Hunting of the Cheviot, The [Child 162]

DESCRIPTION: Percy, Earl of Northumberland, goes deer hunting into Earl Douglas' land of (Cheviot/Chevy Chase), in defiance of a warning from Douglas. In battle they earn each other's respect, but both die, along with many of their men.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1765 (Percy; mentioned in "Wit's End" in 1617 and in the Stationer's Register in 1624); the manuscript Ashmole 48 is thought to have been written during the reign of Mary 1 (1553-1558)
KEYWORDS: battle hunting death nobility
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1377-1399 - Reign of Richard II
Aug 1388 (probably August 19) - Battle of Otterburn. Scots under Douglas attack England. Although Douglas is killed in the battle, the Scots defeat the English and capture their commander Harry "Hotspur" Percy. Hotspur, contrary to the ballad, is not killed
1399-1413 - Reign of Henry IV
1402 - Battle of Homildon Hill
Jul 21, 1403 - Probable date of the Battle of Shrewsbury, at which Hotspur actually died
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North),Scotland) US(NE,SE,So)
REFERENCES (39 citations):
Child 162, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (2 texts)
Bronson 162, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (10 versions)
Bronson-SingingTraditionOfChildsPopularBallads 162, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (6 versions: #1, #3, #5, #6, #7, #10)
Hales/Furnival-BishopPercysFolioManuscript, volume II, pp. 1-16, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Percy/Wheatley-ReliquesOfAncientEnglishPoetry I, pp. 20-35+notes on pp. 51-52, "The Ancient Ballad of Chevy Chase"; pp. 249-264, "The More Modern Ballad of Chevy Chace" (sic.) (2 texts)
Rimbault-Musical IllustrationsOfBishopPercysReliques XV, p. 56, "The More Modern Ballad of Chevy Chace" (1 partial text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #4}
Bell-Combined-EarlyBallads-CustomsBalladsSongsPeasantryEngland, pp.81-92, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Ritson-AncientSongsBalladsFromHenrySecondToTheRevolution, pp. 335-343, "The Hunting in Chevy-Chase" (1 text)
Kidson-TraditionalTunes, pp. 18-19, "Chevy Chace" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Barry/Eckstorm/Smyth-BritishBalladsFromMaine pp. 243-248, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Flanders-AncientBalladsTraditionallySungInNewEngland3, pp. 135-144, "The Hunting of the Cheviot, or Chevy Chase" (1 text, from "The Charms of Melody" rather than tradition)
Davis-TraditionalBalladsOfVirginia 34, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (1 text)
Davis-MoreTraditionalBalladsOfVirginia 31, pp. 239-244, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #5}
Moore/Moore-BalladsAndFolkSongsOfTheSouthwest 34, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Leach-TheBalladBook, pp. 446-463, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (3 texts)
Leach-HeritageBookOfBallads, pp. 73-81, "Chev Chase" (1 text)
Friedman-Viking/PenguinBookOfFolkBallads, p. 276, "Chevy Chase" (1 text, 2 tunes) {approximating Bronson's #1, #4}
Stokoe/Reay-SongsAndBalladsOfNorthernEngland, pp. 1-3, "Chevy Chase" (1 text, 1 tune) {cf. Bronson's #6, also from Stokoe's collection but differing in one note}
Ritson-AncientSongsBalladsFromHenrySecondToTheRevolution, pp. 92-101, "The Hontying of the Cheviat" (1 text)
Quiller-Couch-OxfordBookOfBallads 128, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Grigson-PenguinBookOfBallads 71, "Chevy Chase (The Hunting of the Cheviot)" (1 text)
Gummere-OldEnglishBallads, pp. 105-115+325-327, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (1 text)
Hodgart-FaberBookOfBallads, p. 96, "Chevy Chase (The Hunting of the Cheviot)" (1 text)
Whiting-TraditionalBritishBallads 21, "The Hunting of the Cheviot" (1 text)
HarvardClassics-EnglishPoetryChaucerToGray, pp. 93-101, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Abrahams/Foss-AngloAmericanFolksongStyle, pp. 43-45, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Chappell-PopularMusicOfTheOldenTime, pp. 198-199, "Chevy Chace" (1 excerpt, 1 tune); cf. also pp. 196-198, "Pescod Time," (1 short text, 1 tune), a melody which is said to be used for this ballad
Chappell/Wooldridge-OldEnglishPopularMusic I, pp. 90-92, "Chevy Chase" (1 tune, perhaps linked to this piece)
Morgan-MedievalBallads-ChivalryRomanceAndEverydayLife, pp. 201-207, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Sidgwick-BalladsPoemsIllustratingEnglishHistory, pp. 31-40, "Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex, ZN980, "God prosper long our Noble King"; ZN982, "God prosper long our noble king" (?)
