Project; Coldstream and District Local History Society, Berwick-upon-Tweed records Office, Andrew Cochrane and Catherine Neil at Alnwick Castle, Paul Thompson of Ford Castle, Peter Blenkinsopp of TillVAS, Glendale Local History Society, Chris and Barry Butterworth of Coquetdale Archaeology Group, Dr Jo Bath for sharing her research, John and George Common for information on Harbottle Castle, Terry Kowal of the Scottish Assembly, Robert Brooks of Hotspur School of Defence, Captain Sam Meadows, Lieutenant Rebecca Sadler, Trevor Sheehan and Graham Trueman for the soldier’s view, Adam Barr for the photography and Chloe Rodham for maps, another successful joint collaboration. Also to Sue Ward for putting up with so much thinking aloud and to Gerry Tomlinson for endless patience and cups of tea.

As ever, the authors remain responsible for all errors and omissions.

Rosie Serdiville & John Sadler,

2013

CONTENTS

Praise

Title

Dedication

Acknowledgements

A Note on Sources

Chronology

Dramatis personae

1

Mud, blood and myth: Being introductory

2

Great undertakings: The road to war

3

Valiant captains: On the art of war in the sixteenth century

4

Able soldiers and mariners: War at sea

5

Upon the side of a high mountain: The Scots’ invasion

6

Full boldly on the broad hills: Approach to contact

7

All before me on a plain field: Trial by battle 1

8

The King of Scots is killed, with all his cursed lords: Trial by battle 2

9

Such a noise … was never heard before: Aftermath

10

Flowers of the Forest: Legacy

11

The battle in history and myth

12

By the spade provided: Archaeology of a battlefiled

Appendix One: Orders of battle

Appendix Two: Casualties and honours

Appendix Three: The battlefield today

Appendix Four: The guns speak out

Bibliography

Glossary

Plates

Copyright

A NOTE ON SOURCES

My promise was, and I record it so,

To write in verse (God wot though little worth)

That war seems sweet to such as little know

What comes thereby, what fruits it bringeth forth:

Who knows none evil his mind no bad abhors,

But such as once have felt the scorching fire,

Will seldom efte to play with fire desire.

George Gascoigne

Contemporary accounts of the Battle of Flodden are scarce and patchy. We are obliged, in no small part, to rely upon the work of later Tudor chronicles. One version which appeared shortly after is ‘the trewe encountre or batayle lately between Englande and Scotland’. This was penned by Richard Faques [Fawkes], ‘dwellying in Poulys Churche Yerde’. It tells of ‘the manner of the advancelynge of my lord of Surrey the Courier and Marshall of Englande ande leuetenute generall of the north pties of the same with xxvi M. men to wardes the kynge of Scott and his armye belived and nombred to an hundred thousande men at the lest’. That this is contemporary or very near is attested by an observation that two knights on the English side remain unaccounted for at the time of writing.

Interestingly, the editor notes some provincialisms which suggest to him that the author was Northumbrian. He also observes, quite rightly that ‘the trewe encountre’ is closely followed by Hall and, in terms of detail it is the most comprehensive account. There appear to be no doubts regarding its authenticity. In the course of this narrative we will review Gerard F.T. Leather’s interesting account of the battle, New Light on Flodden, which alleges the Scots were attempting to withdraw on 9 September. It could be suggested that the ‘trewe encountre’ lends weight to this as the author infers the Scottish army was withdrawing towards Scotland.

This source would appear to bear out the dispositions of the two armies as later witnessed by Hall. Tantalisingly the description does not, by any means, exclude the possibility that the Scots were in the act of withdrawing and that the fight developed as a series of encounters. Colonel Leather’s ‘take’ is arresting but cannot ultimately be proven on the basis of chronicle evidence.

‘The Articles of the Bataill bitwix the Kinge of Scottes and therle of Surrey in Brankstone the 9 day of September’ has been attributed to Thomas Howard as his official dispatch. This covers only the battle itself rather than the campaign and, whilst clearly contemporary, may be said to be partisan in that it is not calculated to diminish the role of the Howard family. Thomas was too canny not to appreciate that news of a great victory on the border might not read as well in France where tangible triumphs were scarce. After all, this was just supposed to be the sideshow to which his father had been relegated. The Calendar of State Papers contains other fragments including Bishop Ruthal’s letter to Wolsey, written a mere eleven days after the fight. The Prince Bishop is keen to stress the providential talisman of St Cuthbert’s banner which the Prior of Durham had entrusted to Surrey and whose magic had not failed what was perhaps its greatest test. Regrettably, the bishop is less fulsome about the events of the campaign itself.

Though Howard’s account is pithily terse, as befits a general officer’s dispatch, it would seem to suggest that this was not an encounter battle. His description of the Scots’ deployment clearly implies divisions arrayed in line, ‘every bataille an arrow shotte from the other’, he confuses the deployment to a degree in that he brigades Huntly’s men in with those of the three earls. In the circumstances this is perhaps not surprising. He also refers to the fight in this section of the field as being of short duration; ‘shortly theire bakes were turned, and the most parte of them slayne’. He describes the fighting in the centre in one short paragraph and confirms that James fell ‘within a spere length from the said Erle of Surrey’. The Lord Admiral is scathing on the conduct of the commons under his brother, many of whom it seems ‘never abode stroke’ [i.e. ran away]. Pinkerton’s History of Scotland features a contemporary account, penned in French, the Gazette, which though brief offers a terse and pithy account of the fight.

Edward Hall’s quite detailed narrative on which much of our understanding of the events is based – The Triumphant Reigne of Kyng Henry the VIII – first appeared in print in 1548 but had been compiled some years prior to that. That meant some of those who fought were still alive. Hall certainly appears to have had access to at least one contemporary source previously printed in ‘Fletestrete [Fleet Street] at the sign of the George by Richard Pynson, printer unto the King’s noble grace’ – penned by one who may have actually participated in the campaign. It was this account along with the ‘trewe encountre’ which furnished Hall with details of the English muster and campaign. Holinshed was writing considerably later than Hall, in Elizabeth’s reign, and did not publish till 1571.

