Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Was Pope Clement V a Family Relationship to French King Phil

Was Pope Clement V a Family Relationship to French King Phil

English invasion of Scotland in 1385.

In July 1385 Richard II, king of England, led an English language army into Scotland. The invasion was, in office, retaliation for Scottish border raids, just was most provoked past the arrival of a French army into Scotland the previous summer. England and France were engaged in the Hundred Years' State of war, and France and Scotland had a treaty to support each other. The English King had only recently come of age, and it was expected that he would play a martial role just as his begetter, Edward the Black Prince, and grandfather Edward III had washed. In that location was some disagreement among the English leadership whether to invade France or Scotland; the King's uncle, John of Gaunt, favoured invading France, to proceeds him a tactical advantage in Castile, where he himself was technically king through his married woman but had trouble asserting his claim. The King'southward friends among the dignity – who were also Gaunt'southward enemies – preferred an invasion of Scotland. A parliament the year before had granted funds for a continental campaign and it was deemed unwise to flout the House of Commons. The Crown could barely afford a big campaign. Richard summoned the feudal levy, which had not been chosen for many years; this was the terminal occasion on which it was to be summoned.

Richard promulgated ordinances to maintain discipline in his invasion force, but the campaign was beset by problems from the start. 1 of Richard's knights was killed by the king'south half-blood brother earlier the army even reached Newcastle; in one case at that place, the leadership was divided and oft indulged more in internecine fighting than in fighting against the Scots, who, with their French allies, had retired in the confront of the English language and refused battle. The Scots scorched the earth every bit they retired. The invaders swiftly exhausted their food and other supplies; by the time the English reached Edinburgh, they had achieved piffling of military value, mostly the burning of churches. Gaunt may take proposed chasing the Scots into the mountains to force them to battle, but the King refused to countenance such a tactic and the regular army soon withdrew to England. Every bit Richard's force left Scotland, the Franco-Scottish regular army counter-invaded England from the W March getting almost as far as Carlisle and ravaged Cumbria and Durham on its return. Richard was to propose another invasion of Scotland a few years later, just this came to nada; and on his next invasion, of Ireland in 1399, he was deposed by Gaunt'southward son, Henry Bolingbroke.

Background [edit]

Contemporary painting of King Richard II

The English language government was inappreciably in a financial position to fight. Major English garrisons in Aquitaine, Brest, Calais and Cherbourg needed funding. 3 out of the four virtually recent parliaments had refused to grant the King any subsidy at all.[i] As a upshot, the Crown was unable to oppose the French resurgence and lost much of England's continental possessions. This policy has been blamed on Richard Two'south chancellor, Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, who was defendant of post-obit a policy of appeasement. In a major biography of the Male monarch, Historian Nigel Saul has commented on this that "military retrenchment was not so much a matter of selection for Chancellor Pole; it was forced upon him past circumstances".[1] [notation 1]

Male monarch Richard's supporters, predominant among whom were the earls of Nottingham and Oxford, had fallen out the previous year with the Rex's uncle, John of Gaunt. The violent rupture gave credence to rumours that the King'southward friends intended to have the duke assassinated[two] during a tournament).[3] [note 2] Their rift originated in differences over foreign policy. Whereas the quango, meeting in December 1384, had been in favour of a military trek to Scotland, Gaunt (and the Duke of Buckingham) had favoured French republic. Gaunt, and possibly Buckingham, had stormed out of the council meeting. Following the rumours of his possible murder, Gaunt retired to Pontefract, only obeying the King's summons to his presence early the next yr, accompanied past a large and heavily-armed retinue.[seven]

France's increasing power threatened both English language national pride and English economic interests, which needed to exist defended.[viii] In 1384, de la Pole appear a royal expedition—although "he advisedly refrained from maxim where he or the quango idea the Rex should go".[eight] The selection was made for them when the French sent Jean de Vienne[note three] to Scotland with an regular army the post-obit year,[10] with a force of about 1,300 men-at-arms and 250 crossbowmen,[xi] both to provide technical assistance and to encourage the Scottish to invade England while the French were victorious in France.[12] In early on June the post-obit year, a quango meeting in Reading selected Scotland as the young Male monarch's first campaign.[13] The invasion was function of a broader and older policy of taking a robust stand against breaches of the truce,[8] which the contemporary Anonimalle Relate says was "desperately kept" by Scotland.[14] The King's uncle, John of Gaunt, had already led a pocket-sized incursion into Scotland in bound 1384, with little success.[12] He reached Edinburgh but no farther,[fifteen] and this feel may have engendered a more conciliatory approach.[sixteen] He was well-disposed to the Scots generally and had recruited Scotsmen into his retinue.[17] He also had personal reasons for wanting to avoid state of war with Scotland. Peace on the northern border would go far easier to further his plans in Iberia.[17] As well, he had been treated well-nigh urbanely by the Scots on his previous visits.[18] Indeed, during his visit in 1381, the Peasants' Revolt had erupted in England, and the Scots had given him refuge for 10 days.[19] [note four] Gaunt's policy, though, disintegrated with the arrival of de Vienne's forces in Scotland.[16] It was not, however, necessarily a poorly-conceived strategy.[sixteen] If successful, it would neutralise the northern theatre of state of war and let England to refocus on the French fleet at Sluys. According to James Gillespie: "information technology was a gamble, but a sensible chance".[11] Unfortunately trouble had been brewing on the domestic forepart for the previous year. Relations between the Rex and Gaunt had broken down, and the potential crisis was exacerbated by Richard's friends and close officials who wished to neutralise Gaunt'southward influence on policy.[xix] The invasion was one of several long itinerancies that Richard undertook during his reign;[twenty] [note v] he left behind a caretaker regime consisting of the Mayor of London, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, Lord Cobham, and Sir Robert Knolles.[21]

The French army in Scotland [edit]

