Overview and Statement of Significance

Ancrum Moor is highly significant in the context of both the Rough Wooings and the wider context of Anglo-Scottish border warfare. Very few 16th century battlefields survive well within the British Isles, and Ancrum Moor is one of the best preserved examples. The battle is also notable as being one of the few examples where archery and firearms were used together. Arquebuses were used in comparatively large numbers for the period, and the battlefield has a high research potential for assessing the use of the two forms of projectiles in parallel during this transitional period of warfare. It is also notable because it is a rare known example of Border warfare, most of which has survived only in historical references and Border ballads. This is one of the few occasions where a large-scale raid ended in a confrontation between armies in a pitched battle, and this is likely to have left significant traces in the landscape.

The Battle of Ancrum Moor was part of Henry VIII's campaign known as the Rough Wooing. The objective was to force the Scots to accept a marriage between Henry's son Edward and the infant Mary, Queen of Scots. While raiding in the Borders, the English army was attacked by a Scottish force at Ancrum Moor, just outside Jedburgh. The English were defeated in the battle and suffered heavy losses, including the deaths of two senior commanders.

The victory of the Scottish force ended the English raiding for a time and, in the wake of the defeat, France sent troops to help the Scots attack England. However, in the event no major campaign was launched, as the Scottish Regent, the Earl of Arran, feared provoking the English king into further attacks. In the longer term, the defeat at Ancrum Moor ultimately lead Henry to escalate his military action against Scotland, cumulating in the catastrophic defeat of Scottish forces after his death at the Battle of Pinkie in 1547.

Inventory Boundary

The Inventory boundary defines the area in which the main events of the battle are considered to have taken place (landscape context) and where associated physical remains and archaeological evidence occur or may be expected (specific qualities). The landscape context is described under battlefield landscape: it encompasses areas of fighting, key movements of troops across the landscape and other important locations, such as the positions of camps or vantage points. Although the landscape has changed since the time of the battle, key characteristics of the terrain at the time of the battle can normally still be identified, enabling events to be more fully understood and interpreted in their landscape context. Specific qualities are described under physical remains and potential: these include landscape features that played a significant role in the battle, other physical remains, such as enclosures or built structures, and areas of known or potential archaeological evidence.

The Inventory boundary for the Battle of Ancrum Moor is defined on the accompanying map and includes the following areas:

• The summit of Peniel Heugh, where the Scots first appeared to the English.
• The land to the north and east of Dere Street. The probable location of the advancing Scots after their descent from Peniel Heugh
• The line of the modern A68 and the Roman Road of Dere Street. The two possibilities for the 16th century 'Jedburgh Road' which the English marched down.
• An area to the south of the modern A68 which follows the outline of the largest portion of Ancrum Moor identified on 18th century estate maps. This area fits the topographic descriptions of the main area of combat.
• The well preserved landscape characteristics of the battlefield including the plateau of Ancrum Moor, the views north over Tweedale from the English vantage point at Lilliardsedge, views across the open moorland from the summit of Peniel Hill and the spatial relationship between the moor and the Roman Road of Dere Street.

The English army consisted of 3,000 mainly German mercenaries, 1,500 English Borderers and 700-800 Scottish 'assured men'. They had been at Melrose and were on their way back south towards Jedburgh. Having seen a small Scottish cavalry troop moving from Peniel Heugh hill back to the north-west, the English army turned back to pursue them. The English appear to have been divided into two battles. The vanguard was led by Layton and consisted of around 2,000 spearmen, hagbutters and archers. The second battle was led by Eure and consisted of around 3,000 men. Both battles had spears in the centre and one wing of archers, the other of hagbutters. What they did not know was that the Scots comprised a force of around 2,500 men including Fife lances and Border Reivers, accompanied by cannon.

The English attacked uphill, thinking that they were attacking a small body of cavalry. However, the main Scottish army came over the brow of the hill and pushed the vanguard back into the rest of the English army. As the situation deteriorated for the English army, the 'assured men' ripped off the red crosses that marked them out and attacked the English troops as well; this betrayal was subsequently blamed as the key factor for the English defeat. The English lines collapsed and a rout began. Both Layton and Eure were killed, along with up to 800 of their army; prisoners were numbered at around 1,000.

The Armies

No further information.

Numbers

The secondary works are consistent about the number of English troops, less so about the exact numbers of Scottish troops, but in general the English are seen to outnumber the Scots by 2:1.

Scottish: The Scots numbered no more than 2,500, including 700 Fife lances as well as reivers under Scott.

English: The English army of over 5,000 men consisted of 3,000 foreign mercenaries, 1,500 English Borderers and 700 Scottish 'assured men'.

Losses

The majority of the contemporary accounts suggest that English losses were between 1,500 and 2,000 killed. Later English reports, as troops were ransomed, show that less had been killed than had been first reported: between 500 and 800 dead with around 1,000 prisoners. Scottish losses were very light, although one English source did claim that more Scots than English died.