Scottish accounts are even thinner on the ground and our best rendition comes from Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie (1500–65) who, though writing some decades later, gives a detailed account. Pitscottie’s grandfather served during the campaign but the chronicler is concerned rather with advancing a moral argument that James’ ruin was brought about by his addiction to the sins of the flesh and dalliance; brought low by ‘his own sensual pleasures which was the cause of his ruin’. James VI’s tutor, the accomplished George Buchanan (1506–82), has also left us an account. The ballad Scotish Feilde, composed by Leigh of Baggagley, is a paean to the achievement of the Stanleys as, to an extent, is Flodden Field.

There are other timely references to the battle. Sir Richard Assheton’s memorial in his parish church of St Leonard’s in Middleton. Sir Marmaduke Constable has his own memorial brass and other dalesmen from Littondale, Arncliffe and Hawswick are remembered in St Oswald’s Church at Arncliffe in their native Yorkshire. As Niall Barr rightly points out, these are amongst the very earliest war memorials in Britain.

CHRONOLOGY

1488 – James IV of Scotland ascends the throne.

1494 – French armies invade Italy.

1496 – James supports the pretender Perkin Warbeck.

1497 – Scots besiege Norham Castle.

30 September 1497 – England and Scotland enter into a 30-year truce at Ayton.

8 August 1503 – The truce, ratified as a Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1502, is consolidated by the marriage between James IV and Margaret Tudor.

1508 – The Scottish border warden Sir Robert Ker is killed on a truce day by the ‘Bastard’ Heron of Ford.

22 April 1509 – Henry VIII succeeds to the throne of England.

March 1510 – Treaty between England and France.

May 1511 – English expedition to assist Ferdinand of Aragon.

November 1511 – England enters into an accord with Pope Julius II and joins the ‘Holy Cause’.

1512 – James renews the ‘Auld Alliance’ with France.

10 August 1512 – Anglo-French naval engagement off Brest, death of Sir Edward Howard.

1513 – The Emperor Maximilian joins the Holy League.

May 1513 – The French queen appeals to James to intervene.

24 May 1513 – James writes to Henry requiring him to desist from hostilities against France.

30 June 1513 – Henry VIII lands at Calais.

12 July 1513 – Newcastle is appointed as the muster for the English army.

21 July 1513 – the Earl of Surrey organises his personal staff.

21 July 1513 – Henry leads the main body of the English army in France toward Therouanne.

24 July 1513 – James orders a general muster on the Burgh Muir of Edinburgh.

1 August 1513 – Surrey establishes a temporary HQ at Pontefract.

13 August 1513 – The ‘Ill Raid’.

17 August 1513 – The Scots complete their muster on the Burgh Muir.

21 August 1513 – The Scots army marches south to the advance muster at Ellam Kirk.

22 August 1513 – The Scots cross the Tweed at Coldstream.

24 August 1513 – James IV holds his final Parliament at Twizelhaugh.

24 August 1513 – The Scots siege of Norham Castle begins.

26 August 1513 – Surrey advances to York.

29 August 1513 – The earl moves north to Durham, collects the sacred banner of St Cuthbert.

29 August 1513 – Norham Castle capitulates.

30 August 1513 – Surrey reaches Newcastle where the English army is mustering.

1 September 1513 – Ford Castle surrenders, Scots establish HQ there.

1 September 1513 – The English army marches out of Newcastle, north to Bolton near Alnwick.

4 September 1513 – Surrey marshals the English army at Bolton where he is joined by his son the Lord Admiral. The English hold a council of war.

5 September 1513 – Surrey formally unfurls his banners at Bolton.

5 September 1513 – The Scots army digs in and deploys on Flodden Edge, the English herald Rouge Croix is sent with a challenge to James.

6 September 1513 – The English advance from Bolton to Wooler.

7 September 1513 – Rouge Croix is released and is sent back with a second message.

8 September 1513 – The English flank march begins. The Scots remain at Flodden.

9 September 1513 (a.m.) – The English cross the Till and advance toward Branxton.

9 September 1513 (p.m.) – The Scots deploy in their second position on Branxton Edge.

9 September 1513 (p.m.) – The English cross the Pallinsburn and begin their deployment.

9 September 1513(p.m.) – The Battle of Flodden.

14 September 1513 – Surrey disbands his army.

24 September 1513 – Tournai surrenders after an eight-day siege.

25 September 1513 – News of the victory reaches Henry at Tournai.

26 November 1513 – A general council in Scotland invites John, Duke of Albany, to assume the governorship/regency of Scotland.

2 April 1514 – James IV’s flagship Michael is sold to France for £18,000 Scots.

March 1514 – The dissolution of the Holy League.

March 1514 – An Anglo-French truce is negotiated.

7 August 1514 – The truce is ratified as a peace treaty, the French cease all assistance to Scotland.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

SCOTS

James IV of Scotland (1473–1513)

The Scottish king has popularly had a rather poor press since his death in battle at Flodden in 1513. He came to the throne at an early age after the sudden and unlamented demise of his father, James III, following the rout at Sauchieburn. The Stewart dynasty, established on the Scottish throne for nearly a century and a half, could claim its descent from Anglicised Norman knights who came north to Scotland in the train of the Anglophile David I. The latter had spent his early life at the English Court.1

It was Robert II ‘The Steward’ who came to the throne in 1371 on the sudden death of his childless predecessor David II. His reign was followed by that of the melancholic Robert III, rendered at least partially disabled by a kick from his brother’s horse, an experience which did not assist his depressive temperament. The three James who succeeded him all met violent deaths, the first to assassins’ knives, the second when one of his great guns exploded at the siege of Roxburgh and the third, also murdered. Scotland, throughout the fifteenth century, had been burdened with a series of minority kingships. However, despite his difficult start, James IV achieved much. He finally abolished the largely moribund title of Lord of the Isles in 1493.2 The MacDonald hegemony in the Highlands had been a near constant wellspring of fissiparous tendencies.3 His administrative reforms were comprehensive and it is probably due to this solid foundation that the country was able to function after the disaster and the loss of such a high proportion of the nobility.