DT 162, CHEVCHAS*
DigitalIndexOfMiddleEnglishVerse #1577, #5432
ADDITIONAL: Thomas Wright, editor, _Songs and Ballads, with other short poems, Chiefly of the Reign of Philip and Mary_, 1860 (I use the 1970 Burt Franklin reprint); the book is an edition of Oxford University Library MS. Ashmole 48, #VIII, pp. 24-28, (no title) (1 text; note that the manuscript copy is in long lines with no stanza breaks; the presentation of the text in ballad format is Child's)
Michael Brander, _Scottish and Border Battles and Ballads_, 1975 (page references to the 1993 Barnes & Noble edition), pp. 233-240, "The Hunting of the Cheviot or Chevy Chase" (1 text)
Leslie Shepard, _John Pitts, Ballad Printer of Seven Dials, London 1765-1844_, Private Library Association, 1969, p. 111, "The UNHAPPY MEMORABLE SONG of the HUNTING OF Chevy Chase" (reprint of a Howard and Evans broadside)
Karin Boklund-Lagopolou, _I have a yong suster: Popular song and Middle English lyric_, Four Courts Press, 2002, pp. 1175-180, "(The Hunting of the Cheviot)" (1 text)
MANUSCRIPT: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 48 (Bodleian 6933), folio 15 [DIMEV #5432]
MANUSCRIPT: {MSPercyFolio}, The Percy Folio, London, British Library, MS. Additional 27879, page 188 [DIMEV #1577]
Roud #223
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Battle of Otterburn" (subject)
cf. "Lord Thomas and Fair Annet" [Child 73] (tune)
SAME TUNE:
Of Turkey lately I did read/The Patient Wife betrayed; Or, The Lady Elizabeths Tragedy (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN2124)
Give o'er you rhiming Cavaliers/ Bloody News from Chelmsford (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN971)
In bloody town of Newberry/...Shuff of Newberry (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN1413)
In Popish time when Bishops proud/The King and the Bishop (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN1452)
In searching ancient chronicles/A pleasant history of a Gentleman in Thracia (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN1461)
Strange news, strange news, I here have write/..Relation from the Faulcon.. Mr Powel [a ghost] (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN2405)
Amongst the Forresters of old/The Unfortunate Forrester ...Lord Thomas.. fair Elener (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN173)
God prosper long our noble King, and send him quickly o'er/Hunting-Match (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN986)
When as my mind was fully bent/ Bloudy News from Germany (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN2821)
All you which sober minded are/Terrible News from Branford (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN155)
All tender hearts that ake to hear/The Spanish Virgin (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN97)
God prosper long our noble king, His Turks and Germans all/An excellent new Ballad (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN983)
God hath preserved our Royal King/The Royal Patient Traveller [Charles II] (Olson-BroadsideBalladIndex ZN978)
The Belgick Boar (Ritson-AncientSongsBalladsFromHenrySecondToTheRevolution, p. 392; broadside Bodleian Firth b.21(143); Roud #V40822)
The Producers' Hymn ("In hallow'd graces our fathers sleep, Who fann'd up freedom's fire") (Foner, p. 32)
NOTES [4458 words]: According to Rollins, the Stationer's Register entries for this are ""Chevie chase" (December 14, 1624; no printer listed; p. 33, #285) and "A memorable song of the unhappy hunting in Chivey Chase" (registered March 1, 1675; no printer listed; p. 148, #1600). - RBW
Child opines that this is based on the same events as "The Battle of Otterburn" (Child #161) rather than some other border battle between Percies and Douglases. The historical Henry Percy (Hotspur) fought [and] was captured [by the Scots], but did not in fact die at Otterburn in 1388 or at any other battle with Scots but was instead slain in battle with Henry IV's forces. - KK
In addition, Harry Hotspur was never Earl of Northumberland. His father (the first of five generations of Henry Percys of Northumberland) was the first Earl, and lived until 1408. Hotspur was killed in 1403, and thus never succeeded to the title, although Hotspur's son became the second Earl.