Action

There are significant variations between the various secondary accounts of the battle, with authors showing deployments and action orientated in three very different ways, though on broadly the same ground.

As Eure marched south on 27 February, his army was followed by the Scots. The English stopped on Lilliardsedge, which has clear views back across Tweeddale to Melrose and beyond, to see what the Scottish forces would do. This gave the Scots time to pursue but, instead of following directly on the route to Jedburgh taken by the English, they marched south-west, 'round about' Ancrum. The English forces were then delayed at the crossing of the 'Sandy causeway', which was so narrow that only two could cross abreast, enabling the Scottish forces to approach within striking distance (Lindsay, 1749). It remains unclear whether this forced the English to turn and fight because they could not get their troops across the causeway safely with the enemy so close, or whether Eure chose to attack as he realised his superiority in numbers. Given the result of Anglo-Scottish encounters in the recent past, it is likely to have been the latter.

The Scottish forces had halted their artillery on a hill and marched forward towards the English. They then sent their horses back to the hill where the artillery stood and withdrew on foot to a 'low place, out of the Englishmen's sight'. This, it is claimed, made the English think that the Scots were retreating and encouraged them to advance too quickly to keep their proper order of battle. Stow claims that the Scots deployed in three battles, but the small numbers of their army seems unlikely to have supported such as deployment, unless they were placed side by side, and so his comment may be in error (Stow 1580, 993). Pitscottie describes just two English battles: a vanguard to the fore, under Layton, comprising 1,000 spears in the centre; a right wing of 500 hagbutters and a left wing of 500 archers. Both these hagbutters and the archers might be expected to be mounted troops in this border region and involved in border raids. Seconding them, the main battle under Eure had 1,000 spears in the centre, with a right wing of 1,000 hagbutters and a left wing of 1,000 archers.

From this, it would appear that firearms played a significant role in the action, and it is supported by an English report, which states that

'sundry hacquebutiers of the garrison, both English and Irish, were slain and their hakes lost.'

The subsequent request for 100-200 hagbutters to be sent north may suggest the scale of the losses amongst these troops. Though there is no reference to artillery being used on the English side, it is stated that the Scots captured some artillery when the English fled (Holinshed 1587, 464). The fact that two Scots were killed by their own artillery fire indicates that the action took place within artillery range of the hill where the Scots' artillery stood, though it is unclear whether the fire was roundshot, indicating fighting at a distance, or case shot and hence close quarter fire (Lindsay 1749).

Some secondary works claim the English cavalry pursued well in advance of the English foot, a mistake which they say would prove decisive, but this seems improbable as most primary accounts agree that the English dismounted to fight on foot (e.g. Holinshed 1587, 463). It seems clear that the Scots were somewhere to the rear of the English, for it is said the latter rushed back to engage the Scots as they apparently retreated.

The primary accounts emphasise the disorderliness in the English advance, but the suggestion that the English had also to deal with a deep marsh is more problematic, as the exact place of the marsh both chronologically and topographically in the events is not clear. The claim in secondary works that the Scots dug pits and covered them with vegetation to further disorder to the English cavalry is highly improbable given the speed with which events evolved, leaving no time for such preparation. The Scots undoubtedly had the advantage of the wind, which blew the arquebus smoke back into the faces of the English troops, and of the low afternoon sun which shone in their eyes. Furthermore, the English 'spears', the dismounted cavalry, had to contend with Scottish pikes that were an ell (a unit of measurement approximately the length of a man's arm) longer than the English pikes. A Scottish ell was 37 inches (94 cm), implying the use by the Scots, but not by the English, of the long pike which came to dominate infantry warfare in Europe by the mid 16th century through to the later 17th century. The English claimed that, but for disorder in the joining of the battle, victory would have been possible as the Scots were not as numerous as some reports suggested. However, the English contemporary accounts placed most blame upon the 7-800 Scots assured men, who are described as treacherous and whose treason was contrived to achieve the defeat. Certainly in the action itself, as the defeat became apparent, the assured men removed the red crosses on their surcoats that identified them as members of the English army and turned on their erstwhile comrades. The English report that the turncoats 'distressed and took many of our men and horses' (Gairdner and Brodie, 1862-1910).

As the Scottish forces attacked, Layton's vanguard was driven back on Eure's main battle, disordering them. This, together with the switching sides of the assured men, led the English battalions to break. There was then a great execution in the pursuit, with both Eure and Layton being killed, together with some 1,300-1,400 of the English army killed or taken. Much of this was a taking of revenge for the atrocities of the preceding months, and some accounts talk of local men and women picking up weapons and joining the pursuit with a cry of 'Remember Broomhouse!', referring to the Tower of Broomhouse supposedly burnt by the English in January 1545 whilst the elderly owner and family perished inside.

Aftermath & Consequences

Ancrum Moor, with c.7,000 troops involved, was a substantial action where the troops were in full battle array. It was a significant defeat for the English, involving the death of their two senior commanders in the Marches, but it did not change the balance of power in the region and had no lasting impact either militarily or politically. The immediate result was that Teviotdale came back under Scottish control, and the English border regions were readied for a major Scottish incursion in the wake of Ancrum. The French dispatched 3,500 troops to Scotland for such an initiative, but they only led some minor incursions because the Regent was unwilling to risk a major invasion.