James was a truly Renaissance figure, active in the lists, addicted to finery and seduced by the lures of war (Plate1). He had, like his unfortunate grandfather James II, a fascination with artillery.4 By 1508 his master gunner, Robert Borthwick,5 was casting guns in Edinburgh. Ordinances seeking to promote practice at the butts in preference to more popular pastimes such as golf or football were enacted, even if, subsequently, they were rarely heeded. By 1502 he was able to dispatch a contingent of 2,000 spears to fight in Denmark and he invested heavily in the creation of a Scottish navy. The most potent manifestation of which was the king’s flagship, the Great Michael, launched in 1511, 240ft in length, with a beam of 56ft, mounting 36 great guns and 300 lesser pieces, and served by 120 gunners. With a crew of 300 mariners and carrying 1,000 marines, she was one of the most powerful man-o’-war afloat at the time.6

Shaky truce notwithstanding, James was prepared to connive at the piratical activities of some of his more flamboyant skippers, including Andrew Wood of Largo and the Barton clan. Of the latter, Andrew Barton remained one of James’ favourites until his death from wounds following an epic sea fight with the English Lord Admiral Edward Howard. Had James not engaged in battle in September 1513 and lived to die in his bed, history may well have judged his reign as a successful one. But the weight of his achievements could never balance the loss at Flodden and his conduct both during the campaign and on the field has been branded as rash and quixotic. The English Tudor chronicler Edward Hall summed up the prevailing view when he wrote: ‘O what a noble and triumphant courage was this, for a king to fight in a battle as a mean soldier. But howsoever it happened, God gave the stroke, and he was no more regarded than a poor soldier, for all went one way.’7

Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland (1489–1541)

Margaret was Henry VIII older sister, whose great grandson James VI of Scotland was, in 1603, to unite the two realms as James I of England. When during September 1497, James IV’s commissioner, Pedro de Ayala, was negotiating the terms of marriage and truce, some English advisers were fearful this might bring the Stewart kings of Scotland directly into the line of English succession, Henry cannily responded:

What then? Should anything of the kind happen (and God avert the omen), I foresee that our realm would suffer no harm, since England would not be absorbed by Scotland, but rather Scotland by England, being the noblest head of the entire island, since there is always less glory and honor in being joined to that which is far the greater, just as Normandy once came under the rule and power of our ancestors the English.8

This was a most perceptive analysis, presaging historical reality by a century.

The young queen’s arrival in her new realm was celebrated by William Dunbar, who had been involved in the marriage negotiations, in several adulatory poems including ‘The Thistle and the Rose’, ‘Gladethe, thoue Queyne of Scottis Regioun’, the song ‘Now Fayre, Fayrest of Every Fayre’ and ‘Blyth Aberdeane’, written on Margaret’s welcome to Aberdeen. In his ‘Thistle and the Rose’, the bard has forest birds serenading the conjoined York and Lancastrian roses, a symbol of Margaret’s dual lineage:

The merle scho sang, ‘Haill, Roiss of most delyt,

Haill, of all flouris quene and soverane,’

The lark scho song, ‘Haill, Rois, both reid and quhyt,

Most plesand flour, of michty cullouris twane;’

The nychtingaill song, ‘Haill, naturis suffragene,

In bewty, nurtour and every nobilness,

In riche array, renown, and gentilness.’9

Though born a Tudor (Plate2) Margaret never deviated in her loyalty to Scotland. She, perhaps more than any of her court, understood the nature and character of her dangerous and mercurial brother. Margaret with Douglas and Bishop Elphinstone represented the voice of caution and compromise in the increasingly bellicose counsels of 1513.

Alexander, 3rd Lord Home (d. 1516)

One of the king’s principal divisional commanders in the coming struggle.scion of an ancient borderline. Lord Alexander occupied the crucial post of Scottish East March warden, an office which many of his forbears had previously held. He also succeeded his father as Chamberlain from 1506.10 The wardenship was no sinecure. In the rough and tumble of border politics diplomacy, open warfare and constant banditry were very much the norm. The Homes had frequently seen their lands (around Greenlaw in the Merse) wasted by the English. In the course of the riposte following James’ championing of the pretender Perkin Warbeck in 1497, Home had seen his castle at Ayton slighted.

Over a century before, an ancestor, Sir Alexander Home, had been one of the many Scottish knights captured in the rout of Homildon (1402).11 He had later died fighting for France against the English.12 The family had benefited from lands confiscated from their powerful neighbours, the earls of Dunbar, by James I in 1436. By 1473 Sir Alexander Home had attained a peerage and acted as an overseas ambassador to James III. He had, however, subsequently quarrelled with that doomed, hedonistic monarch over the transfer of revenues from Coldingham Priory.

Home and his border lances had ridden against James III at Sauchieburn. The dead king’s grateful son, who had, at least in name, led the revolt, quickly returned this lost source of income. Other rewards followed, the wardenship was restored and augmented with the offices of Grand Chamberlain and Keeper of Stirling Castle, both plum appointments. The 3rd Earl led a disastrous chevauchee13 into Northumberland in the summer of 1513, the first overt move in the campaign. His riders had been ambushed and roundly thrashed by English archers under Sir William Bulmer.

There is an enduring question as to the nature of his relationship with James IV. The Homes were never easy subjects and thoroughly steeped in the impenetrable web of cross-border alliances and discreet understandings. Home has been criticised for apparent inactivity after the early success against Edmund Howard’s wing of the English army and for failing to come to the aid of the king’s division at the crisis point. For a borderer, expediency usually, almost invariably, prevailed over the more remote national interest. Defeat for Scotland inevitably meant that the vengeance of the English would fall heavily on the marches and a careful warden would do best to husband his resources. It has even been suggested that Home had an arrangement with Lord Dacre, the English East-March warden, that the borderers on both sides would look to themselves. Such an understanding would not have been without precedent.14

Archibald Douglas, 5th Earl of Angus (1449–1513)

One of King James’ senior magnates and a constant source of trouble, Douglas was aged 64 in 1513 and died of natural causes that November. He was one who, with the queen and Bishop Elphinstone, resolutely opposed the war. He spoke out to that effect in council, though Buchanan asserts he was reduced to tears by the king’s violent outburst.15 He did not fight in the battle though two of his sons did and failed to return. He was nominated to succeed Arran as admiral when the former exceeded his instructions (see Chapter 4).