To repeat, none of the various Earls Percy died in battle with the Scots. The first Earl was a traitor against Henry IV; the second (d. 1455) and third (d. 1461) were casualties of the Wars of the Roses, and the fourth was killed by the people of his own Earldom because he had not supported Richard III at Bosworth. (Richard, despite his later reputation, was loved in the north of England for being fair and honest and keeping the Scots away from the borders.)
Child has two basic texts, "A" from manuscript (Bodleian) Ashmole 48 and "B" being made up of all the later versions compared -- the last of them, according to Fowler, p. 158 n. 25, being from the Percy Folio. The Ashmole manuscript, according to Fowler, p. 96, contains 76 miscellaneous pieces, most if not all of them in verse; these are transcribed, verbatim and without any notes or glosses, in Wright. The slight majority have attributions, mostly to authors who would be considered poets, not song-writers. (It is noteworthy that this piece is the only one from the manuscript that Child included among the ballads; Wright, p. x, says that the only two poets cited who are otherwise known are Lord Vaux and William Elderton, each responsible for one poem. For more on Elderton, see the notes to "Mary Ambree.")
One of these authors is Richard Sheale, who signed five poems (including this: "Expliceth, quoth Rychard Sheale"; Wright, pp. vii-viii, 28), sometimes considered the compiler of the manuscript (and hence sometimes regarded as the author of the song). The other pieces are very diverse, including even a summary of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (Fowler, p. 101). Fowler declares the pieces "primarily didactic," with a plurality being moral teachings. This perhaps argues against Sheale as the author/compiler, since Fowler believes he was a minstrel in the court of the Earl of Derby who "play[ed] the myrry knave"; Wright, p. viii, also thinks he was indebted to Derby.
The Ashmole text of this poem has been reprinted many times; the standard edition is Wright's, but it is #3445.5 in Robbins & Cutler's Supplement to the Index of Middle English Verse, and they list fifteen printings, including Skeat's (used by Child) and several of the editions indexed here.
As Chambers, p. 162, comments "The Hunting is even more remote from historical verity than Otterburn. The scene is laid in the Cheviot hills, where not Hotspur but Earl Percy goes to hunt, in defiance of Douglas, and the event is put in the reign of Henry IV [1399-1413] rather than Richard II [1377-1399]. Douglas is killed by an arrow, Percy by Sir Hugh Montgomery, Montgomery himself by another arrow. But the battle is called Otterburn. King Henry avenges it in that of Homildon Hill (1402)."
Wells, p. 142, professes to see a similarity between this song and the opening portion of the Middle English romance "Sir Degrevant," found in two manuscripts, the Lincoln Thornton Manuscript and the Findern Manuscript, both of the fifteenth century; they, and the romance itself, seem to be from the north of England. Neither Child nor the two editions of "Sir Degrevant" known to me mention any such connection. It is certainly not a similarity of form; "Degrevant" uses the stanza type known as "tail rhyme" (best known from Chaucer's "Sir Thopas," although that is a different variant on tail rhyme), and it would be very hard to set that form to music. The similarity seems to be minimal, and thematic; "Degrevant" opens with the knight and a neighboring earl visiting -- and harrying! -- each other's lands, and features a lot of conversations over castle walls.