As part of their treaty with France, the Scots had reassurances that, were war to break out between Scotland and England, France would provide war machine aid for Scotland.[22] Gaunt's attempts at furthering peace betwixt England and Scotland did not adjust France at all. They were, says May McKisack, "eager to profit by England's domestic embarrassments".[ix] A small and somewhat unofficial French force–perhaps in the nature of an advance political party–had arrived in Scotland in May 1384.[22] Their arrival followed the fall of Lochmaben Castle, the "last English outpost along in the western borders", after its capture by the Scots. The loss of this castle, says Anthony Tuck, left Cumberland "more vulnerable than information technology had been for the past fifty years".[23] It did, however, provide Richard's council with the perfect justification for invading Scotland rather than France.[24]

The French invasion force nether de Vienne consisted of ane,315 men-at-arms, 300 crossbowman, and 200 unspecified others (called "gross varlets" in the French records). Jonathan Sumption has estimated that "with the usual hangers-on" the force probably amounted to around 2,500 men. They brought with them horse, 600 suits of armour and other materiel—this for the utilize of the Scots—and gold florins worth fifty,000 livres for Robert Ii. The armada left Sluys on 22 March 1385 and arrived in Leith 3 days after.[25] On 1 July, the French and Scottish boxing captains signed articles of agreement (in French)[annotation 6] in Edinburgh detailing the prosecution of their campaign. These were extremely detailed and ranged from their military ordinances to the reconnaissance procedures to be undertaken prior to besieging a castle. They appointed 23 July for the launch of their entrada,[26] although the date was eventually brought frontwards to the 8th.[27]

Preparation [edit]

The latest truce with Scotland was due to elapse on xv July 1385, and the fact that the English muster was due to have place on the 14th indicates that the plan was to invade immediately information technology had washed then.[28] Richard II was near eighteen, and the campaign was clearly intended to cast him—as a would-exist conqueror of Scotland—in the same light as his father and grandad.[29] Co-ordinate to a modern commentator, it was, in contemporaries' eyes, "not just what a male monarch would do only also what a man would practice".[30] He had, after all, been groomed from birth to follow in his male parent's footsteps,[xi] and this expedition was the betoken at which he demonstrated his royal independence.[31] Anthony Goodman has suggested that apart from the obvious strategic necessity of the entrada, it had a secondary purpose in increasing Richard's military prestige and political profile,[xiii] and indeed, says Sumption, "the presence of the English King...proved to exist a powerful recruiting agent".[32]

By ten July the army had reached Nottingham.[21] The courtroom moved to York,[12] where the first wages were paid to Gaunt for him and his army on 19 July.[2] The King'southward army, with his tenants-in-primary, left in that location the following day; they were already virtually a calendar week behind schedule, having arranged to be in Newcastle on the 14th.[16] A concluding muster took place at Berwick-upon-Tweed.[12]

The King's ordinances [edit]

The component companies of a contract army could be very heterogeneous in their makeup, which was another reason why mutual rules, bounden all, needed to be made explicit. Individual companies varied enormously in size and the status and background of their leaders; in their ranks, near-professionals with long campaigning records mingled with young men who were "armed for the first time".[33]

Maurice Smashing, Richard II's Ordinances of State of war of 1385 (1995)

In Durham,[24] military and naval ordinances were drawn up[34] [annotation seven] collectively by Rex Richard and his uncles, John of Gaunt (who was likewise Steward of England) and Thomas Mowbray[36] (the latter having been appointed Earl Marshal on xxx June).[5] [note 8] and advised past various "wise knights" of the host.[36]

The ordinances have been described as "the earliest extant code of discipline for an English army".[34] Written in French, they consist of twenty-six discrete clauses. It was seen equally necessary to remind the troops what they could and could not practise during the offensive. The ordinances explicitly prohibited rape and sacrilege, for case. They as well gave practical instructions, such as reminding naval ships to stick close to the Admiral in a storm, and guidance on punishments for soldiers' wrongdoing (the penalization for taking women and priests prisoner, for example, was to be decease).[40] [note ix] They were necessary because the way of raising armies—for short periods and specific periods—meant that information technology was not possible to drill martial discipline into them, as would be possible with a standing army.[41] Past the afterward Heart Ages the Crown had established a "preference for the mobility and reliability of the paid professional" over the raising of the feudal tenantry.[42] Armies were recruited so disbanded, and there was no manner of ensuring that men who had been jump by a previous set up of regulations would be recruited again.[41] The ordinances were promulgated on 17 July.[36]

The feudal levy [edit]

There was notwithstanding a problem with financing. Although the parliament of November 1384 had granted the Male monarch a subsidy to fund a entrada, the Eatables had washed then on the impression that this was to exist a continental campaign confronting the French; not a northern one against the Scots. The latter would be a alienation of the Commons' wishes, which, while unwritten, were to be respected by whatsoever king who wanted skillful relations with that institution in future.[43] They may, in fact, take generally approved of de la Pole'southward foreign policy as an alternative to the repeated, and heavy, taxes required by Edward 3 to prosecute his French wars.[23] The King claimed to have personally refused to touch what he had been granted, saying he had refused it "by his ain special act, without the council or whatever other intervening". The Rex intended, though, that this be an invasion strength of substance. Information technology would take been ane of the largest English language armies organised in the 14th century,[11] and the biggest ever raised in the whole of the Hundred Years' War.[24] In the event, it was withal an "unusually large one", going by gimmicky estimates. An extant gild of boxing suggests at that place were effectually 14,000 men in the invading army, while Exchequer receipts indicate at least 12,000 men had been paid for war service in 1385,[24] with at least 142 captains. Ironically, points out Keen, the nobility brought greater armies to the King'due south host than the traditional feudal summons would have obliged the lords to provide.[44]

At that place has been considerable debate every bit to why [the feudal levy] should have been needed, given the Crown's power for decades past to enhance military machine forces without such an expedient being necessary. Broadly, the fence hinges on whether a feudal summons was needed to ensure an impressive turn-out for Richard's first campaign, or whether the government hoped to ease its fiscal problems by placing financial burdens on those who did non reply to the feudal call to arms.[45]

Alastair J Macdonald, Border Bloodshed: Scotland and England at State of war, 1369-1403 (2000)