In the end the only significant outcome of Ancrum was to lead Henry VIII to escalate his military action against Scotland, which ultimately led, after Henry's death, to Somerset's invasion of 1547 with the battle at Pinkie and the assault on Edinburgh. However, Ancrum does indicate that Henry was to be frustrated in his ambitions, because even the massive defeat at Pinkie had no lasting effect and Scotland remained an independent kingdom.

In terms of archaeology, Ancrum may be of great significance, because it involved the use of substantial numbers of both arquebus and longbow. It was one of the earliest battles in the Britain to have seen a significant number of arquebus deployed. The reference to two Scottish soldiers being killed by their own artillery fire also raises the slight possibility of case shot having been being fired, at least by the Scots, though at this date it may be that the bullets were not of lead but rather of iron or even pebbles. If case shot was fired, then there is the potential for further significant artefactual material. The association of bullet and arrow, the former in the right wing and the latter in the left, of both English battles offers the potential for the recovery of patterns of bullets providing clear indication of where the ferrous arrowheads should be sought. Also, the battle formation with two battles, each with wings of shot, one of arquebusier and one of archers, with the vanguard to the fore seconded by the main battle, is potentially important for the understanding of earlier battle tactics and their transition.

The investigation of battle archaeology of this transitional period in equipment and tactics should provide an important link between the well understood archaeology of 17th century battles and the poorly understood archaeology of Medieval battles. There are so few battlefields of the 16th century in Britain that any which survives in a reasonable state of preservation must be considered of high importance.

The battle involved the Scottish Regent, James Hamilton Earl of Arran, and Archibald Douglas Earl of Angus.

James Hamilton, Earl of Arran, was a significant figure in the politics and wars of James IV. He was a grandson of James II and nephew of James III. He was as much a mariner as a soldier in his early career, commanding a Scottish fleet that helped the Danes defeat a Swedish rebellion in 1502, then led a fleet to put down a rebellion in the Western Isles in 1504. He commanded the Scottish navy in actions against the English in 1513, attacking the main English base in Ulster at Carrickfergus before heading to France to support the French King; however, before he arrived, James IV had been killed at Flodden, and Arran had to return home. He was accompanied by the representative of John Stewart, Duke of Albany, who would later become regent, but Arran initially acted against Albany and was besieged and in the end Hamilton had to make terms with the Regent. In 1516, on the death of the infant Alexander, James V's brother, Arran was declared next in line to the throne. He had constant antagonism with Angus, leading to the Cleanse the Causeway incident when Angus and his supporters drove Arran out of Edinburgh on 30 April 1520; however, by the following year, Arran had re-taken control of the city. In 1524, he supported Margaret as she declared James to have reached his majority; he was one of the Council that was to rotate custody of the King, and was supposed to take custody from Angus when the latter refused to hand over James. Despite this, Arran considered that his interests would be best served by allying with Angus and thus it was that he found himself defending the approach to Edinburgh against Lennox on behalf of Angus. Despite this, when James V escaped from Angus in 1528, Arran was a close advisor of the King until the Earl died in 1529.

Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus, was one of the most powerful Scottish nobles of the sixteenth century. He first came to prominence on 6 August 1514 when he married Margaret, the Dowager Queen, widow of James IV, mother of James V and elder sister of Henry VIII of England. The marriage was instrumental in breaking the fragile peace in Scotland as Margaret's regency was to last until James V came of age or she re-married. She had been holding a delicate balance between the pro-French and pro-English factions at Court, but her marriage to Angus gave impetus to the pro-French group to push her out and install the Duke of Albany as regent. She eventually fled to England, leaving Angus in Scotland, where he promptly took a mistress and started spending Margaret's money. The ensuing enmity between the couple coloured Scottish politics for years to come. Angus was charged with high treason by the Duke of Albany, and was sent as a prisoner to France in 1522. He escaped to London in 1524 and then returned to Scotland with the support of Henry VIII. In 1524, Margaret made an alliance with the Earl of Arran and Angus had to take refuge in his ancestral home of Tantallon Castle. However, with the influence of Henry VIII from south of the border, Angus was able to force his way back into power and was appointed to the Council of Regency, which looked after the King in rotation despite Margaret's declaration in 1524 of his majority. Angus was the first of the council to have physical custody of the King, but refused to hand him over at the end of his three month period. He imposed himself as the Chancellor of Scotland, filled all positions of authority with Douglas family members and supporters and kept the young King effectively a prisoner. The Battles of Darnick and Linlithgow Bridge were both attempts to wrest control of the King from Angus. Despite his victory in both battles, Angus would only retain his control for another two years. James V escaped his custody in 1528 and began to rule on his own account, with his first order of business the removal of Angus, who had retreated to Tantallon again. Despite considerable effort on the part of James, Angus held out until 1529 when he was able to escape to England under a treaty between James and Henry VIII. Angus remained in England until James' death in 1542, at which point he returned on a mission from Henry to arrange a marriage between the infant Mary Queen of Scots and the future Edward VI. However, in 1544 he was in open conflict with the Earl of Arran, son of his ally in 1526, and imprisoned briefly. The English Rough Wooing (1543-1550), which attempted to coerce the Scots into accepting the marriage between Mary and Edward, hit Douglas lands hard and caused Angus to settle with Arran and the two fought together at the Scottish victory of Ancrum Moor and the defeat at Pinkie in 1547. He eventually died in 1557.