He was dubbed the ‘Great’ Earl and more popularly as Archibald ‘Bell-the-Cat’.16 Famously, he had quarrelled with James III during the failed campaign of 1482, when Gloucester was before the walls of Berwick, his contribution being to lead the savage cull of the king’s favourites at Lauder. He later commanded those forces which defeated James at Sauchieburn. Appointed as a guardian of young James IV, he lost his seniority to the rising star of the Hepburns. Never averse to a measure of duplicity he was, in the 1490s, offering his services as an effective fifth column to Henry VII. Grim Hermitage Castle, formidable sentinel and gateway to Liddesdale, was to be handed over in return for estates in England.

Throughout the whole of his tumultuous career Angus see-sawed between loyalty and dissent. In 1491 his ancestral hold of great Tantallon was forfeited but, back in favour, he served as chancellor for five years from 1494. Three years later, he was incarcerated for a period in the great rock fortress of Dumbarton. As difficult and contentious a subject as he was, the Douglas did give sage advice in 1513 but his moderating voice, along with that of Elphinstone, went unheeded in the feverish rush to war.

Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly (d. 1523/24)

The Gordons were grand magnates of the north, Huntly’s descendant the celebrated ‘Cock of the North’ would lead the Catholic reaction during Mary’s reign, before being defeated by James Stuart, Earl of Moray at Corrichie.17 They held vast estates in the north-east. Alexander succeeded on the death of his father the 2nd Earl, who had previously fought for James III at Sauchieburn. The Gordons had for centuries been active in the patriot cause and had suffered in consequence. Sir Adam Gordon had died a heroic if futile death at Homildon in 1402 when he led a doomed charge of Scottish chivalry into the arrow storm. An earlier scion had fallen at Otterburn thirteen years previously.

His conduct on the field at Flodden was not distinguished as he appears to have been led by his co-commander Home. He had, however, previously seen active service, being instrumental in breaking the Donald Dubh rebellion.18 Having survived the battle, he became active in the affairs of the regency council and was apparently well regarded by his contemporaries. Holinshed confirms he was held: ‘in the highest reputation of all the Scottish nobility for his valour joined with this wisdom and policy’.19

Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox (c. 1455–1513)

The Stewarts were another fighting name who had more than ‘done their bit’ for the patriot cause. Sir Alan Stewart of Dreghorn fought for Edward Bruce during the latter’s ill-judged intermeddling in Ireland. He survived the disaster there only to fall at Halidon Hill in 1333. Sir John Stewart of Darnley served in a senior capacity with Scottish forces fighting in France in the wake of Agincourt, taking part in the victory at Bauge. Matthew Stewart’s father had enjoyed uncertain relations with both James IV and his father, leading to open rebellion and dishonour, albeit temporary.

Matthew succeeded his father on the latter’s death in 1495 when the long sought after earldom had been attained. Sometime in the 1470s, he married his first wife, Margaret, daughter of Lord Lyle. In 1494, he married for a second time. Elizabeth was a daughter of the Earl of Arran and was to bear Matthew two sons and four daughters. On the field of Flodden he was joint commander of the Highland division with Argyll and did not display any trace of distinction before falling to Stanley’s arrows. It is possible that Lennox may be the dead Scottish noble the English Clerk to the Signet refers to in his report of 2 September 1513 (this is discussed more fully in Chapter 9).

Gillespie Archibald Campbell, 2nd Earl of Argyll (d. 1513)

The Campbells (Gaelic Cam-beull or ‘wry-mouth’) have not enjoyed a good press, frequently viewed as the venal aggressors in inter-clan strife. This is only partly true of a name which claims descent from none other than King Arthur! After the forfeiture of the Lordship of the Isles in 1493 the king had sought to exercise dominion over the fissiparous Highlands with local surrogates. The Campbells were one name which enthusiastically sought to fill the void. They were not wholly successful, ushering in an age of fearful internecine violence dubbed ‘the Age of Forays’. Archibald was the son of Colin Campbell and his wife Isabella and married Elizabeth Stewart who bore him four sons and five daughters. From 1499 to 1502 he was, to all intents and purposes, a lessee of the former lordship and put down a series of disturbances two years later.

Archibald was Matthew Stewart’s brother-in-law and had risen high in the king’s service; securing a plum appointment as Lord High Chancellor. He had acted as James’ Master of the Household and chief officer in the west where his predecessors were hereditary sheriffs of Lorne and Argyll. He may not have been entirely free of the taint of compromise, possibly being overly close to wilder spirits such as Torquil MacLeod, MacLean of Duart and that evergreen rebel Donald Dubh.20 Clan Campbell was set to rise, even the anarchy of the Age of Forays would not deflect their progress. Perhaps only the Gordons, in the east, rivalled their growing status.

In 1511, he was one of those Scottish commissioners listed to meet with Lord Dacre and Sir Robert Drury to discuss the wild state of the borders – his is the first name listed, an indication of high status. Two years later Campbell was also one of those who treated with English ambassador Nicholas West, essentially a strategy of prevarication. West found Campbell rather trying as the latter refused to provide any assurances – ‘no answer could be given till they knew what justice they should receive in England … how justices should be administered in the borders’. Infuriated by these perceived obfuscations, West spoke ‘roundly and sharply’ to Argyll. This does not seem to have assisted the diplomatic process.

Adam Hepburn, 2nd Earl of Bothwell (1492–1513)

Yet another fighting line, coming originally from Northumberland, where their castle still stands, the Hepburns featured in many border skirmishes. Adam’s father, Patrick, had earned his earldom after siding with James against his father at Sauchieburn. The rise of the Hepburns was very much linked to royal patronage. The 2nd Earl inherited in 1508 and married his wife Janet Stewart (born c. 1480), natural daughter of James Stewart, Earl of Buchan, three years later. She survived not only him but another three husbands, living till 1557. The marriage was something of a royal connivance as Janet already had an illegitimate child by the king. Adam surrendered some lands which James then passed to her as a dowry. Hepburn was something of a royal favourite, one who hunted and hawked with his monarch21 and served in a diplomatic capacity, as ambassador to France in 1492. His uncle George Hepburn held high ecclesiastical office as Abbot of Arbroath (1504), Bishop of the Isles (1510) and also as Treasurer from 1508–10. He too fell at Flodden.