Instead of using the subsidy, in June 1385 the King resorted to the old feudal due of scutage to heighten funds.[43] [note 10] This could have raised the King around £12,000 (equivalent to £ten,019,006 in 2020);[xi] "a six-week campaign", suggests Sumption, "could be expected to toll about £xx,000". [48] Writs were sent to 56 tenants-in-chief on 13 June.[11] They included a writ of array to the Bishop of Winchester which requested him to "arm and array all abbots, priors, men of religion and other ecclesiastical persons of his diocese",[49] To some extent, this reflected Richard'southward desire to utilise the power of the Roman church in his campaign against Scotland, who—similar French republic—supported the Antipope, Clement VII,[50] and could thus be treated as schismatics.[51] Information technology also enabled the bishop to provide some degree of defense force for the southward declension of England. Like the others issued, this writ had no connexion with feudal tenure. Information technology was a normal commission of array such every bit was authorised nether the Statute of Winchester.[49] [note eleven] Richard'south old tutor and household chamberlain had been appointed Constable of Dover Castle the previous year, too with the purpose of strengthening the defence of the region.[53]

The levy was intended to alleviate the costs of the campaign to the Crown by using its barons and nobles as subcontractors. It would, in theory, save the government from having to pay them bonuses or ransoms, as was past now usual in imperial campaigns.[54] It may have had a secondary purpose of illustrating that the levy was notwithstanding a feasible choice for the Crown. Edward I had never summoned one during his fifty-twelvemonth reign; Richard'south doing so in 1385 may have been an attempt to reaffirm the precedent. If this was the case, suggests Michael Prestwich, it would have ensured that the Crown would not "lose its right to demand such service in futurity".[55] Jonathan Sumption, on the other paw, has questioned whether it was ever intended to be followed through with, and has suggested that it "may take been made as a prelude to a round of horse-trading".[56] The policy acquired such an uproar, nevertheless, that Richard was swiftly forced to withdraw the suggestion. Indeed, he publicly denied—in parliament—that he had ever intended to enforce scutage.[43] Sumption's theory is strengthened by the fact that, in return for the King dropping the claim to scutage, his captains agreed to waive their correct to recruitment bonuses, which they could otherwise have claimed from the crown.[21] Although it was never followed through, this summons was to exist the last feudal levy of its kind in English history.[57] Although its principal purpose was doubtless financial, Gillespie has drawn attention to the positive publicity that Richard may take expected to enjoy from summoning the feudal host to him: he would be truly Edward I's groovy-grandson. Men would serve, and be summoned to serve "not only cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis",[49] As it turned out, his financial impotence was exposed to all and sundry, peculiarly to the shire knights in the Commons.[31]

Invasion [edit]

19th-century etching of Jean de Vienne

Jean de Vienne, left, in a nineteenth-century depiction

The campaign began poorly even before the English reached the edge. In July, Ralph Stafford—son and heir of Hugh, Earl of Stafford and a knight of the royal household—was murdered. Somewhere between York and Bishopsthorpe, he was killed past Richard 2'southward half-brother, the Earl of Huntingdon.[58] It may accept been an deed of revenge by Huntingdon for the killing of one of his squires by someone in Ralph'due south retinue[59] during a scuffle.[60] Alternatively, it could have been a case of mistaken identity.[61] Whatever its cause, says historian Carol Rawcliffe, the matter could potentially have threatened the entire campaign. It drew much commentary from political observers of the time.[62] Huntingdon escaped to Lancashire, while Richard "in a paroxysm of rage and grief swore that his [one-half-] blood brother should be treated equally a common murderer".[9]

The regular army the Rex eventually gathered, and so, had been recruited along gimmicky bastard feudal lines rather than by a traditional, early on-medieval reliance on scutage.[49] Those who mustered in Newcastle did so under financial contract rather than tenurial bonds.[annotation 12] The Rex and Gaunt, and their supporters were reconciled on the journey northward. The English army arrived at Durham on 20 July, where the duke dined with Nottingham, Oxford and Salisbury.[2] Just before the English regular army entered Scotland, Richard created his uncles Edmund and Thomas respectively Dukes of York and Gloucester.[ten] He also fabricated his Lord Chancellor, de la Pole, the Earl of Suffolk.[29] [note 13]. Leading the ground forces was Richard, and perhaps more realistically, his uncle John, Knuckles of Lancaster,[51] who, every bit Goodman puts it, was "a military veteran, well-versed in Scottish campaigning, and well-acquainted with Scottish magnates".[two] Richard, on the other manus, never developed a souvenir for command, relying in Scotland (as he later would in Ireland) on the advice of a small group of trusted individuals.[64]

The army that Richard led to Scotland was a large one.[x] Apart from the King and Gaunt, most of the senior English dignity took part. The Earls of Buckingham and Nottingham commanded the army's vanguard with Gaunt. Arundel and Warwick, under the Male monarch, allowable the key boxing. Accompanying Gaunt—but with his own retinue—was his son, Henry, Earl of Derby. Assessing the numbers involved, Anthony Goodman suggests that Buckingham had brought 400 men-at-artillery and twice that number of archers. Arundel and Nottingham, he says, brought, betwixt them, nearly 200 men-at-arms and 300 archers, while the Earl of Warwick had effectually 120 of the erstwhile and 160 of the latter.[sixteen] Sir Henry Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland, brought sixty men-at-artillery and the same number of archers.[65] De Vere too, brought a "substantial" force.[half dozen] But their combined total of nearly 2,000 men was still massively outnumbered by John of Gaunt's force, which was in the region of three,000 men.[16] Richard did not solely call upon his dignity either. Gillespie has pointed out that about 10% of the entire host—around 450 men-at-arms and 500 archers—were nether the direct command, non of barons, but of the king'due south officers. These were of the ceremonious service ("the chancellor, treasurer, keeper of the privy seal") or household ("secretarial assistant, steward of the household, under-chamberlain of the household, and controller of the wardrobe").[34] Also included in the royal army were members of the Queen's Household (for case, Henry Burzebo and Henry Hask of Bohemia), as well as Spaniards and Welshmen.[33] The army that crossed the Scottish border on half-dozen August 1385 bore 38 imperial standards and over 90 begetting the arms of St. George'southward, and the flag of St Cuthbert was borne before it.[24] Ultimately, Richard led an ground forces of about 14,000 men from nearly every peer of England, with over ii-thirds of them being archers.[32]