The English army was led by Sir Ralph Eure and Sir Brian Layton. Eure (sometimes Evers in the sources) was the Warden of the English Middle March, while Layton was governor of Norham Castle, an important border garrison. In 1544 they had led a raid into Scotland that had included the burning of Melrose Abbey and the consequent destruction of Douglas family tombs, earning a personal enmity from Angus.

Context

In the period following the battle of Flodden (1513), an uneasy truce existed between Scotland and England, but in 1542 the tensions once more erupted into open conflict. Following its Reformation in 1534, England stood independent from Catholic Europe. In response, Pope Paul III sought an alliance between Scotland, France and the Holy Roman Empire against England. This caused Henry VIII to pour huge sums of money into projects for England's coastal and border fortification. Henry also considered an invasion of France, but his northern border would then be vulnerable to Scottish invasion in support of their ally. Henry therefore directed his commanders in the north to raid into Scotland, to further undermine the Scottish king, James V; he was facing internal dissention partly as a consequence of the Reformation, and partly as he tried to establish his authority after the long Regency of his childhood.

In October 1542, Henry sent an army of some 20,000 into Scotland, where they burnt Kelso and Roxburgh. In reply, James raised an army of 18,000 troops in the west and headed for Carlisle, but the army disintegrated in November at Solway Moss in a humiliating defeat by a much smaller local English force; the defeat was an act of self-destruction by the Scottish army, reflected in the small numbers of casualties as the soldiers either surrendered or deserted.

James V died less than a month after Solway Moss, on 14 December 1542. He was succeeded by his daughter Mary, who was just one week old. As a result, Scotland was again ruled by a regent, this time James Hamilton, the Earl of Arran, but this central weakness exacerbated the internal divisions as it had after Flodden. Henry determined to use the situation to his advantage and unify the two kingdoms through a marriage of Queen Mary to his own son, Prince Edward. The situation was complicated by religious differences in Scotland, some Protestants being more sympathetic to the Protestant English crown, while Catholic support was for alliance with France. However, most of Henry's support came from the nobles that had been captured at Solway Moss, whose freedom was gained by agreeing to work to effect the marriage; there was a small group of especially trusted men who had signed an agreement with Henry that dispensed with the fiction of Mary's succession and talked of Henry taking the throne of Scotland instead.

Henry's plans were frustrated by the lack of enthusiasm for his cause amongst most of the 'assured men', the former prisoners of Solway Moss, and also by the firm opposition of the Catholic party under Cardinal Beaton. In addition, although Arran was prepared to negotiate with Henry, he avoided making firm commitments and kept Henry convinced that negotiation would succeed. Arran was fully aware that neither Beaton nor Henry had his interests at heart, and he was careful not to move too far in either direction. Negotiations collapsed through the actions of both parliaments in March 1543: the Scottish Parliament made preconditions about the marriage proposal that would prevent Henry from seizing the crown, while the English Parliament passed a subsidy act that described James V as a usurper and Henry as the rightful king.

Despite all this, the Treaty of Greenwich was signed on 1 July 1543, agreeing to the marriage. Arran ratified the treaty in August, but it was still subject to the ratification of the Parliaments. However, before this could happen, the English broke the terms of the treaty by seizing Scottish merchant ships for trading with France. The outrage this provoked in Scotland led Arran to repudiate the treaty and make a peace with Beaton. Henry's response was to undertake a programme of terrorism against the Scots, with English raids into the Borders to destroy villages, kill the inhabitants and destroy the crops.

In 1544, the raiding devastated southern Scotland, but was having no effect on gaining Henry's aims. To increase the pressure, Henry sent Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, on a major raid of destruction; Seymour, later Duke of Somerset and the regent to Edward VI, was to return in 1547 for the battle of Pinkie. His orders on this occasion were to destroy Edinburgh, Leith and as much of Fife as possible; his orders explicitly called for the killing of men, women and children. Seymour was successful in his mission, burning Leith, Edinburgh, Kingshorn and Dunbar, where Seymour recorded that the town had been taken by surprise and the inhabitants burnt as they slept.