John Lindsay, Earl of Crawford (c. 1460–1513)

Crawford may have had a hand (abetted by his brother-in-law) in the suspicious death of his elder brother in 1490. He certainly undertook a pilgrimage to Amiens in 1506, possibly a gesture of repentance? Thirteen years previously he had married Home’s daughter Mariota and, though the marriage proved childless, he had at least one acknowledged bastard, also named John, whose mother is referred to as ‘Maukyne’ Deuchar.

ENGLISH

King Henry VIII of England (1491–1547)

The king’s biographer describes his subject as a ‘knight errant’. Henry was indeed addicted to romance and chivalric feats. Yet, like his brother-in-law, he was also held up by contemporaries, even those as eminent as Erasmus, as the model of the Renaissance prince. He loved finery, the tilt, vast excesses of gaming, gorging and bling. In his youth his physique and prowess at arms were impressive, a mirror of his grandfather Edward IV, the greatest knight of his age. He craved military glory and renown though, in reality, these eluded him. He never led an English army to victory on any field and his expeditions proved expensive fiascos. He was immensely sociable, his court a blaze of pageantry and excess but all this outward show hid a markedly dark side. He is described as being ‘highly strung and unstable, hypochondriac, with a strong steak of cruelty’. The arm he draped around the neck of Thomas More as he walked with him in his garden would latterly be employed in signing his death warrant. Two of his six wives went to the block.

In terms of his relations with Scotland and his attitude to his brother-in-law, these were never cordial. He had spitefully withheld his sister’s legacy from their father’s estate for no better reason than he could. Henry had effectively winked at Bastard Heron’s killing of Ker, the Scottish warden, a matter which rankled with James, and had ignored his protests over the death of Barton. Henry advised he did not care to be troubled over the fate of mere pirates. There was a great deal of truth in this; Barton was well aware of the risks he’d been running and the likely consequences. Henry’s eyes were always fixed on the greater game in Europe. Scotland was an irritation, albeit a potent one which had to be guarded against. Surrey’s great victory was in fact bitter gall to Henry. He hungered for renown and the idea that the honours from the campaign should be vested in a subordinate, particularly one who had been cast aside and relegated to managing a sideshow, was humiliating indeed.

In 1513 Henry left his queen, Katherine of Aragon, as regent and she proved highly capable. She wrote fulsomely to her husband in praise of his petty skirmish at the ‘Battle’ of the Spurs. But she could also send him the bloodied surcoat of his dead brother-in-law and announce a signal victory won during her regency. Henry’s role in the events in North Northumberland was essentially peripheral though it was he who, by his conduct, set the whole dire process in train. James was not a warmonger and can be said to have exercised all reasonable endeavours to maintain the fragile peace. James has been damned for his perceived impetuosity yet his conduct appears more balanced and statesman like. Henry was a headstrong, spoilt and, at this early stage, rather a naïve young man, let loose with his father’s substantial inheritance.

Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443–1524)

Despite the weight of his 70 years and affliction with gout so severe that he was frequently obliged to travel by carriage, Thomas Howard remained a powerful figure. His career in arms had begun over forty years previously when he had fought for the Yorkist king Edward IV in his victory over Warwick the Kingmaker at Barnet in 1471. He had remained loyal to Edward’s brother Richard III and had been present on the fateful field of Bosworth on 22 August 1485 when both Richard and Howard’s own father, the 1st Duke, had perished. The penalty for supporting the loser had been three and a half years’ incarceration in the Tower and the loss of his estates. When questioned, Howard had summed up his reasons for championing Richard succinctly: ‘[because] he was my crowned King and if parliamentary authority set the crown on a stock, I will fight for that stock. And as I fought for him, I will fight for you.’22

Having been offered and declined an opportunity to secure freedom by throwing in his lot with Lincoln’s rebels in 1487, Howard began his rehabilitation. Released and partially re-instated in 1489 he quickly proved his worth, swiftly suppressing disturbances in the north. Henry VII now appointed him as lieutenant general of the border with further devolved responsibility for the middle and east marches (young Prince Arthur was nominal warden).

With his titles if not yet all of his estates returned to him, Howard confirmed the king’s sound judgement when he dealt speedily with fresh troubles in 1492. In his prime, he was now regarded as England’s premier general and a close counsellor to Henry. It was Howard who brokered the truce and royal marriage in 1502 and, in the following year, accompanied Princess Margaret north to Scotland. There he met James and the two men may have formed an instant bond, to a degree which sparked a jealous complaint from the bride! Within five years all of his family’s lands were back in his possession. The old Yorkist had come full circle. On the accession of Henry VIII in 1509, Howard might have expected to continue in the role of senior advisor but found his position challenged by the parvenu Thomas Wolsey. Although his talents were still useful (he headed the peace delegation to France in 1510), the earl found himself increasingly sidelined. Peevishly, he flounced out of the court two years later.

It was probably, certainly in Howard’s eyes, Wolsey’s pernicious influence with the king that denied him a command in the forces being mustered for France. Manning the border against possible Scottish incursion appeared a far drearier prospect with little chance for spoil or glory. Ironically, Wolsey had done his perceived rival a considerable favour for it was on the despised frontier that the only martial glory of 1513 was to be won. He was clearly the best qualified of the English magnates to hold the northern command. He knew the marches, he knew the borderers and he knew the man against whom he would have to fight. On 1 February 1514, in consideration of his great victory, he was created 2nd Duke of Norfolk.23

Thomas Howard, latterly Earl of Surrey and 3rd Duke of Norfolk (1473–1554)

In 1513 Thomas Howard was forty, ‘small and of spare stature’, dark haired like his father. His early career had rather been overshadowed by the more swashbuckling persona of his brother Edward. Both were accomplished in the lists, Thomas the more so, but Edward had that swagger that Henry admired. As Lord Admiral, he defeated and killed Andrew Barton and went on to blockade the French fleet in Brest on the outbreak of hostilities. It was in the course of a typically buccaneering cutting out action that Edward was killed24 and Thomas succeeded to his high office.