Izaak Walton's Compeat Angler refers to this tune (Chapter II), although in a strange list mixing folk songs ("Johnny Armstrong," "Chevy Chase") and art songs ("As at Noon Dulcina Rested," "Phyllida Flouts Me").
Sir Philip Sidney, in his Apologie for Poetrie of 1595, wrote, "I neuer heard the olde song of Percy and Duglas (sic.), that I found mot my heart mooued more then with a Trumpet." It is not possible, however, to tell whether this is a reference to "The Battle of Otterburn" [Child 161] or "The Hunting of the Cheviot" [Child 162]. A caution, pointed out by Friedman, pp. 33-34, is that Sidney was descended from a Duke of Northumberland. Not from the Percys, but still, the story had personal interest to him. The Complaynt of Scotland of 1549 refers to separate songs "The hunttis of the cheviot" (Complaynt, p. lxxxv) and "The persee & the mongomrye met" (Complaynt, p. lxxxvi); again, we can't know which song is meant -- although, if both are references to the extant ballads, then "The Percy and Montgomery Met" is "Otterburn" and "The hunttis of the Cheviot" is that ballad. The Complaynt also mentions "That day, that day, that gentil day" (Complaynt, p. lxxxvii), which Child thinks another citation of a Harlaw ballad, but that is disputed.
Most scholars, going back to Child, think "The Battle of Otterburn" [Child 161] is the older of the two Otterburn ballads (since Sheale's book is dated by other pieces in it to the reign of Mary Tudor, 1553-1558), and Child 161 is certainly the more accurate. But the language of the collected versions is newer than the earliest text of "The Hunting of the Cheviot," and Fowler, pp. 108-109, therefore argues that "The Hunting of the Cheviot" is the older song. I'm not sure I buy that, particularly since the two have cross-fertilized. The argument on p. 110 of Fowler that "Otterburn" is English and pro-Percy, while "Cheviot" is Scottish and pro-Douglas, seems better founded.
Friedman, pp. 84-113, argues that this song was the very first subject of ballad criticism, being the subject of an item by Addison in The Spectator.
As for what really happened at Otterburn.... Our sources aren't great, but the reign of Richard III was a time when Anglo-Scottish tensions were high. The Scots had imported French troops in 1385, but the English had invaded Scotland, and while the Scots avoided battle, they agreed to a three year truce (Magnusson, pp. 215-216). That truce ended in 1388, in conditions that favored the Scots; as Boardman, pp. 78-81, points out, it was a time when the English government was in disorder. King Richard II was still in his early twenties, and inexperienced. In 1386, John of Gaunt, the king's uncle and (contrary to what was believed at the time) chief support had decided to make an attempt to take the throne of Castile, to which he had a claim in right of his second wife Constance of Castile, so he was out of the country and busy (Saul, pp. 148-151). The so-called "Lords Appellant" had seized control of the government in 1386-1387 (Saul, pp. 151-153, 177, etc.). They set aside Richard's friends and, with the support of the "Merciless Parliament," purged and, in a number of cases, executed them (Saul, p. 195, etc.). The Appellants were busy running the government their way, the youthful Richard II was trying to get back control, and John of Gaunt was not available (by 1388, his campaign in Castile had failed, but he stayed in Aquitaine until 1389; Saul, p. 197). There was no strong central government in England to raise forces against the Scots, whose raid completely surprised the Appellants (Saul, p. 198); the northern barons were on their own.
The Douglas of this song, although his title was 2nd Earl of Douglas and Mar, was not a descendant of the James Lord Douglas (died 1330) who had been the right-hand man of King Robert I Bruce in the early 1300s. James Lord Douglas had had a half-brother Archibald "the Tyneman," who was briefly one of the Guardians of Scotland before he was killed in 1333. His son William (died 1384) was the first Earl of Douglas and Mar; the James Douglas of Otterburn was his son, making him the grand-nephew of the great James Douglas (Brown, pp. 32-33).