English invasion [edit]

The English language...had no enemy to fight and no nutrient to consume. Increasingly hungry and frustrated, they took what revenge they could.[fifty]

Nigel Saul, Richard 2 (1997)

The ground forces crossed into Scotland over the central borders.[24] Along this route lay the abbeys of Dryburgh, Melrose and Newbattle. These were burned (an action justified by Scotland's–and thus these abbeys'–support for the so-called Anti-pope, Clement Vii).[l] [note xiv] The English claimed these schismatics' abbeys[51] were used for military purposes, and were legitimate targets.[68] Arson, Anne Curry has noted, was explicitly not prohibited nether the army'due south ordinances.[40] The regular army reached Edinburgh on eleven August. Information technology also was assaulted and pillaged, and "suffered its total share of calamities bellboy upon these disastrous wars". It was at least partially burned,[69] and Musselburgh Hospital was severely damaged.[67] English language strategy, says Nigel Saul, was to be "the traditional ane employed by the English in Scotland: to draw their adversaries into battle at the earliest opportunity and to trounce them by sheer weight of numbers".[50] The Scottish, however, recognised this for the trap it was, and were non to be brought to the field.[ten] Instead, they withdrew into the hillsides, and lived off the country; this as well ensured that little remained for the English army to forage.[50] The French, says Scottish historian Ranald Nicholson, viewed their allies with dismay. Their preferred tactic was, like that of the English language, the pitched battle, at which they could win honour and celebrity. However, even de Vienne soon came to sympathise that the Scottish policy was the only i likely to be effective.[51] The English army resorted to pillaging for sustenance, and destroyed much of Lothian,[31] although this was in role caused past the Scots' ain scorched earth policy equally they withdrew ahead of the English.[67] The English army showed petty quarter, executing captured Scottish prisoners rather than the more usual practice of ransoming them.[67]

Depiction of John of Gaunt from a contemporary manuscript

On 11 August 1385 the English army entered Edinburgh, which was deserted by and so.[50] Three days earlier Richard had received news from London that his female parent, Joan, Countess of Kent—with whom Richard was very close—had died the previous 24-hour interval.[2] [note 15] Most of Edinburgh was set debark, including St Giles' Kirk. It appears that the merely reason Holyrood Palace escaped like handling was that Gaunt himself ordered it not to exist touched,[51] mayhap on account of the hospitality that had previously been shown there.[18] Holyrood was to exist an exception. Co-ordinate to the contemporary chronicler Andrew of Wyntoun, for the remainder, the English army was given "gratuitous and uninterrupted play [for] slaughter, rapine and fire-raising all forth a vi-mile front end".[34] There appears to have been indecision amongst the English military command whether to go along or withdraw.[l] Divisions between Richard's supporters and his uncle, just superficially healed at Durham, were re-opened.[2] Food continued to exist in short supply, and information technology was rumoured that Vienne and his Franco-Scottish army was invading England via the West March. Contemporary chroniclers were themselves confused equally to what was happening deep in Scotland. Jean Froissart, for example, suggests that John of Gaunt advocated a swift interceptive attack on Vienne, while the Westminster Chronicle says he pushed for continuing the advance into Scotland.[l] [annotation 16]

This disagreement was very much moulded past the jealousies and distrust that existed between Gaunt and Richard'south supporters. First, if Gaunt did recommend pushing deeper into Scotland, Richard rejected information technology as a grade of activity (probably, says Goodman, on the "reasonable logistical rounds that victuals were scarce and it was probable to lead to starvation among the mutual soldiers"). According to the Westminster monk, Richard then harshly criticised the duke, saying "many shameful things" about him,[2] even accusing him of treason.[nineteen] Froissart, on the other hand, says that Gaunt advocated a march across the Pennines to intercept the Franco-Scots force. Richard, though, was told by the Earl of Oxford that the reason Gaunt promoted this was to procure the King's decease on what would certainly exist a hazardous journey. Again, Richard robustly rejected Gaunt's suggestion, telling him that "if he wanted to get southward-west, [Gaunt] would be on his own",[two] as the King and his men were returning to London.[71]

English withdrawal [edit]

Richard has generally been considered by historians as being irresponsible for rejecting Gaunt's advice, as the virtually experienced of his captains. Anthony Steel, though, posits that Richard was probably sensible to reject Gaunt's program to "fling himself into the Highlands in a hopeless search for the enemy". This had, after all, finer been Gaunt's strategy for his short campaign of the previous yr, which had besides achieved piddling of value.[12] "Gaunt, who had some experience of Scotland", says Tuck, "must have appreciated this point",[72] The King seems to take been especially concerned for the well-being of the troops. He told Gaunt—according to the Westminster Chronicle—"though y'all and the other lords might have plenty of food for yourselves, the rest, the humbler, and lowlier members of our army, would certainly not find such a wealth of victuals as would prevent their dying of hunger",[71] In the consequence, no offensive option was taken. The English language commanders agreed on a withdrawal, which began around 17 Baronial;[50] before they left, Richard and Gaunt were once again reconciled.[2] The majestic ground forces's line of retreat was guarded by Hotspur, who deflected various Scottish flank attacks.[65] Three days later, the Male monarch was in Newcastle, and within the fortnight he was back in Westminster.[l] The main army may have taken longer to render.[67]

French incursion [edit]

