Scotland vs. England - 1483

Hello again,

Can anyone tell me why Scotland didn't take advantage of Edward IV's death to raid northern England in 1483?

I've looked, but I can't find any reports about Scots raids or fighting between the Scots and the English in 1483.

I know there were peace negotiations later in Richard III's reign (1484?), but I haven't found anything about Anglo-Scots relations during Richard's protectorate.

Many thanks,

Marion

Marion,

Scotland was a bit of a mess at the time. James III's favourites were unpopular - some were hanged at Lauder Bridge - and he was at war with both his brothers. He imprisoned them and one died there although Albany escaped to France. The fact that Albany helped in Richard's invasion of 1482 obviously didn't help.
Norman MacDougall wrote a very good article about the parallels between the two Thirds in "Loyalty Lordship and Law" - although he seems to dislike both.
Similarly, Scotland's siege of Roxburgh (August 1460) was, although planned, inspired by Henry VI's troubles and may well have accelerated them.

Stephen
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> Can anyone tell me why Scotland didn't take advantage of Edward IV's death to raid northern England in 1483?
>
> I've looked, but I can't find any reports about Scots raids or fighting between the Scots and the English in 1483.
>
> I know there were peace negotiations later in Richard III's reign (1484?), but I haven't found anything about Anglo-Scots relations during Richard's protectorate.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Marion
>

Hello Stephen,

Many thanks!  I've read MacDougall's article, and it's very helpful.

I've been thinking about Scotland vs. England in 1483. It's occurred to me that every man Richard called to his defense in London--from York and the rest of the border area--was a man who couldn't defend the border from the Scots in June/July.  Even if Scotland was messed up, was it so disordered that Richard could afford to take an army of men away from the border? Quite a bit of money had been allotted to the defense of Berwick Castle and rebuilding of houses around Berwick.  

Richard did call troops away from the border, and that leads to my questions:

Would Richard have called them to London if he knew the conspiracy he'd written them about was *his own invention.*?

Wouldn't he have found a more affordable way to make his invented conspiracy credible to the public?

Isn't Richard's decision to call men away from the border a reasonable sign that he knew the conspiracy he wrote about was real?

I'd appreciate anyone's comments. I realize these questions are speculative, but I think they are worth some consideration.

Many thanks,

Marion

*****

Stephen wrote:

Scotland was a bit of a mess at the time. James III's favourites were unpopular
- some were hanged at Lauder Bridge - and he was at war with both his brothers.
He imprisoned them and one died there although Albany escaped to France. The
fact that Albany helped in Richard's invasion of 1482 obviously didn't help.
Norman MacDougall wrote a very good article about the parallels between the two
Thirds in "Loyalty Lordship and Law" - although he seems to dislike both.
Similarly, Scotland's siege of Roxburgh (August 1460) was, although planned,
inspired by Henry VI's troubles and may well have accelerated them.

Stephen

I think you have already answered your main question. Richard NEEDED some troops in London so the plots against him must have either been real or believed by him to be real. Berwick has never again changed hands so he obviously left enough behind.

--- In , phaecilia@... wrote:
>
>
> Hello Stephen,
>
> Many thanks!  I've read MacDougall's article, and it's very helpful.
>
> I've been thinking about Scotland vs. England in 1483. It's occurred to me that every man Richard called to his defense in London--from York and the rest of the border area--was a man who couldn't defend the border from the Scots in June/July.  Even if Scotland was messed up, was it so disordered that Richard could afford to take an army of men away from the border? Quite a bit of money had been allotted to the defense of Berwick Castle and rebuilding of houses around Berwick.  
>
> Richard did call troops away from the border, and that leads to my questions:
>
> Would Richard have called them to London if he knew the conspiracy he'd written them about was *his own invention.*?
>
> Wouldn't he have found a more affordable way to make his invented conspiracy credible to the public?
>
> Isn't Richard's decision to call men away from the border a reasonable sign that he knew the conspiracy he wrote about was real?
>
> I'd appreciate anyone's comments. I realize these questions are speculative, but I think they are worth some consideration.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Marion
>
> *****
>
> Stephen wrote:
>
> Scotland was a bit of a mess at the time. James III's favourites were unpopular
> - some were hanged at Lauder Bridge - and he was at war with both his brothers.
> He imprisoned them and one died there although Albany escaped to France. The
> fact that Albany helped in Richard's invasion of 1482 obviously didn't help.
> Norman MacDougall wrote a very good article about the parallels between the two
> Thirds in "Loyalty Lordship and Law" - although he seems to dislike both.
> Similarly, Scotland's siege of Roxburgh (August 1460) was, although planned,
> inspired by Henry VI's troubles and may well have accelerated them.
>
> Stephen
>

I would think that defence of the borders would be undertaken by county levies, the method of national defence that had persisted since the days of the Anglo Saxon Fyrd. Surely the armies that participated in the "Wars of the Roses" were, in general, household troops raised by great magnates, rather than "national" troops? The household troops would have been withdrawn southwards, not the indigenous border levies.