The Otterburn campaign was much more than just a raid. The Scots had two armies (Boardman, p. 82). The larger, under the Earl of Fife (that is, Robert Stewart, the second son of King Robert II), attacked in the west, toward Carlisle; the smaller, under James, Earl of Douglas, head of the "Black Douglases" (Boardman, p. 85) attacked in the east.
Hotspur, at the time of the Douglas raid, was young (still in his early twenties), but he had some experience: he had led a force to the relief of Brest in France in 1387 (Saul, pp. 196-197).
Saul, p. 198, says that the western army did more damage, pillaging Cumbria and Westmorland though it failed to take Carlisle. But it didn't feature a battle on the scale of Otterburn; that happened in the east.
Reliable information about what actually happened is limited -- there are about seven accounts (see e.g. the list on p. 84 of Boardman), but most are at many hands' remove, and except for Froissart's, they are short and probably distorted for poetic purposes, while Froissart is reliable only in making things seem more chivalrous than they actually were. He was exactly the sort to make up a single combat between leaders, e.g.
The eastern army did not slow itself down by sowing destruction on its way south, preferring to move as fast as possible until they reached the point where they started pillaging (Boardman, p. 90). They made it through Northumberland and down into County Durham before turning back (Burne, pp. 190-191) after making a feint at Newcastle. Supposedly, the Scots had captured a pennon of Harry Hotspur's outside Newcastle (the claim is that Douglas and Hotspur actually fought a single combat over it (Boardman, p. 93), but that strikes me as just too much Froissart-iness -- though Froissart himself says only that Douglas captured the pennon; Froissart/Jolliffe, p. 308. Magnusson and Burne take the story seriously; Boardman, pp. 94-95, observes that our non-Froissart sources don't mention it.
Thomas Percy, of Reliques fame, was told he had seen the banner involved -- but, as Boardman, p. 96, points out, the pennant that survives, and which Percy is believed to have seen, is a Douglas pennant, not a Percy penant! What's more, it's now believed to be from the sixteenth century, not the fourteenth.
If true, of course, this inspired Hotspur to try to get it back (Burne, p. 191; Magnusson, p. 216). Hotspur gathered his forces and, living up to his nickname, pushed hard to catch the Scots before they could escape. Some sources, not all, indicate that he did indeed surprise them (Boardman, p. 95).
The exact location of the battle is unknown (Magsusson, p. 217). The only known contemporary marker, the "Battle Stone," was removed and lost, and its exact relation to the more recent "Percy Cross" is uncertain (Magnusson, p. 217). Still, we know the fight took place in Redesdale, near where the Otterburn Brook joined the river Rede (map on p. 198 of Burne), an area where the Rede runs at the bottom of a significant slope.
The fight was on the northeast side of the Rede, which flowes into the north branch of the Tyne some distance to the south. There was a peel tower near where the burn flowed into the Rede, and it is believed the area around the tower, and near the Rede, was marshy. The Otterburn does not seem to have been a major obstacle, but the Rede was a significant river that could not be crossed at most points. The river to the west, and the hill to the east, funneled the battle into a narrow valley. One of the few major roads of the time went through the valley, roughly following the course of the modern A696 (Boardman, pp. 100-101; there is a map in his photo section).
The records are so poor that we don't know whether the fight took place on August 5 or August 19. The sources are divided, according to Burne, p. 201 and note, but Burne prefers August 19 because there was no moon on August 5 and the battle was said to be fought by moonlight (according to Boardman, p. 113, the moon was full on August 20). The modern record cited by Magnuson, p. 216, also says August 19, and Boardman clearly accepts that date as well.
The fight was unusual in a number of ways, most especially the fact that it took place at night (Froissart/Jolliffe, p. 310). This was probably a big help to the Scots, since they were all mounted and had no archers; the English could not use their longbowmen at night.
It seems as if both armies tried similar strategies: A main body that advanced near the river Rede while a secondary body of troops tried an outflanking maneuver on the slopes above. Boardman, p. 102, thinks that this is because the Scots had two separate camps.