The trek, says Gillespie, had singularly "failed to alive upwardly to the conscientious preparations" which had preceded information technology,[34] and had spent less than a fortnight in enemy territory.[53] The reports of a Franco-Scottish raid into the north-west of England, on the other hand, turned out to exist true.[51] On 8 July a forcefulness of French knights journeyed south from Edinburgh; they wore black surcoats with white St Andrew'south crosses sewn on. with them were effectually three,000 Scottish soldiers.[27] Led by de Vienne and James, Earl of Douglas, alongside the latter's cousin Archibald, Lord of Galloway and possibly George Dunbar, Earl of March,[73] much of Cumberland was plundered. The invaders reached every bit far as the walls of Carlisle,[51]10 miles (16 km) from the border,[74] on 7 September.[67] This was repulsed by a counterattack from Henry Hotspur,[75] although the contemporary chronicler Henry Knighton preferred to record how the Scottish army withdrew, panicking, after the Virgin Mary appeared before them in defence of Carlisle.[76] According to Froissart, when the invaders raided the wealthy English bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham, they boasted of stealing more than from them alone than was held within the whole Kingdom of Scotland.[51] The Franco-Scottish force considered an attack on Roxburgh Castle, just decided confronting it as most impossible. Wark Castle, withal, was a unlike matter. This had suffered years of neglect and was a country of astringent disrepair equally well as damage from previous Scottish attacks. Another statement took place as to whether to assault it before, as Sumption puts information technology, the French attacked "on their own as the Scots stood by and watched". The castle was somewhen taken after two days biting fighting, with heavy losses for the French and Wark's defenders only driven from its walls by hand-to-hand fighting. The garrison was put to the sword, the captain held for ransom, and the castle's wooden outbuildings razed.[27]

Franco-Scottish divisions [edit]

In this blazon of warfare there was piddling room for French knights. The growing antagonism between them and their allies is vividly portrayed by Froissart, whose admiration for the bravery of the Scots mingled with contempt for their poverty-stricken uncouthness.[51]

Ranald Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Heart Ages (1974)

The French, meanwhile, had as Sumption puts it, encountered "unexpected difficulties" with their hosts. They had intended to immediately embark border raids, but "found the Scots uncooperative".[77] In the outcome, no raiding took identify until 8 July

Relations between them deteriorated rapidly. This was partly due to strategic differences. For instance, following the incursion into the West March, the decision was taken to swing eastward. The Scottish wished to lay siege to Roxburgh Castle, only de Vienne, broken-hearted non to endanger his knights if he could avoid it, insisted that if it was captured, it would be a French prize. These terms were unacceptable to the Scots, and the assault did not occur.[76] Their different approaches were also provoked by their very different experiences of how a war with the English was all-time fought:[26]

The French wanted a sustained campaign which would tie down significant English forces. They wanted to assail the major walled towns and castles of the English language borderlands. They believed in careful avant-garde planning and disciplined motility. The Scots wanted to fight the kind of campaign which they had always fought, involving fast movement by formless hordes of men, maximum physical destruction and the capture of valuable cattle.[26]

Relations were further soured because of the antipathy the French held their hosts in. The French knights were dismayed at the "primitiveness"[26] of both the country and the people: "What Prussian march is this to which our Admiral has taken us?" they moaned.[26]

They were amazed to find that Edinburgh, which had been described to them as the Paris of the north, had merely 400 houses. They were unimpressed past the 'red-faced and bleary-eyed' Male monarch Robert. they found his subjects a 'savage race' without courtesy or chivalry and his state bare of everything that made life sweet.[26]

The French complained about everything from the size of their dwelling quarters to the hardness of the beds they slept in to the quality of the beer and food.[26] Relations worsened when the knights, as was customary, sent their servants out to forage from the country and villages. This custom went downwards poorly with the locals, who oftentimes retaliated violently, and, in some cases, killed the French foragers. Where the French did find Scots willing to trade with them, they regularly complained at being exorbitantly over-charged.[76]

For the Scots, says Sumption, "the resentment was mutual".[27] Although the Scottish leaders—the King, of course, and his lords, such as the Earls of Douglas and Moray—respected the French as peers, the Scots more often than not were hostile to this grouping of foreigners who could non speak their language and who damaged their crops by riding warhorses many abreast.[27] The anger over the assault on Wark Castle had made things worse.[27] Even later the English withdrawal, the Scots refused to allow the French to exit until they had satisfactorily compensated their hosts for the damage they had caused. To this terminate, de Vienne was effectively kept hostage until money was sent from Paris to meet their demands.[78] In the consequence, he was unable to depart until mid-November 1385, even though his ground forces had left early on the previous month.[76] When de Vienne did leave Scotland, posits McKisack, information technology "was less due to English activeness than to French distaste for living atmospheric condition in Scotland":[79] de Vienne had described the land as containing nothing simply "wild beasts, forests and mountains".[26]

Backwash [edit]

Contemprary illustration of de Vienne's attack on Wark Castle

John of Gaunt remained in the north after the King returned to England to oversee the new truce with Scotland;[2] their relationship was worse than it had ever been.[72] Alienating his uncle was to prove a tactical mistake over the side by side few years when Richard institute himself increasingly opposed by his barons.[75] Nigel Saul has suggested that the Scottish expedition left the south coast exposed to a French attack,[50] and, indeed, a French navy was being assembled at Sluys that same year.[eighty] Although the invasion—widely expected in England—did non materialise, it cast a pall over the parliament which assembled in Oct 1386. Combined with the poor reception of Richard'due south attempt to reintroduce scutage, there was deep-seated indignation amidst members of the ii Houses over unfair and extravagant benefitting on the function of the Rex's favourite, the Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, recently made 1st Earl of Suffolk, from the monarch's largesse. These were the prevailing sentiments going into the yr'due south fractious parliament,[29] during which the removal of the Chancellor was sought as a prerequisite before any asking for funds would be heard.

Richard's 1385 entrada was considered more often than not a failure (G. L. Harriss chosen it "ignominious" and May McKisack, "inglorious").[81] [68] Tuck wrote that seen equally a "punitive raid", it was arguably a success.[31] The Scots were sufficiently persuaded to accept truces for the side by side 3 years.[82] [83] This, says Steel, was a far more than positive result for the entrada than it has generally been noted: as "southern Scotland had been wasted so effectively that at that place was no more danger from the north for another 3 years".[12] James Gillespie has highlighted the King's character traits that were to be revealed in 1385. The chevauchée, he suggests, indicates "a headstrong ruler determined to exact vengeance on the Scots" although the Male monarch later on fabricated Melrose Abbey a grant towards its rebuilding.[34] Similarly, Richard II'southward concern for the well-being of the ordinary soldiers is, he says, an early indicator of the "remarkable business concern...that would later endear the King to his Cheshire baby-sit".[71] It depends on the King's priorities, explains MacDonald. If Richard had a secondary, castigating purpose to the invasion—i.due east. punishing the Scots when he could not defeat them—"and the chronicle accounts provide some corroboration of this",[67] Constrict, too, has remarked upon Richard'south "unusual sensitivity" and compares it to a similar sensitivity demonstrated towards the rebelling peasants of 1381.[72] Richard'south main problem in the backwash of the entrada, says Gillespie, was i of the perceptions with which he was held after the campaign. Although information technology may have been more than successful than it appeared at commencement glance, Richard singularly failed to match up to the image of the successful warrior rex every bit epitomised by his father and gramps.[53]

