The English commander, William de Aumale, heard the roar of the Scots army even before it appeared out of the early morning mists. Thousands of semi-clad Galwegians leading the Scottish attack raced toward the nervous Anglo-Norman army, closing the distance from 400 to 300 to 200 yards. De Aumale gave the command for the archers to fire. The air was suddenly filled with missiles as those Scots who carried shields took the first arrows on them, screaming their war cry, "Albion!"

The English then began to use direct fire, shooting at the lower extremities of the howling Scots. With a moan, the first ranks fell apart under this fire. Yet, the battle hardened Scots leapt over their dead and continued to close on the frantically firing English. The Battle of the Standard had begun.

Henry I, the strong-willed son of William the Conqueror, died on December 1, 1135, leaving no legitimate male heir to follow him to the throne as the next king of England. His only son, William Atheling, had drowned in the sinking of the ill-fated White Ship in 1120 (Beeler, 81). Henry had not been without other sons; he had sired over twenty illegitimate children (Chibnall, 78).

According to the chronicler, William of Malmsbury, Henry had called together all of his nobles, bishops and abbots and had them swear an oath, "That if he himself died without a male heir, they would immediately and without hesitation accept his daughter, Matilda, formerly Empress (of the Holy Roman Empire), as their lady. He said…that she alone had a legal claim to succeed him…." (Chibnall, 84).

Henry's widowed daughter, Matilda, had married Geoffrey of Anjou ten years before her father's death, and bore three sons to succeed her to the throne of England. Among the many nobles expected to support Henry's choice as ruler of England was Stephen of Blois, a third son of French nobility, and nephew to Henry. Stephen had been brought up in Henry's court, so knew the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. Henry fully expected Stephen to support Matilda. In this, he could not have been more wrong.

Word of Henry's death found Matilda deeply involved with a war in Normandy, while Stephen was on the Channel coast at Boulogne, and he wasted no time in gathering his supporters and sailing to England to claim the throne of England as his by hereditary right. Stephen, by virtue of his being the nephew of Henry as well as the grandson of William the Conqueror, declared himself the rightful heir to the throne. There is a very suspect justifying passage in the Gesta Stephani noting that on his deathbed, Henry "…with very many standing by and listening to his truthful confession of his errors, he very plainly showed repentance for the forcible imposition of his oath on the barons" (Potter, 13).

According to Henry of Huntingdon, Stephen, "…disregarding his oath of fealty to King Henry's daughter, tempted God by seizing the crown of England with the boldness and effrontery belonging to his character" (Chronicle, 262). Actually, Stephen counted not only on the support of the English clergy, one of whom was his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, but also of those Norman nobles who were unhappy with Matilda's marriage into the House of Anjou, old enemies to Norman political ambitions (Davies, 314).

Once in England, Stephen at first marched on Dover, but the garrison there, under command of Robert, Earl of Gloucester (and one of Henry's illegitimate sons), refused to allow him to entrance. Receiving the same reception at Canterbury, Stephen then made his way to London where he was more warmly met (Beeler 81). The Gesta Stephani noting that " (Stephen was) the man whom London, the capital of the whole kingdom, has received without opposition" (Potter, 13).

When he later marched to Winchester, in effect taking control of the royal treasury of England, Stephen suddenly found himself in a very good political position, in control of the purse. Claiming that Henry had in fact, actually named Stephen as his heir on his deathbed, the young nobleman was duly crowned in London by William, archbishop of Canterbury on December, 22, 1135 (Beeler, 82).

One by one, the nobles and clergy who had sworn fealty to Matilda switched their allegiance. It was a simple enough choice to make for many of the practical minded Anglo-Normans. Stephen was there, backed by an army and the treasury, while Matilda was in Normandy, unable to gather her own forces together to challenge the self-proclaimed new King of England.