It is likely that the difference is that the Scots flanking column stayed relatively close and got into the fight; the English column, under either Sir Thomas Umfraville or under Matthew Redmane and Robert Ogle, took a longer path to go after the Scots camp and get into their rear, and did not do much to help the English main force. On the other hand, Boardman, pp. 102-103, thinks that Redmane and Ogle were in charge of the force in the Rede valley, and Hotspur took the column that went up the hill.
At this point I think we just have to say that we don't actually know how the battle progressed. (E.g. Boardman, pp. 108-110, seems to think the English tried to fight on horseback, but by 1388, that was not at all common; knights fought on foot.) Somehow, in the dark, the two armies came into contact and started fighting. It may be that the Scots set up their position to ambush any pursuers, but it is likely they did not expect to be attacked at night. It may well be that both sides were surprised. And it is possible that the surprise was complete enough that Douglas went into battle before he had finished putting on his armor (so Boardman, p. 104).
One thing that is clear is that both Douglas and Hotspur fought with their troops. Douglas was mortally wounded and Hotspur was captured. That is all that is really certain. One story says that Hotspur was actually the one who killed Douglas, but not even Froissart asserted that! Possibly Douglas was set under a bush or tree to die. Possibly Hotspur was trapped, and called upon to surrender. The folklore claims that he would only surrender to the mortally wounded man under the tree. In any case, he went into captivity and had to be ransomed. In addition to Hotspur, his younger brother Ralph Percy was wounded and captured; Boardman, pp. 113-114, thinks this was before Hotspur himself was made prisoner.
Odds are that the remnants of Hotspur's forces were rescued by the army the Bishop of Durham was bringing up behind him (Boardman, pp. 117-118).
Which says to me that Durham had an infantry army, and Hotspur's men were all mounted (which would explain how they could make it from Newcastle to Otterburn -- thirty-odd miles! -- in a day). Which in turn means that the English were very tired when they attacked. Truly Hotspur was impetuous.
How many casualties were there at Otterburn? Chroniclers at this period were so unreliable that there isn't even any point in consulting them, and we have no pay records or the like. Boardman, p. 119, thinks that a mass burial containing some 1200 bodies is from Otterburn, but I really doubt it; even if that represents both English and Scots casualties, it's hard to believe the two armies would have had many thousands each. But I have no better figures to offer.
Ralph Percy, Hotspur's younger brother, was apparently released quickly because his injuries were s severe. Hotspur, however, had to be ransomed. He was important enough that the crown itself contributed (Boardman, p. 122). Supposedly the ransom was £3000 (Boardman, p. 122), though that seems a bit high at a time when an earl's annual income was generally a lot less than £1000. I suspect it's either Scots pounds (which were less valuable than English pounds) or that the £3000 covered several prisoners, not just Hotspur. But that's me speculating....
Douglas's last words were alleged to be "God be praised, not many of my ancestors have died in their beds" (Brown, p. 128). Which was true enough, but very problematic -- he had no legitimate son, and he was young enough that there was no plan for the succession. There were, at this time, three main lines of Douglases: First, the line of James Lord Douglas, the close associate of Robert Bruce, which was extinct in legitimate line but represented by James Douglas's illegitimate son Archibald, the ancestor of the "Black Douglases." Second, the line of Earl Douglas himself, also extinct in legitimate male line but now represented by Earl Douglas's illegitimate half-brother George, from whom sprang the "Red Douglases." And third, the line of the William Douglas, the "Knight of Liddesdale" (for whom see "The Knight of Liddesdale" [Child 160]), who had no living descendants at all but whose line was represented by his nephew James Lord of Dalkeith, the ancestor of the Douglases of Dalkeith (for chart, see Brown, p. 32). Earl Douglas's earldom really should have passed to his sister Isabella Countess of Mar and her first husband Malcolm Drummond. But because of the complications of Scottish politics, the Drummonds got only a portion of the inheritance and the title of Earl of Douglas, plus the largest share of the properties, went to Archibald of the Black Douglases (Brown, p. 77. The map and chart on pp. 78-79 show that, while Isabella was granted many Douglas properties and a few went to others, the lion's share of the border properties went to Archibald as Earl of Douglas, giving him a tremendous amount of power there -- more than his predecessor as Earl of Douglas). The result of this confusion, although it ultimately strengthened the Douglases, was a weakening of the central Scottish government that sorely hindered its development as a nation.