The campaign as a whole likewise reveals a grasp of strategy and the volition—perhaps even the courage to behave it out...The King, nevertheless, had accomplished and carefully defended his military machine objective.[71]

James Gillespie, Richard II: The King of Battles? (1997)

Some good news came from the Iberian Peninsula, so racked by a civil war over the War of the Castilian Succession. Gaunt had been persuaded by the news of a Castilian defeat that he should enter the dynastic competition, and the following year he led an regular army to make his claim.[ten] His absence from English politics was enough with retrospect, says Anthony Steel, as "a turning betoken in Richard's reign".[84] In March 1386, Richard recognised Gaunt as King of Castille and was probably as keen for Gaunt to go as Gaunt was to be gone.[85] In 2004, Simon Walker wrote, "Richard was even prepared to speed Gaunt on his way by advancing a loan of 20,000 marks to defray the costs of the trek".[19] In 1962, Steel wrote that Gaunt's absence upset the balance of power within the political community and "liberated forces which had hitherto been more than or less nether control".[84]

The ordinances that King Richard issued before the campaign were subsequently the basis of those issued by King Henry Five before his 1415 French campaign.[40] Although Henry'due south contained nearly twice the number of clauses as Richard'southward, xx out of Henry's beginning twenty-three were copies of those of Richard.[44] A like instrument of summons was used by King Henry Vii in 1492 to heighten the army that briefly invaded Brittany and those as late as 1585—when Elizabeth I ordered the invasion of the Low Countries—were clearly modelled on those of 200 years earlier.[note 17] Richard'due south ordinances not only provided a design for these later summonses, but, says Maurice Corking, "remained the principal means of recruitment of purple hosts, and influenced the regulation of armies even longer",[41]

Richard planned ("though in vain") another invasion of Scotland in 1389,[87] and mirroring this, there were complaints to the terminate of Richard's reign that the Scots regularly violated the truce.[88] The next occasions on which Richard invaded a foreign country was in 1394 and 1399, when he invaded Republic of ireland; during the latter invasion Richard II was deposed by, Gaunt'southward son, Bolingbroke, who took the throne as Henry Four.[89]