Later in the year, under the leadership of Sir Ralph Eure, Warden of the English Middle March, and Sir Brian Layton, governor of the important border garrison castle of Norham, there followed further ravaging of the Borders. The destruction, detailed in the so-called Bloody Ledger, left the counties of Teviotdale and Merse under English control (Logan-Home 1933). During the course of this invasion, Eure burnt Melrose Abbey (destroying the tombs of the Douglas family) and provoked the enmity of the Douglas Earl of Angus as a result. There was also an alleged incident where a towerhouse called Broomhouse was burnt by the English, killing the elderly lady owner and her family. Whether or not this event actually occurred, it was seen as the worst of the outrages caused in this invasion.

In late February 1545, Eure assembled the forces of the East and Middle Marches. His army of about 5,000 troops marched towards Jedburgh on 25 February, and then to Melrose the following night. Eure intended to attack the Regent and his forces, who had come to confront the invasion. However, the Scots had already withdrawn over the bridge to Galashiels, so Eure burnt Jedburgh town and abbey and then withdrew. The Earl of Angus, who was shadowing the English army, was heavily outnumbered and would not engage the invaders immediately, but as local forces and those of the Earl of Arran joined him, he soon had more than 1,200 troops, strong enough to mount a pursuit.

With the Scots victory at Ancrum Moor in February, the number of raids fell, but in September, Hertford returned on another devastating raid. Again, the English caused tremendous damage, but got no further with forcing the acceptance of the marriage between Edward and Mary. The violence was halted partly by treaty in 1546, and partly by the death of Henry VIII on 28th January 1547. Edward now succeeded to the English throne as Edward VI, but as he was a minor, power was in the hands of the Earl of Hertford, who gained the title Duke of Somerset in February 1547. Somerset, who continued Henry's attempt to force the marriage of Edward to Mary, had concluded that Henry had failed by tactics solely built on terror; Somerset decided to add the control of territory to the terror. When the last two English strongholds north of the border were reduced by French naval intervention, Somerset's plans were not disturbed, and he advanced from Berwick into Scotland.

Somerset's army inflicted a crushing defeat on the Scots at Pinkie, but the outcome was less beneficial than he had hoped for. He failed to follow up his success against the Scottish army by securing border fortresses, and the defeat led to Mary escaping to France for her own safety. Once there, she married the French Dauphin, frustrating English efforts to secure a marriage and securing instead the Franco-Scottish Alliance. This in turn led to the deployment of French troops within Scotland, along with renewed efforts against English strongholds on the continent. The English were eventually left with no choice but to withdraw from Scotland and come to terms by treaty in 1550.

While there are fairly detailed accounts of the fighting, there is less useful detail about the landscape of the battle. Ancrum village lies to the south of the battlefield, below the scarp slope that leads to Ancrum Moor. The Scots seem to have appeared to the English on Peniel Heugh, but then retreated to the north-west. The English pursued but were held up trying to cross Sandy Causeway, which must have been a narrow causeway across boggy ground, though its precise location is unknown. The English advance would have been north-west towards Lilliardsedge, a scarp leading down into the bowl of Tweeddale. The primary sources suggest that the main bulk of the Scottish army were out of sight below Lilliardsedge, and that Eure and Layton had no idea that there was more than a small cavalry troop of Scots.

The battle was fought on the undulating moorland of Ancrum Moor. Ancrum Moor is located in a depression on a high plateau overlooking the Ale Water to the south and the Tweeddale to the north. The northern scarp of the plateau (Lilliardsedge) falls steeply into the river valley of the Tweed. Although the landscape of the moor has been dramatically altered through the drainage of marshland and enclosure, key landscape features and views are largely intact and it appears that the overall character of the battlefield survives. The topography of the moorland, which must have played a key role in the battle, is well preserved as open farmland and the spatial relationships between key landscape features such as the summit of Peniel Heugh, the line of the Roman road through the moorland and the undulating terrain of the landscape survive intact. Important views such as those from Lilliardsedge looking over Tweeddale to the north are intact and provide the same outlook as it would have done in the 16th century.

The defined area is presently mainly farmland with small areas of forestry plantation. The A68 bisects the battlefield and may have impacted on physical evidence.

Location

The battle is generally agreed to have been fought about 1.5 miles north of the village of Ancrum, on Ancrum Moor. The exact position and the orientation of the deployments and action has been the source of dispute. Fairbairn has the English returning from plundering Melrose, with Angus outmanoeuvring them and getting between them and the River Teviot, hence he has an English attack south-east along the main road (Fairbairn & Cyprien, 1983). This seems highly improbable, because it is clear from various accounts that the English turned and pursued the Scots, thinking they were retreating.

Phillips has the English camped near Ancrum, with the Scots first advancing to Peniel Heugh Hill, overlooking Ancrum Moor, then withdrawing to the north-west with the English in pursuit and the action fought from south-east to north-west along the line of Dere Street (Phillips 1999). This is essentially following Robson's interpretation who places the English camp north of the river Teviot, below Ancrum village, and has the Scottish forces standing on Peniel Heugh and then withdrawing to deploy out of view on the lower ground to the north-west, between this and Lilliardsedge, feigning retreat (Robson 1897).