For all the attention it got, Otterburn didn't have much more effect than any other major border raid. Things continued as before: The Scots could often do more damage on raids, but the English, with their archers, won the big battles. Indeed, that is exactly what happened at Homildon Hill in 1402, the next major battle of the wars. The winner at Homildon? None other than Harry Hotspur.
Our lack of knowledge of what actually happened makes it hard to really assess the historical truth of the Otterburn songs, but I'll do what I can.
The idea that Percy and Douglas met while hunting in the Cheviots is, of course, pure fiction, and presumably everybody knew it.
Child's A text, stanza 3, says that "the Percy" came out of Bamburgh; in stanza 2 of B he is "Earl Percy." Note, however, that Hotspur was not Earl Percy (that is, the Earl of Northumberland); his father was. And Boardman, p. 91, says that Hotspur was at Alnwick, not Bamburgh. Apparently Northumberland did order Hotspur to pursue the raiders.
A stanza 3 and B stanza 6 say that Percy had 1500 archers, and A stanza 12 says that Douglas had 2000 spearment. As mentioned above, we don't really know how many men either side had. 1500 is a reasonable estimate for a force Hotspur could raise quickly, and ordinarily most would presumably have been archers -- but archers usually went on foot, and could hardly have covered the distance from Newcastle to Otterburn in one day. So this is probably wrong, but we don't really know what the error is. The estimate for Douglas is entirely reasonable: 2000 was a strong force by standards of the time, and the standard Scots army consisted of spearmen who formed a phalanx or "schiltron." (The difference in armaments probably explains the outcome of wars between the Scots and English at this time: In daylight, the English bowmen could slaughter the Scots spearmen, so that the English won most of the battles, but at night, the tight-ranked Scots spearmen could deal with the disorderly English.)
A stanza 4 seems to date the start of the campaign to a Monday; stanza 66 says the battle was on a Monday. The former is probably right, the latter not: August 19 was a Tuesday, but Percy would have been getting ready to fight the day before.
A stanza 22 has a Northumbrian squire, Richard Witherington, refer to "King Herry the Fourth"; in B stanza 24, WItherington refers to "Henery our king," without giving a number. B stanza 59 also refers to King Henry. This is blatant anachronism; as we've stated, the King at the time of Otterburn was Richard II. Henry IV would not overthrow Richard for another eleven years.
A stanza 25, and after, refers to the English shooting with their bows; similarly, B stanza 6 refers to 1500 bowmen, and stanza 27 has the English bowmen shooting. But even archers were present, they did not play a major part in the battle, because the battle was at night!
B Stanza 21 has Douglas call Percy an earl and declare that he, Douglas, was an earl also. But Hotspur was not an earl -- indeed, he never achieved the Northumbrian earldom, because he died before his father.
A stanza 31 and following has Percy and Douglas cross swords at length. This is barely possible but not likely -- and would surely have been reported in all our sources had it happened. Moreover, neither wins the fight -- Douglas is wounded by an arrow during the fight (A stanza 36; B stanza 36). No way.
A stanza 40 and following, and B Stanza 41 and following, has Sir Hugh Montgomery come to Douglas's rescue when the Earl was injured; in stanza 42 of both versions, Montgomery kills Percy. Boardman, p. 116, calls Montgomery "a candidate" for Hotspur's eventual captor (Froissart/Jolliffe, p. 315, credits him with the feat). In other words, we don't know who captured Percy, but Montgomery is at least a possibility. But A stanzas 46 and 55 B stanzas 46 and 51 say that Montgomery was slain. However, Boardman, p. 195, 206, has Montgomery at Homildon Hill (at least, both pages refer to "Lord Montgomery," and the index says it's Hugh Montgomery), so he wasn't slain. We also read that Hotspur was slain, and he wasn't; he was captured.