The campaign of Flodden was to be the first major test of his leadership skills and he would not be found wanting. In due course he succeeded to his father’s dukedom and was active in putting down the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536–37. A staunch recusant he remained a powerful figure at court though his plans to marry the ageing king off to his nubile niece. Katherine Howard backfired horribly. On the night of Henry’s death, Howard was in the Tower awaiting the executioner’s attentions in the morning. Reprieved by fate, he went on to play his part in the reign of Mary Tudor.

Lord Edmund Howard (1478–1539)

The younger and less distinguished son, he fought valiantly at Flodden but never enjoyed the favour and advancement of his older brothers though he did father a future if disastrous queen, Katherine Howard. He died before she married the king and seems to have been regarded as something of a wastrel by contemporaries, amassing large debts and spending much time avoiding his creditors.25

Sir Edward Stanley, 1st Baron Monteagle (1463–1523/24)

The Stanleys were a martial family whose decisive intervention on behalf of Henry Tudor at Bosworth had changed the course of English history. Hitherto, they had been staunch Yorkists and Sir Edward was a worthy heir to this tradition, acting as a pallbearer at Edward IV’s funeral. His ideas were, for the period in which he lived, unconventional; ‘this most martial and heroic captain, soldier-like, lived for some time in the strange opinion that the soul of man was like the winding up of a watch, that when the spring was down, the man died and the soul determined.’ He was appointed, in 1485, High Sheriff of Lancashire and also served as Commissioner of Array for Yorkshire and Westmorland.

He was of mature years at Flodden though his father, the Earl of Derby, was still actively campaigning in France. Sir Edward was in fact the earl’s fifth son. Although his contingent was late in arriving on the field, mislaid temporarily in the fog of war or, in this case, the mist and rain of wet Northumberland, he and his affinity did good service, turning the probability of English victory into a certainty. It was Bishop Ruthal of Durham who recommended his elevation to the peerage.

Thomas Dacre, 2nd Baron Dacre (1467–1525)

The Dacres were a famous Cumbrian name, active throughout the Border wars.26 Randolph, Lord Dacre of Gilsland had died fighting for the House of Lancaster at Towton in 1461. Thomas fought for Richard III at Bosworth, though his backing of the wrong side didn’t appear to spoil his prospects under Henry Tudor. The successful usurper recognised Dacre’s talent and the importance of his name on the marches. In May 1486, Thomas was appointed deputy warden in the west and served as full warden from 1509. He was admitted as a Knight of the Bath in 1503 and latterly to the order of the Garter.

A canny borderer, there was always the suggestion that he and Home had colluded prior to Flodden. Such private arrangements would not be, by any means, unusual. Surrey, who admired the Cumbrian’s ready courage, was less impressed by his organisational skills, ‘a peerless knight but neglectful of order’.27

Sir Marmaduke Constable (c. 1458–1518)

Sir Marmaduke Constable stout

Accompanied by his seemly sons

Sir William Bulmer with his rout,

Lord Clifford with his clapping guns

Ballad: Battle of Flodden Field

Known as ‘the little’; Sir Marmaduke was a Yorkshire knight whose seat was at Flamborough. Another who had fought for Richard III, nonetheless he enjoyed favour with both Henry VII and his son; serving from time to time as High Sheriff of both his native county and of Staffordshire. At Flodden, his affinity not only included three of his sons but also his son-in-law, William Percy, and a brother, Sir William Constable. Ironically one of his descendants, another William, became one of the regicides in 1649.

John Heron, Bastard of Ford (d. 1524)

Black sheep of an English gentry family, Heron resided at Crawley Tower near Wooler. Perhaps the most notorious incident in a career of thuggery was the killing of Scottish Middle march warden, Sir Robert Ker of Cessford, at a Truce day in April 1508. Ker was the King’s Butler, Master of Ordnance and royal favourite. Nonetheless, ‘he seems to have drawn great odium from the borderers of both kingdoms by the severe and rigorous manner with which he exercised his jurisdiction’.28 Both of Heron’s seconds or accomplices, Lilburn and Starhead, paid for participation in this crime with their lives, though John apparently evaded all attempts at justice. Despite James’ voluble protests, Heron’s depredations appear to have been winked at by the English authorities.

Killing Sir Robert Ker, whether this was plain murder or the outcome of a duel, ranked as a clear and serious breach of the prevailing accord between both kingdoms. Sir William Heron of Ford, the Bastard’s half-brother, was apparently handed over as a surety and found himself confined within the barren reaches of Fast Castle, perched dramatically above the North Berwickshire Coast. Legend (largely apocryphal) asserts John swiftly moved to enjoy the favours of his sister-in-law, Lady Heron at Ford. Edward Hall is adamant that it was Heron who rescued Edmund Howard at Flodden whilst Dacre’s men stood idly by.29

Sir John Stanley (‘The Bastard’) – dates uncertain

Though a mere stripling of seventeen, John led the contingent raised by his father, the Bishop of Ely, also Sir John Stanley. The younger John was knighted by Surrey for his services during the fight. He’d apparently vowed to endow a chapel if he survived the campaign and a memorial in Manchester cathedral attests to this fact. Shortly after his return he married the 12-year-old heiress of William Handforth who had been killed in the battle. In 1528 the couple parted by agreement in order that both could enter holy orders.30

Lady Elizabeth Heron – dates uncertain

Our main source for all alleged intimacy between the King of Scots and Lady Heron is Pitscottie. She was married to William Heron, whose older brother John had been English East and Middle march warden. John died at the age of 26 in 1498, leaving William as his heir and successor as Middle march warden. William may not have been as disreputable as his notorious half-brother but he may have been equally involved in border skulduggery. He was handed over as hostage after the killing of the Scottish warden and not released till after Flodden when he was exchanged for George Home.