The primary accounts are clear that there was no camp and that the English were withdrawing directly to Jedburgh, but there is a logic in arguing that the English attack was north-west towards a Scottish position towards Lilliardsedge, for the terrain here seemingly matches the little that the primary accounts explain of the terrain. Logan-Home has the English advancing south-west, towards the setting sun and with the wind in their faces, to accord with Pitscottie's account. In this, he is followed by Matthews and Warner, who show broadly comparable deployments, with the action fought from north-east to south-west across Gersit Law. However, the latter ground does not accord well with the topographical detail in the accounts. More sensible might be the land immediately to the south, the largest area of moss and moor in 1795. Pitscottie comments that the Scots marched south-west from Melrose and skirted around Ancrum.

In resolving the uncertainties a good deal rests on Pitscottie's reference to the English standing first on Lilliardsedge and then being delayed by the narrow pass of Sandy causeway, which must have been less than about 5 m wide to restrict the English, presumably on horseback, to crossing just two abreast. This causeway is unlocated, but if it was where Dere St, the Roman road that runs by the site, crossed the area of low lying wet moor just to the SE of Lilliardsedge, then they would be out of sight from a Scots army approaching and withdrawing across the moor from the south-west.

Rough calculations can be made from the troop numbers specified in the accounts. Assuming standard deployment practice, with troops on foot and at least 10 deep, then the English battle arrays would cover a frontage of well under 500 m, giving a relatively small area to the battlefield.

Terrain

General Roy's mapping of the 1750s is almost wholly devoid of detail in the area to the north and north-west of Ancrum. It is therefore fortunate that an estate map of 1795 survives that provides a detailed picture of the area prior to enclosure (NAS RHP47938). In addition, evidence for the road network is depicted on a series of maps from the late 16th to the early 19th centuries (Stobie 1770; Ainslie 1821; Pont 1580-1600; Blaeu & Pont 1654; Taylor & Skinner 1776; Crawford & Brooke 1843; Thompson 1832).

There are three key elements to the historic terrain of the battlefield. The English passed the 'Lilliard Cross' on the Jedburgh road, though it is not clear if they were on the modern road alignment or on Dere Street, the course of which is well known and which may still have been in use at the time of the battle. The latter had certainly been replaced by 1765 when the turnpike was already in place (Bill of Suspension, 1765). The Pont map of the late 16th century, confirmed in clearer detail on Bleau's published atlas based on the Pont maps, shows the bridge was already close to its present location, although the river seems to have then been on a different alignment, which is hinted at by narrow channels still surviving on the 1st Ed OS map. This may indicate that by 1545 the main road was already close to its present course, which is first clearly shown in by Stobie in 1770 and Taylor & Skinner in 1775. Although both Stobie and Thomson show the Roman Causeway, it unclear whether it was then a functioning road, though it does appear to be a road on both the 1795 estate map of Ancrum and on Ainslie's map of 1821.

The extent of Ancrum Moor is defined clearly in 1795, prior to final enclosure, covering a wide area in three discrete parts, although it is unclear how much the moor had shrunk and fragmented as a result of enclosure between 1545 and 1795 (Estate Map of Ancrum, 1795). The extent of the moor might initially appear problematic in locating the battle, but if Pitscottie's reference to a south-west approach by the Scots is correct then there is only one area of the moor that can fit with the description of the terrain given by him. This is the area on the south-west of the Jedburgh road that encompasses Woodhouse Moss. This is the largest area of moss and moor shown in 1795, lying to the south-east of Gersit Law.

When viewed within the context of the historic terrain, the account provided by Pitscottie appears to make tactical sense. Ancrum Moor was a depression on a high plateau. The northern scarp, called Lilliardsedge, falls dramatically into Tweeddale and provides an excellent vantage point to view any troop movement in the dale, almost as far as Melrose. However, the plateau with its wet boggy areas also appears to have presented a difficult transit for an army, with the 'Sandy causeway' in particular restricting passage to no more than two abreast, presumably on horseback. The position of this causeway is not certain and it may prove to be a causeway at the crossing of the Teviot, but as this is 3 km to the south-east of the Edge, this seems too far away to fit the events of the battle. If the English stopped on Lilliardsedge not only to view the Scottish line of march but also to enable the army to file across the causeway 500 m to the south-east, it will have been the factor which gave the Scots time to catch the English. It would have been impracticable for the Scots to follow the English along Dere Street, for if the English chose to fight at Lilliardsedge, the steepness of the scarp would have precluded any Scottish attack. Marching south-west from Melrose and approaching from the west, along the Selkirk road, would obscure their approach behind Gersit Law and enable an easier advance across the moor from the south-west. The English might then have no alternative but to engage if they were still in the process of crossing the causeway. Thus, if the Sandy causeway can be securely located, then the battlefield can be more confidently pinpointed.