A stanzas 52-56 and B stanzas 48-53 lists various knights killed. No source I've found verifies any of these -- e.g. Froissart/Jolliffe, p. 315, lists only a squire, Thomas Felton, who isn't in the ballad's list. Froissart/Jolliffe, p. 308, does list a bunch of knights who were in the north with Percy, but none of them match the ballad at all, unless "Sir Ralph Langley" is the same as Stanza 53's "Ser Raff, the ryche Rugbe." There was a minor battle, at Nesbitt Moor in early 1402, for which we have a short casualty list, but that doesn't seem to fit either. A.55 mentions a "Sir Dawy Lwdale" ("Charles Morrell" in B), who perhaps might be one of the Lauders who were with the Scots army; A.56 has a "Ser Chartles a Murre"; John, Earl of Moray was also imvolved (Brown, p. 152).
A stanza 50 claims there were just 73 English survivors and 55 Scots. B stanzas 53-54 says 53 English and 59 Scots survived. Right.
B stanza 33 refers to "James our Scottish king," and A Stanza 59 (compare B, stanzas 57-58) says that a report of Otterburn came to "Edinburgh... to Jamy the Scottish king." That must have been one incredibly slow messenger, because Otterburn was fought in 1388, Hotspur was killed at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 -- and King James I ascended in 1406! The king of Scotland at the time of Otterburn was Robert II. Robert III succeeded him in 1390, and then James I came to the throne in 1406. But James did not act as king for decades after that; Robert III's older son David had been murdered, probably by his uncle, the Duke of Albany; supporters of the 11-year-old James tried to take him to safety -- and taken into custody by Henry IV. Robert III died a few days later (Magnusson, pp. 226-228). James succeeded while in enemy hands; he would remain in custody for the rest of the reign of Henry IV, the entire reign of Henry V, and the first few years of the reign of Henry VI (released in 1424, according to Magnussoon, p. 229). So James could not have received news in Edinburgh until the 1420s -- a third of a century after Otterburn, twenty years after the death of Hotspur, and more than a decade after the death of Henry IV!
A stanza 63 refers to Henry IV leading his army to the battle of "Hombyll-down," And B stanza 62 to "Humble-down," which is another name for Homildon Hill. That battle was indeed an overwhelming victory for the English, who in this case followed their usual longbow tactics and slaughtered the Scots. It could be considered revenge for Otterburn. The English captured at least five earls, including the current Douglas earl (who was badly wounded and lost an eye) and the Earl of Fife, the son of the regent Albany, and many lesser soldiers were killed or drowned in the Tweed as they fled. English losses were almost non-existent -- the battle report to Henry IV says five killed (Given-Wilson, p. 200; Boardman, pp. 195-196); except for the fact that the Scottish King and Regent were not there, it was perhaps the most lopsided English victory in all the Scots wars, including even Flodden a century later. And it took place in the reign of Henry IV (in 1402, to be specific). Indeed, having exaggerated both sides' losses at Otterburn, the song under-counts the Scots losses here, claiming 36 knights slain (A stanza 64) -- but most estimate Scots losses at 80 knights. But Henry IV wasn't there; he was involved in unsuccessful Welsh campaigns (Given-Wilson, p. 201). Who won the battle? None other than Harry Hotspur, who, contrary to the song, was still alive. (At least, some sources say Hotspur was in command; others credit the victory to his father, Henry Percy the earl -- Boardman, p. 186 -- but there is no doubt that Hotspur was there.)
All this raises a question: The number of errors in this song is so high that it's hard to imagine it being written before 1450. Certainly not before 1440. So... why write about such a minor border battle of fifty years earlier?
- RBW
Bibliography Last updated in version 6.6
File: C162

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2023 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.