Pitscottie avers that: ‘the lady of Ford was a beautiful woman, and that the King meddled with her, and also his son, Alexander Stuart, bishop of St. Andrews with her daughter which was against God’s commandment’. This is all rather soap opera and has no corroboration. Sir William himself died in 1535 leaving a widow Agnes, clearly a second wife. No daughter is mentioned and his son, another William, had predeceased him.31

NOTES

1. It was David I who began filtering Anglo-Norman barons into Scotland.

2. The Lordship of the Isles was the princely status enjoyed by chiefs of Clan Donald, inheritors of Somerled.

3. The Battle of Harlaw 1411 marked the major clash of arms between the Lordship and Crown forces under the Earl of Mar.

4. His grandfather James II had been killed at the siege of Roxburgh in 1461 when one of his own cannon exploded.

5. By 1512 he was described as ‘master meltar’ of royal ordnance; Caldwell, D.H., Scottish weapons & fortifications 1100-1880 (Edinburgh, 1981), pp. 73–93.

6. Macdougall, N., James IV (Edinburgh, 1989), pp. 235–6.

7. Edward Hall, King Henry the VIII, vol. 1 (London, 1904), p. 109.

8. Polydore Vergil, Historia Anglia 26, chap 41.

9. Tasioulas, J.A. (ed.), The Makers (Edinburgh, 1999), p. 277 stanza 25.

10. Macdougall, p. 254.

11. The Battle of Homildon Hill 1402, a major defeat for the Scots near Wooler.

12. The Scottish contingent defeated the English at Bauge but were decimated at Verneuil in 1424.

13. A ‘chevauchee’ was a substantial raid aimed at inflicting economic damage; it derives from the time of the Hundred Years War.

14. Home died a traitor’s death in 1516.

15. Buchanan, History, II, pp. 253–5.

16. This epithet is said to derive from Douglas’ willingness to slaughter the king’s favourite, Robert Cochrane and others.

17. The Earl of Moray, with Queen Mary’s blessing, defeated Huntly’s Catholic rising. ‘The Cock of the North’ died, probably from natural causes in the aftermath.

18. Macdougall, pp. 188–90.

19. Taylor, J., The Great Historic Families of Scotland (1889), vol. II, p. 298.

20. Macdougall, pp. 184–6.

21.Ibid., p. 306.

22. Campbell, W., Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, vol. II (1877), p. 480.

23. Scarisbrick, J.J. Henry VIII (London, 1968), p. 39.

24.Ibid., p. 34.

25. See Bindoff, S.T., The House of Commons 1509–1538 (London, 1982), p. 564.

26. Dacre’s famous Red Bull banner would fly over many a border fight.

27. Gibbs, V. (ed.), Complete Peerage (1916), vol. IV, p. 20.

28. Wright T., History of Scotland (London), vol. I, p. 279.

29. Bates C.J., History of Northumberland (London, 1895), pp. 206–8.

30. See, Ferguson, J.A., Lords to Labourers; the named English participants in the 1513 Flodden campaign (Northumberland, 2011), p. 25.

31. Hedley, Percy W., Northumberland Families (Newcastle 1970), vol. 2, p. 43.

1

MUD, BLOOD AND MYTH:

BEING INTRODUCTORY

GREEN Flodden! On thy blood-stain’d head

Descend no rain nor vernal dew;

But still, thou charnel of the dead,

Whitening bones they surface strew!

Soon as I tread thy rush-clad vale, wild fancy feels the clasping mail;

The rancour of a thousand years

Glows in my breast; again I burn

To see the banner’d pomp of war return,

And mark beneath the moon, the silver light of spears.

J. Leyden, ‘Ode on Visiting Flodden’1

Few battles in British history have produced such a mantle of romantic gloss, perhaps most markedly on the Scottish side, where Flodden, understandably, still rates as a major calamity. James IV who, had he decided otherwise on the day, might well have been remembered as one of the nation’s most successful, rather than rashly quixotic and foolhardy monarchs, has been blamed ever since. This is in fact unfair. James was an excellent ruler in many ways and his failure at Flodden did involve a fair measure of sheer bad luck. The Flodden tradition, ably abetted by Scott and other nineteenth-century romantics, has woven itself into the consciousness of a nation. As ever with history, the reality is more complex and multi-layered. The contemporary sources are patchy, so we are frequently thrown back upon heroic assumption. Both James IV and Henry VIII are fascinating characters and it is the underlying dynamic between these two aggressive and able monarchs that lies at the root of this conflict.

James was more mature and in many ways more astute. Henry VIII’s campaign in France was a vainglorious puff that emptied his father’s wonderfully hoarded treasury and achieved nothing in strategic terms. The only laurels won in 1513 were garnered in cold and distant Northumberland, not the universal cockpit of Flanders and Artois. Henry’s vaunted victory – the ‘Battle of the Spurs’ – was an insignificant skirmish whilst Flodden proved the bloodiest fight in three centuries of savage and bitter cross-border strife. Less certain is the extent of the consequences. Some writers, notably Peter Reese, see the consequences as far reaching and damaging, weakening the northern kingdom for the remainder of the sixteenth century. Whilst the evils of minority kingships were frequent visitors to Scotland, other chroniclers see the battle, despite the level of loss, as having remarkably few long-term consequences. What is remarkable is the manner in which the Scottish polity bore the loss, steadied and continued, even fighting back later the same year.

The Battle

With fire and sword the country round

Was wasted far and wide.

And many a chiding mother then

And new born baby died:

But things like that, you know must be

At every famous victory

Robert Southey, ‘After Blenheim’

It was on a wet, blustery afternoon in late summer that King James IV of Scotland committed his army to battle against an English force led by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey. Only the monument atop Piper’s Hill by the pleasant, if unremarkable, north Northumbrian village of Branxton marks the site of the epic clash of arms which followed. So small a village that Remembering Flodden is constructing a visitor centre in a disused phone box, the smallest information point in Britain! This proved one of the bloodiest days in British history, the most prodigious slaughter in three centuries of border warfare between England and Scotland.2 Despite the level of carnage, Flodden is barely remembered in England; some distant battle that no longer features on any school curriculum. In Scotland the situation is very different. Here echoes of that day still resonate, distorted by successive overlays of romance and myth. Perhaps more so now than ever, as the independance debate gathers increasing momentum.