Condition

A caravan park may lie across a small part of the battlefield, depending on the exact location and extent of the action. The surface geology is almost wholly till, which would provide a high pH base for the soil. However, there will be lower pH in some areas such as the moor vegetation and the conifer plantations, first planted in the 18th century as part of a designed landscape around Ancrum House. The lower pH is likely to have produced lesser conditions of preservation, particularly for ferrous artefacts and most notably arrowheads. In the 1930s, apart from Woodhouse Moss and the plantations, almost the whole area was under arable, while today about 50% of the land is under arable; hence, the ferrous artefacts may also have suffered substantial mechanical damage. In the area of moss, if this was close to the action, there is the potential for waterlogged deposits.

Woodhead Moss is an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), and lies within the potential battlefield area. The Monteath Mausoleum, a listed structure, lies in the general area of the battlefield, but it has no relationship to the battle. A moated enclosure, which is a scheduled ancient monument, lies adjacent to Muirhouselaw to the north-east of the battlefield.

In terms of archaeology, Ancrum may be of great significance, because it involved the use of substantial numbers of both arquebus and longbow. It was one of the earliest battles in the Britain to have seen a significant number of arquebus deployed. The reference to two Scottish soldiers being killed by their own artillery fire also raises the slight possibility of case shot having been being fired, at least by the Scots, though at this date it may be that the bullets were not of lead but rather of iron or even pebbles. If case shot was fired, then there is the potential for further significant artefactual material. The association of bullet and arrow, the former in the right wing and the latter in the left, of both English battles offers the potential for the recovery of patterns of bullets providing clear indication of where the ferrous arrowheads should be sought. Also, the battle formation with two battles, each with wings of shot, one of arquebusier and one of archers, with the vanguard to the fore seconded by the main battle, is potentially important for the understanding of earlier battle tactics and their transition.

The investigation of battle archaeology of this transitional period in equipment and tactics should provide an important link between the well understood archaeology of 17th century battles and the poorly understood archaeology of Medieval battles. There are so few battlefields of the 16th century in Britain that any which survives in a reasonable state of preservation must be considered of high importance.

Various stray finds of armour and equipment are known from the area, generally found in the 19th century to the south-west of Ancrum Moor; an example is the discovery of a 'burgonet' found on the slopes near to the River Ale. However, these are away from the battlefield and cannot be assumed to relate to the fighting, though they may represent the rout. There are no records of human remains being discovered, but there were significant numbers of dead on the English side; there is thus a possibility of human remains being encountered in the area.

The sources indicate large numbers of hagbutters on the English side, so a substantial number of lead bullets will have been fired. In addition, the English seem to have had a substantial number of archers, perhaps as many as 1,000, and there are potentially large quantities of ferrous arrowheads that could be recoverable through archaeological investigation. The Scots appear to have used cannon, as there is a reference to two Scots being killed by their own artillery. The English may also have used cannon, as one of the sources states that the Scots captured some artillery pieces as the English fled. This means that there may be round shot or case shot, depending on how close the English were to the Scottish cannon.

Lilliard's Stone, a c.18th century stone slab commemorating the death of a young women in the battle, is the closest to a personal memorial that exists, though its historicity is doubtful.

Although there is mention in some sources that the Scots dug pits to ensnare the cavalry, it is highly likely that this tale was borrowed from the Bannockburn story.

Lilliard's Stone or the 'Maiden's Tomb' located at Lilliardsedge is the only commemorative monument associated with the battle. The inscription on the slab, which tells the tale of a girl who supposedly fought and died in the battle, is likely to be a later and erroneous association. The story of the Maiden Lilliard first appeared in written form in the 18th century, marking a nationalist mood that was apparent in some circles during the period of the Jacobite risings. The tale has however given the battle a degree of prominence and longevity because of this 'Boudicca of the North'. In 1995 an orchestral suite entitled Lilliard was composed by a local music teacher about the battle and the Maiden Lilliard to mark its 450th anniversary.

Beyond this, there are no other indicators of the cultural impact of the battle, but this should not be taken as an indication that the cultural impact of the battle was slight. Certainly in the Borders, the battle had a resonance as a rare occasion that English raiders were defeated and that death and destruction was on the other side.

Commemoration & Interpretation

There is no monument to the battle on the site, but on Lilliardsedge is the 'Maiden's Tomb' or Lilliard's Stone (NT62NW 7). The monument consists of a stone 'grave', being a small stone enclosure, with an inserted slab bearing an inscription about a girl that is supposed to have fought and died in the battle:

Fair Maid Lilliard

lies under this stane

little was her stature

but muckle was her fame

upon the English loons

she laid monie thumps

and when her legs were cuttit off

she fought upon her stumps.

However, the tradition appears relatively late, and the name of Lilliard goes back to the Medieval period as a place-name. The monument was probably built in the 18th century to replace an earlier monument, with the slab being used in the replacement structure. The monument was in a very poor state of repair in 1983 but was repaired with the aid of a Heritage Lottery Grant and financial support from the Scottish Borders Council and the Lothian Estates. It is accessible via the footpath along Dere Street Roman Road (part of St Cuthbert's Way long distance path).

Cooper, J. 2008 Scottish Renaissance Armies, 1513-1550. Osprey Publishing, Oxford.

