I've been reading a little about Borderers, and it seems like they were largely able to raid, pillage, and terrorise with impunity. Why were they not brought under control by the monarchy of either kingdom? I assume it has something to do with both parties arguing it was the other's problem.
Hi there! Your question has attracted the attention of a late medieval Scottish historian who studies crime and social order in the sixteenth century. Here we go!
Older and more simplistic interpretations of what was going on in this region have largely taken a modern view of what law and order look like. Furthermore, Scottish history is a relatively new field, and many previous histories have treated the history of Scotland as a chapter in English history. This approach was tainted somewhat by an Anglo-centric and colonial view that framed Scotland as peripheral, backwards, lawless, etc.
To answer this question in a way that's easy to follow, I'm going to focus more on dispelling myths and anachronisms rather than addressing the question directly, although I will sum it up in a tl;dr format by the end.
The myths and anachronisms:
1. Borderers raided, pillaged and terrorised 'with impunity'
In the first instance, it might seem like the borders were lawless or crime-ridden compared to the rest of the country, but actually, it was just that everyday conflicts had the potential to escalate with more severe consequences in this region. This is partly due to the militarised nature of border society. This is not to say that the people there were themselves inherently 'wickit' as James VI would call them, but that circumstances conspired to increase the likelihood that a fight could get nastier faster. Why? The people who lived on either side of the border were the first to have to deal with the consequences of war: any time the Scottish or English monarchs decided to kick up a fuss with the other, the borderers were the first to be affected by roving bands of soldiers and opportunistic criminals looking to make the best of a confusing and chaotic situation. This means that the borderers tended to be prepared to defend themselves and their property and so were (possibly) more heavily armed and ready to fight than the average person, although let's be real, in this period, you couldn't throw a stone without hitting someone armed with a knife (for eating!), dagger, sword or (potentially deadly) tool of the trade. As Julian Goodare (1999) put it:
You were armed, not just for protection from the raids of the other side, but to go and raid them yourself when the opportunity offered or when prompted to do so by the government (pp. 218-19).
In his recent (2020) study of the English side of the border, Jackson Armstrong disagrees with, or at least qualifies the argument that the militarisation of the borders is the main explanation for the region having more conflict:
Some borderers, close to the frontier, were regularly involved in raiding which... made them more familiar and even comfortable with violent behaviour. But this expectation should by no means apply to all or even most of the inhabitants of the marches towards Scotland... these findings do not suggest that it was the effects of the military frontier that made the far north of England more violent than further south. Rather... broader cultural patterns across the region, especially with regard to the management of conflict, were what made the difference (p. 268).
In other words, 'it's our way of life and you can't take it from us!' To the same point:
Most border-related offences... revolved primarily around the theft of livestock, sometimes on a large scale, and involved... trysting, either to plan in advance or to sell goods on once they had been stolen... elements of a nuanced routine of raiding are detectable. To the extent that it appears to have been habituated and familiar among the participants suggests... a raiding "culture" (p. 265).
This is literally the economy. It's how things have worked in the borders for a long time. Most people were pretty used to it and went along with it as long as it didn't get out of hand. We modern people might look back and think 'What was wrong with them? Just farm your turnips and raise your cattle and keep your hands to yourselves', but that's an anachronistic view that doesn't engage or empathise with the worldview of a late medieval Scot who needs to feed his family and can't afford to just go buy another cow after some English soldiers were given carte blanche to burn down fields and slaughter livestock to put pressure on Scottish nobles. What does he do? He goes and steals someone else's cow. Obviously.
This kind of behaviour wasn't limited to the lower social ranks: members of the Scottish nobility were the biggest 'criminals' of all, except their violence tended to be justified and perceived as more acceptable in several ways...
In the second instance, great magnates and border lords like the Humes, Douglases and others often settled their personal and political conflicts with so-called private wars or feuds. The origin of these practices goes back centuries, but the underlying factors that drove these conflicts were ideas about chivalric and masculine honour: if one is wronged in some way, one has the right (nay, the obligation) to defend his honour by getting all his lieges together and seeking vengeance. Things could go back and forth like this for a while, with small, medium and large groups of men ambushing each other, causing property damage, stealing livestock, committing assaults and homicides and so on and so forth. This was an acceptable way of mediating conflict among the nobility and, to a lesser extent, those with property and reputations to defend even among the lairdly ranks (although they were far less likely to have access to the manpower needed to muster massive private armies). To a modern reader, this seems a bit excessive: why not just take the guy to court and sue his pants off? Well, that's not particularly manly in this period. Although the sixteenth century sees an increase in members of the nobility seeking formal legal solutions to their conflicts, throughout Scotland, there were many who considered it more appropriate and honourable to deal with things oneself -- the king included (after all, what's a war with England if not a very very big feud?)!
This brings me to the next myth/assumption:
2. Social control must be achieved through formal, state-sanctioned, legal means.
'LOL' ~a premodern Scottish person (probably)
All humour aside, this is not a society that has yet bought into the idea that appealing to the state and its judicial machinery is the most effective way to resolve interpersonal conflicts. The members of the nobility I just talked about very much appear to have had a 'self-help' mindset when it came to dealing with their problems, and the monarchs were super on board with this in most cases. When two parties had a problem (a marriage agreement breaks down, a financial relationship becomes strained, someone disagrees about land ownership...) they had so many other options to sort things out without complicating matters by getting lawyers involved. The ultimate goal of conflict resolution in this period was to take a broken relationship and transform it into an amicable one.
There were several components required to get from point A to point B:
This was not unique to the Anglo-Scottish border region or even Scotland in general, and this cycle of 'Rancor and Reconciliation' (shoutout to Paul Hyams, 2003) can be observed elsewhere in Europe (Black-Michaud, 1975). To refer to Armstrong (2010) again (I'm not fangirling, you're fangirling), this process, especially that of assythment (compensation) was not about mending old bonds but about creating 'new bonds of friendship' and erasing the old relationships entirely, thus negating the need for vengeance that often spiralled into prolonged feuds (p. 75).
Even when mortal enemies did the 'civilised' thing (BIG scare quotes) and took the matter to court, this was often just a power move to force the other party to agree to an out-of-court, private arbitration.
'So far this sounds very much like the borders were a violent and chaotic place, MoragLarsson, aren't you proving my point?', you may ask. Well, my friends, this is where the distinction between VIOLENCE and VIOLATION come into play, but you shall have to wait for that (and the reading list/bibliography) until I write Part II!