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ For context, the last campaign to have been led by a King, that of 1359–lx by Edward III, cost the Exchequer £134,000 (equivalent to £98,679,708 in 2020). "Sums on this scale", says Saul, "were virtually impossible for the government to raise in the 1380s".[1]
  2. ^ In tardily 1384 Gaunt had been particularly critical of Richard's choices of advisor, whom he described as "unsavoury".[4] These favourites rode loftier in the Rex'southward favour at this time. Both Mowbray and de Vere, for example, had their ain private apartments within the King'due south palaces at Eltham and Kings Langley.[5] [6]
  3. ^ Admiral of the French fleet and famous to contemporaries.[nine]
  4. ^ This, says Simon Walker, enabled Gaunt "to escape the fate of the chancellor and treasurer, Simon Sudbury and Robert Hales, who were both summarily executed by the rebels", who simply burned down his palatial London townhouse, the Savoy, instead.[19]
  5. ^ Apart from his 1385 invasion of Scotland, he made lengthy stays in South Wales in 1394, and from 1397 to 1399 he spent nearly of his fourth dimension in either the Welsh Marches or the East Midlands.[20]
  6. ^ The fact that they were written in French, says Sumption, reflects the degree to which the document reflected traditional French military tradition and philosophy, rather than that of the Scots.[26]
  7. ^ The ordinances were originally published past Travers Twiss in his 1871 edition of the Blackness Book of the Admiralty (1871-1876, 4 volumes). The original manuscripts are in the possession of the British Library, MS Cotton Nero D Six. This manuscript has been dated equally contemporaneous to Richard'due south reign and appears to have originated with the Mowbray family.[35]
  8. ^ Along with the Lord High Constable of England, the marshalcy was one of the two great war machine officers of the medieval English Crown,[37] and has also been described as existence of the "utmost importance in matters of ceremony and ofttimes involved questions of precedence". The align was as well responsible for the marshalling of parliament.[38] Historian Rowena Archer notes, however, that "specific instances of the earl [marshal] undertaking tasks arising from his office are extremely rare".[39]
  9. ^ Ironically, the Scottish King issued similar ordinances to his own army when making his preparations to counter Richard's assail. They contained very similar instructions, but too, says Anne Back-scratch, "containing clauses unique to the circumstances of a articulation Franco-Scottish forcefulness".[40]
  10. ^ Sumption has described scutage as an "primitive fine" paid past individuals instead of performing a stock-still feudal duty, oft by those who held land by knights fee, but did not or could not themselves fight.[21] The knight's fee was originally a unit of income based on the amount needed for a knight to maintain a family for a year[46] in return for knight service of twoscore days a year.[47] By the late fourteenth century, it was a description of a country segmentation held by multiple people, which meant that there was no i knight to call upon for military service.[46]
  11. ^ This had been enacted by King Edward I in 1285. The Statute was extremely broad in its telescopic. It attempted to address contemporary concerns that "jurors were now increasingly reluctant to indict evil-doers". To counter this trouble, "watches were to be kept in the summer months, in towns and countryside akin, and all law-constant folk, sheriffs and bailiffs included, must exist set to raise and follow the hue in pursuit of suspects".[52]
  12. ^ Gild, and the adhesive which jump it together had changed significantly since feudalism had been introduced with the Norman conquest. K. B. McFarlane has described how, past the 15th century, classic tenurial bonds of feudalism between lord and man had been replaced by personal contracts. These were based not on pledges of fealty, but on payment for rendered service, and had effectively ended the exchange of military service for state.[63]
  13. ^ This was a decision that would catch upward with Richard at the side by side year'south parliament
  14. ^ The Catholic papacy was dissever at this time, and had been since 1378 when French bishops had elected Clement Seven. England stayed loyal to Pope Urban 6 and his successor Pope Boniface IX, while the French back up for the antipopes, says Goodman, "did add a political dimension").[66] The destruction of religious houses was non universally acclaimed: "even the patriotic chronicler Walsingham", says MacDonald, "lamented the destruction of Melrose".[67]
  15. ^ Contemporaries speculated that she had died of grief at the quarrel that had all of a sudden blown up between her sons Richard and Huntingdon over the decease of Hugh Stafford.[9]
  16. ^ Although Saul notes that the Westminster monk who authored the chronicle must take received his information from someone on the campaign who disliked the knuckles, and "sought to misrepresent him or to evidence him in the worst possible light".[lxx]
  17. ^ Although, naturally, the ordinances issued by Elizabeth were relatively remote from those of Richard, the clauses of particular similarity are those relating to keeping lookout man, retaining some other man's soldier, protection of merchants, and the raising of the alarm.[86]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Saul 1997, p. 142.
  2. ^ a b c d e f chiliad h i j Goodman 1992, p. 104.
  3. ^ Goodman 1971, pp. 11–12.
  4. ^ Saul 1997, p. 112.
  5. ^ a b Given-Wilson 2004.
  6. ^ a b Tuck 2004b.
  7. ^ Tuck 1973, p. 94.
  8. ^ a b c Saul 1997, p. 143.
  9. ^ a b c d McKisack 1991, p. 439.
  10. ^ a b c d e Keen 1973, p. 220.
  11. ^ a b c d east f Gillespie 1997, p. 141.
  12. ^ a b c d east f Steel 1962, p. 105.
  13. ^ a b Goodman 1992, p. 103.
  14. ^ Neville 1998, p. 66.
  15. ^ Tuck 1973, pp. 91–92.
  16. ^ a b c d e f Goodman 1971, p. 127.
  17. ^ a b McKisack 1991, p. 438.
  18. ^ a b Bevan 1990, p. 44.
  19. ^ a b c d east Walker 2004b.
  20. ^ a b Saul 1997, p. 291.
  21. ^ a b c d Sumption 2009, p. 545.
  22. ^ a b Nicholson 1974, p. 196.
  23. ^ a b Tuck 1973, p. 91.
  24. ^ a b c d e f MacDonald 2000, p. 89.
  25. ^ Sumption 2009, p. 543.
  26. ^ a b c d eastward f g h i Sumption 2009, p. 546.
  27. ^ a b c d e f Sumption 2009, p. 547.
  28. ^ Sumption 2009, p. 544.
  29. ^ a b c Tuck 2004a.
  30. ^ Fletcher 2008.
  31. ^ a b c d Tuck 1973, p. 97.
  32. ^ a b Sumption 2009, p. 548.
  33. ^ a b Keen 1995, p. 36.
  34. ^ a b c d eastward f Gillespie 1997, p. 143.
  35. ^ Swell 1995, p. 33 north. 2.
  36. ^ a b c Great 1995, p. 33.
  37. ^ Squibb 1959, p. 1.
  38. ^ Archer 1995, p. 104.
  39. ^ Archer 1984b, p. 168.
  40. ^ a b c d Curry 2008, p. 230.
  41. ^ a b c Neat 1995, p. 35.
  42. ^ Harvey 1970, p. 34.
  43. ^ a b c Saul 1997, p. 144.
  44. ^ a b Bang-up 1995, p. 34.
  45. ^ MacDonald 2000, pp. 88–99.
  46. ^ a b Zupko 1990, p. 18.
  47. ^ Taylor 1898, p. 7.
  48. ^ Sumption 2009, pp. 544–545.
  49. ^ a b c d Gillespie 1997, p. 142.
  50. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Saul 1997, p. 145.
  51. ^ a b c d e f g h i Nicholson 1974, p. 197.
  52. ^ Summerson 1992, p. 232.
  53. ^ a b c Gillespie 1997, p. 145.
  54. ^ Lewis 1958.
  55. ^ Prestwich 1996, p. 75.
  56. ^ Sumption 2009, p. 345.
  57. ^ Lewis 1958, p. 1.
  58. ^ Cokayne 1953, p. 179.
  59. ^ Harris 1986, p. 7.
  60. ^ Saul 1997, p. 120.
  61. ^ Stansfield 2004.