Matthews, R. 2003 England versus Scotland. Leo Cooper, Barnsley.

Merriman, M. 2000 The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542-1551. Tuckwell Press, East Linton.

Phillips, G. 1999 The Anglo-Scots Wars, 1513-1550: a military history. Boydell Press, Woodbridge.

Ridpath, G. 1848 The Border History of England and Scotland. T. Cadell et al, London.

Robson, J. 1897 Border Battles and Battlefields. J. & J. H. Rutherford, Kelso.

Information on Sources & Publication

The battle is not particularly well served by primary accounts and none are reproduced in the secondary works on the battle. Logan-Home gives extracts from the Haynes State Papers but these deal with the raids from 1 July 1544 to 17 Nov 1544, not the battle. The main Scottish account, and the most detailed of all, is that given by Pitscottie. The fine detail of terrain and how the action fitted therein suggests that he had well informed sources and a clear understanding of the local topography upon which to base his account. Stow provides little information but Holinshed gives somewhat more, with the numbers engaged and lost and detail of the context of the battle, but he provides no topographical information for the battle itself. The Hamilton papers provide a contemporary report of the battle, but with little detail, only suggesting that the Teviotdale men changing sides was a key factor in the defeat.

Ridpath draws his brief account mainly from Pitscottie, though also using Holinshed and Stow, but makes no attempt to place the events in the landscape. Dunbar lists a range of secondary and primary works relating to the battle but has not discussion of the action, being purely concerned with establishing the correct date. Robson provides a very partisan account and, although he appears to draw upon a range of primary sources, he provides little direct referencing, even in his notes section. Logan-Home again works from various primary sources but most of his discussion is of the context of the action rather than the battle itself, and again referencing is largely absent. Merriman places the action in its political and military context, giving various references, but does not attempt a discussion of the action itself. Only Matthews and Warner hazard plans showing deployments and action, but neither is wholly convincing. Thus none of the secondary works consulted provide an adequately referenced account to enable any of their slightly varying interpretations to be demonstrated as correct and none provide significant extracts from or reference to the primary accounts of the battle.

In the absence of a detailed study of action at Ancrum Moor, the absence of referencing in most of the more general secondary works poses a major problem, particularly given the difficulties with the texts and the problem of identifying all the primary sources. Thus, the problem in separating hypothesis from genuine detail, deriving from primary sources, makes accurately locating the action all the more difficult.

Primary Sources

Bain, J. (ed) 1890a The Hamilton Papers: letters and papers illustrating the political relations of England and Scotland in the XVIth century, formerly in the possession of the dukes of Hamilton, now in the British Museum. H.M.S.O., Edinburgh.

Bain, J. (ed) 1890b The Hamilton Papers: letters and papers illustrating the political relations of England and Scotland in the XVIth Century. H.M.S.O., Edinburgh.

Gairdner, J. & Brodie, R. H. 1862-1910 Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII., preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere in England. H.M.S.O., London.

Leslie, J. 1749 The Historie of Scotland, 1436 to 1565. 2nd ed.

Lindsay, R. (1749) The History of Scotland: from 21 February, 1436. to March, 1565 by Robert Lindesay of Pitscottie, To which is added a continuation, by another hand, till August 1604. Edinburgh.

Haynes, S. 1740 A Collection of State Papers Relating to Affairs in the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, from the year 1542 to 1570.

Holinshed, R, Harrison, W & Hooker, J. 1587 The First and Second Volumes of Chronicles: comprising, 1. The Description and Historie of England; 2. The Description and Historie of Ireland; 3. The Description and Historie of Scotland.

Stow, J. 1580 The Chronicles of England: from Brute vnto this present yeare of Christ. 1580. Collected by Iohn Stow, citizen of London. Ralphe Newberie, London.

Stow, J. 1592. The Annales of England.

L&P, xx,(i), 280, 311-313.

Cartographic & Illustrative Sources

Blaeu, J. & Pont, T. 1654 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum sive Atlas Novus: Atlas of Scotland.

Roy, W. (1747-1755) unpublished.

Secondary Sources

Cooper, J Scottish Renaissance Armies, 1513-1550. Osprey Publishing, Oxford.

Dunbar, A. H. 1899 Scottish Kings: A Revised Chronology of Scottish History 1005-1625. David Douglas, Edinburgh.

Fairbairn, N. & Cyprien, M. 1983 A Traveller's Guide to the Battlefields of Britain. Evans Brothers Ltd, London.

Matthews, R. 2003 England versus Scotland. Leo Cooper, Barnsley.

Merriman, M. 2000 The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542-1551. Tuckwell Press, East Linton.

Phillips, G. 1999 The Anglo-Scots Wars, 1513-1550: a military history. Boydell Press, Woodbridge.

Ridpath, G. 1848 The border history of England and Scotland. T. Cadell et al, London.

Robson, J. 1897 Border Battles and Battlefields, J. & J. H. Rutherford, Kelso.

Warner, P. 2002 British Battlefields: The definitive guide to warfare in England and Scotland.