Sir Walter Scott has much to answer for in this. He relates how, on the eve of battle, the young Earl of Caithness, with 300 of his affinity, presented himself before King James. The earl was under something of a cloud, having been outlawed for recent misdemeanours. The king, nonetheless, allowed expediency to triumph over form and admitted the Caithness contingent to his rank. Decent of him, unfortunate for them, as they fell to a man on the field. The earl’s affinity wore green and the colour was, even at the time of the Minstrelsy, still considered unlucky in Caithness.3 Such Flodden traditions have a romantic ring and yet many may be true; no less than eighty-seven Hays fell around the banner of their chief.

This new history, coming hard upon the heels of so many others is, in part, an attempt to rip away the fustian and enter into a fuller understanding of the actual protagonists, a risky undertaking at best, since they themselves remain obdurately silent down the centuries. It is also an attempt to present a current history fitted to the 500th anniversary and taking note of recent and exciting archaeological work that remains ongoing. Further, it will attempt, and this is risky territory, to assess what the battle means today to people in England and Scotland, where perceptions clearly differ and where the prospect of enhanced devolution adds a fresh and tantalising element.

The bare facts of the campaign and Battle of Flodden may be summarised quite succinctly. It was fought as a consequence of strategic decisions made by Henry VIII of England, principally his intention to invade the realm of France in 1513 in support of his ally, the Habsburg emperor. In so doing, he was fully aware this would antagonise his brother-in-law, James IV of Scotland, who might, in support of his French ally, launch an attack on Northern England. James, stung by Henry’s contemptuous rebuttal of several ultimata, pushed ahead with his plans for an invasion of Northumberland, his efforts boosted by supplies of bullion, arms and a cadre of military advisers from France. James, under the influence of his French advisers, had resolved to drill his raw levies in advanced pike tactics, developed and practised with great élan and success by redoubtable Swiss mercenaries and Imperial Landsknechts.

Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, latterly 2nd Duke of Norfolk – England’s venerable senior commander, who had started his long career in arms as a Yorkist, led the English host. His available forces were undoubtedly inferior in numbers to the Scots. Most contemporary commentators give the English between 16,000–26,000 effectives. These troops were made up mainly from retainers of the magnates and shire levies from those counties north of the Trent. Surrey’s eldest surviving son, the Lord Admiral, brought a stiffening of 1,200 marines from the fleet whilst Lord Dacre furnished some 1,500 border horse. Surrey also had an artillery train (though his was made up of lighter field pieces). These English guns could not compare with the Scots train in terms of weight of shot but were faster firing and more manoeuvrable. On the field, English gunners did briskly murderous service and emerged victorious from the opening artillery duel. This virtually decided the outcome.

After the initial Scottish muster on Burgh Muir, the host moved southward to the border to commence the siege of Norham.4 This was the Prince Bishop’s great hold by the Tweed – Queen of Border Fortresses. The castellan had advised Surrey he could hold out until relieved, echoing the earlier siege of 1497. but this time the Scottish train was vastly more formidable. Following a mere five days of bombardment and infantry assault, the fortress surrendered on terms. Wark soon followed. James went on to take lesser holds at Etal and Ford, both of which were then slighted. There is no indication that James intended to seek battle. His objectives could, and indeed largely had been attained, without the hazard. He may, however, have wished to put his army to the test but the first position he chose, astride Flodden Edge and overlooking Millfield Plain, was entirely defensive. His guns were well dug in and the ground favoured the Scots.

There is magic in these otherwise unremarkable hills. Scottish camp fires above plundered Fishes Steads5 were laid on top of Iron-Age cooking pits, older to them than they to us (Plate3). The landscape remains essentially unchanged, though far more is now beneath the plough and generations of patient drainage have drawn the sting from fatal mosses. We can walk the same ground as the combatants of five centuries past, happily devoid of the irritating accretions that besmirch so many of our over-regulated heritage sites. To do so is a remarkable experience; to attempt to visualise the great Scottish army bivouacked by the farm, aptly named Encampment, to clothe these regular fields with a swarm of crude bothies for the commons and proud pavilions of the gentry, the smoke of several thousand fires, pungent aroma of cooking, human and animal waste, wet wool, sweat and the acrid tang of spent powder as the great guns practised their killing reach (Plate4).

Surrey’s decision to attempt an outflanking manoeuvre and occupy Branxton Hill was a bold one which nearly came unstuck as a significant gap opened between his and Thomas Howard’s division. James chose not to exploit the opportunity but to await his enemies’ full deployment.6 This was entirely consistent with Swiss doctrine. Combat began with a brisk artillery duel. The heavier Scottish ordnance, having been dragged over the intervening saddle, could not be properly dug in. Nor were the gunners necessarily Scotland’s best as many of these were attached to the fleet. Very quickly the English gunners established fire supremacy, their Scottish counterparts fell or deserted, and round shot began to fall amongst the densely packed ranks of pikes.

For James this was intolerable: he unleashed Home and Huntly’s powerful division on the Scottish left. At the outset, his choice of tactics appeared fully validated. At this point on the ground the lateral burn, running by the foot of Branxton Hill and which was to bring ruin to the king, was a far lesser obstacle and Edmund Howard’s weak brigade on the English right almost instantly folded. Only Howard himself with a handful of knights stood his ground and fought on against hopeless odds. A timely intervention by Dacre’s Horse restored the position, shoring up this crumbling flank. Home’s unwillingness to continue the fight smacked to many of both treachery and collusion between the wardens; scarcely an unusual arrangement in border warfare!

Meanwhile, the division of Errol, Crawford and Montrose hurled themselves downhill, followed by the king’s vast, bristling phalanx to smash the English centre. The ground, however, proved far more difficult than a view from the hilltop might suggest. The burn ran deeper and its banks proved more slippery than either appeared. Momentum, key to success with pikes, was lost and with it cohesion. The Scots struggled through wet and mire to find themselves slogging up a rise to meet an English line which surged forward to engage. Now crucial impetus was lost, their pikes proved no match for the formidable English bill. Most dropped staves to draw swords and Howard’s men swiftly gained the upper hand. D’Aussi’s reserve merely added to the scrum and many Scots began filtering away.