  62. ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. xi n.12.
  63. ^ McFarlane 1981, pp. 23–25.
  64. ^ Goodman 1971, p. 31.
  65. ^ a b Walker 2004a.
  66. ^ Davies 1999, p. 94.
  67. ^ a b c d e f g MacDonald 2000, p. 90.
  68. ^ a b McKisack 1991, p. 440.
  69. ^ Chambers 1824, pp. 1–2.
  70. ^ Saul 1997, p. 145 n.38.
  71. ^ a b c d Gillespie 1997, p. 144.
  72. ^ a b c Constrict 1973, p. 98.
  73. ^ MacDonald 2000, pp. 90–91.
  74. ^ Ordnance Survey 2007.
  75. ^ a b Bevan 1990, p. 45.
  76. ^ a b c d MacDonald 2000, p. 91.
  77. ^ Sumption 2009, pp. 545–546.
  78. ^ Nicholson 1974, pp. 197–198.
  79. ^ McKisack 1991, p. 440 n.1.
  80. ^ Roskell 1984, p. 43.
  81. ^ Harriss 2005, p. 455.
  82. ^ Nicholson 1974, p. 198.
  83. ^ Constrict 1973, p. 132.
  84. ^ a b Steel 1962, p. 106.
  85. ^ McKisack 1991, pp. 440–441.
  86. ^ Keen 1995, p. 35 n. 9.
  87. ^ Nicholson 1974, p. 202.
  88. ^ Steel 1962, p. 225.
  89. ^ McKisack 1991, pp. 490–493.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Archer, R. E. (1984b). The Mowbrays: Earls of Nottingham and Dukes of Norfolk to 1432 (D.Phil thesis). University of Oxford. OCLC 638691892.
  • Archer, R. Due east. (1995). "Parliamentary Restoration: John Mowbray and the Dukedom of Norfolk in 1425". In Archer, R. E.; Walker, Due south. (eds.). Rulers and Ruled in Belatedly Medieval England: Essays Presented to Gerald Harriss. London: Hambledon Printing. pp. 99–116. ISBN978-ane-85285-133-0.
  • Bevan, B. (1990). King Richard II. London: Rubicon Press. ISBN978-0-948695-17-nine.
  • Chambers, R. (1824). Notices of the well-nigh remarkable fires in Edinburgh, from 1385 to 1824. Edinburgh: Cas Smith &co. OCLC 633721189.
  • Cokayne, G. E. (1953). Gibbs, Five.; White, G. H. (eds.). The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Slap-up Britain and the United Kingdom. Vol. XII. London: The St. Catherine's Press. OCLC 861236878.
  • Curry, A. (2008). "The Military Ordinances of Henry V: Texts and Contexts". In Given-Wilson, C.; Kettle, A. J.; Scales, L. (eds.). State of war, Government and Aristocracy in the British Isles, C.1150-1500: Essays in Honour of Michael Prestwich. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. pp. 214–249. ISBN978-1-84383-389-5.
  • Davies, R. G. (1999). "Richard Two and the Church". In Goodman A. Gillespie J. L. (ed.). Richard Two: The Art of Kingship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 83–106. ISBN978-0-xix-926220-5.
  • Fletcher, C. (2008). Richard Two: Manhood, Youth, and Politics 1377-99. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19161-573-three.
  • Gillespie, J. L. (1997). Gillespie, J. 50. (ed.). The Age of Richard II. Vol. Richard Ii: The King of Battles?. London: St. Martin'southward Press. pp. 139–164. ISBN978-0-312-17584-9.
  • Given-Wilson, C. (2004). "Mowbray, Thomas, first duke of Norfolk (1366–1399)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  • Goodman, A. J. (1971). The Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant Under Richard 2. Coral Gables, FL.: University of Miami Press. ISBN978-0-87024-215-1.
  • Goodman, A. J. (1992). John of Gaunt: the exercise of princely ability in fourteenth-century Europe. Harlow: Longman. ISBN978-0-582-09813-8.
  • Harris, B. J. (1986). Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham, 1478-1521. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN978-0-8047-1316-0.
  • Harriss, One thousand. L. (2005). Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press. ISBN978-0-nineteen-921119-7.
  • Harvey, S. (1970). "The Knight and the Knight'southward Fee in England". Past & Present. 49: iii–43. OCLC 664602455.
  • Smashing, M. H. (1973). England in the Later Middle Ages. Bristol: Methuen. ISBN0416835708.
  • Keen, M. (1995). "Richard II's Ordinances of War of 1385". In Archer, R. E.; Walker, Southward. (eds.). Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England: Essays Presented to Gerald Harriss. London: Hambledon Press. pp. 33–48. ISBN978-1-85285-133-0.
  • Lewis, Northward. B. (1958). "The Last Medieval Summons of the English language Feudal Levy, 13 June 1385". The English language Historical Review. 73: 1–26. OCLC 754650998.
  • MacDonald, A. J. (2000). Border Bloodshed: Scotland and England at State of war, 1369-1403. East Linton: Tuckwell Press. ISBN978-i-86232-106-9.
  • McFarlane, G. B. (1981). England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN978-0-907628-01-ix.
  • McKisack, M. (1991). The Fourteenth Century (Repr. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Printing. ISBN0192852507.
  • Neville, C. J. (1998). Violence, Custom and Constabulary: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Afterward Eye Ages. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN978-0-74861-073-0.
  • Nicholson, R. (1974). Scotland: The Later Middle Ages. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. OCLC 468742260.
  • Ordnance Survey (2007). Landranger 85: Carlisle & Solway Firth. London: HMSO. ISBN978-0-319-22822-7.
  • Prestwich, M. (1996). Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-07663-ix.
  • Rawcliffe, C. (1978). The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham: 1394-1521 . Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN978-0-521-21663-0.
  • Roskell, J. S. (1984). The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386: In the Context of the Reign of Richard Ii . Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-71900-963-1.
  • Saul, Due north. (1997). Richard Two . Bury St Edmunds: Yale University Printing. ISBN0300070039.
  • Squibb, G. D. (1959). The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Ceremonious Law in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC 504278136.
  • Stansfield, M. M. N. (2004). "Kingdom of the netherlands, John, first earl of Huntingdon and duke of Exeter (c. 1352–1400)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  • Steel, A. (1962). Richard Ii . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 254581264.
  • Summerson, H. (1992). "The enforcement of the statute of Winchester, 1285–1327". The Periodical of Legal History. 13: 232–250. OCLC 1034339189.
  • Sumption, J. (2009). The Hundred Years' State of war: Divided Houses. Vol. Iii. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN978-0-571-24012-eight.
  • Taylor, H. (1898). The Origin and Growth of the English Constitution:. Vol. II. London: Sampson, Low, Marson &Co. OCLC 9728826.
  • Tuck, A. (1973). Richard II and the English Nobility. London: Edward Arnold. ISBN978-0-71315-708-6.
  • Tuck, A. (2004a). "Richard Ii (1367–1400)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 20 Feb 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2018.
  • Tuck, A. (2004b). "Vere, Robert de, ninth earl of Oxford, marquess of Dublin, and duke of Ireland (1362–1392)". Oxford Lexicon of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  • Walker, S. (2004a). "Percy, Sir Henry [called Henry Hotspur] (1364–1403)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  • Walker, S. (2004b). "John [John of Gaunt], knuckles of Aquitaine and duke of Lancaster, styled king of Castile and León (1340–1399)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Academy Printing. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  • Zupko, R. Due east. (1990). Revolution in Measurement: Western European Weights and Measures Since the Age of Science. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN978-0-87169-186-6.

robsonculdriatat.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasion_of_Scotland_(1385)