Some did not give in so quickly. Revolts against Stephen's rule apparently occurred in Wales, which, according to the Gesta, "…breeds men of an animal type, naturally swift-footed, accustomed to war, volatile always in breaking their word…they made hostile raids in various directions, they cleared the villages by plunder, fire and sword, burnt the houses, slaughtered the men", and where Stephen's brother, Baldwin had to take an army to put the rebellion down as well as insurgencies around London (Chronicle, 264).

King David of Scotland, ostensibly in support of his niece, Matilda, invaded northern England in 1136, only to meet with Stephen, backed by an army of his followers. David refused to swear fealty to Stephen, but his son, Prince Henry did, receiving the earldom of Huntingdon for his pledge (Chronicle, 264).

After Easter, more revolts broke out across England, but Stephen successfully dealt with each of them in turn, allowing himself a period of relative peace up until the third year of his reign, the fateful year of 1138. From that point on, Stephen's kingship would be bitterly contested and peace would be but a memory.

David I had become king of Scotland in 1124, in his early forties, when his brother, King Alexander had died. David too had been a younger son, like Stephen, without much prospect of prosperity, much less kingship, but fortune smiled on him. David had also spent many years of his young life at the court of Henry I.

This had brought him into daily contact with many of the nobles of the court, an important consideration in his future plans. Upon his marriage in 1113 to the daughter of Waltheof, the Saxon earl of Northumbria, the Scottish nobleman found himself quite powerful in respect to land holdings and political influence.

In an interesting bit of diplomacy, David somehow convinced his brother, King Alexander, to let him rule the areas of Cumbria, Strathclyde and sections of Lothian. Once crowned king of the Scots, David is credited with bringing the feudal system to Scotland, as well as Anglo-Norman ideas and culture…though not without resistance from the Celtic Scots.

In fact, a rebellion broke out in 1130 as Celtic forces rose in revolt, resulting in the rebels being soundly defeated at North Esk, and continuing even after until the leader of the revolt was betrayed by his own men and finally captured by David (Lang, 103). The earldom of Moray was consequently forfeited to the crown and David parceled the lands out to his loyal followers, attracting Anglo-Norman knights and adventurers to his kingdom (Lang. 103). David's political ambitions and military skill were soon to be put to the test as the Scots prepared to invade northern England, not for the quick but fleeting rewards of raiding, but in a quest for land to further add to Scotland's holdings.

Stephen's seizure of the English throne afforded David the necessary excuse to wage a just war against his southern neighbor. According to the Gesta Stephani, David had "…bound himself with an oath that on King Henry's death he would recognize on one as his successor except his daughter or her heir, he was greatly vexed that Stephen had come to take the tiller of the kingdom of the English" (Potter, 53). Whether this was but an excuse for the invasions of 1138 or an example of David's actual moral fortitude, are both arguable points. The invasions, however, were a very real threat to northern England.

In January, 1138, David's nephew, William Fitz-Duncan laid siege to the border town of Wark, a holding of the Norman noble Walter l'Espec (Nicholl, 218). Ostensibly, David felt that northern England may be ripe for revolt, but Stephen quickly pre-empted any such endeavor as he moved north in early February. It did not help that the Scots were brutal with the English. As the Gesta notes, "So King David…summoned all to arms, and giving them free license he commanded them to commit against the English, without pity, the most savage and cruel deeds he could invent" (Potter, 55). How much of this is propaganda and rhetoric is impossible to say, but reports support the enmity and violence done by the invaders.

Stephen's move north was not just to relieve the siege of Wark, but to check on the loyalties of his northern nobles and raid southern Scotland as well, showing his royal power and military abilities to one and all (Nicholl, 219). The Scots sought to bring the English to battle on the northern bank of the Tweed River, but Stephen would not be drawn into such a poor position and instead marched through the lowlands, devastating the country as he went before finally running low on supplies (Beeler, 85).

After this, Stephen withdrew his army back to Northampton to meet with his nobles, allowing David a second chance at invasion. According to Hollinshed's Chronicle, Matilda's half-brother, the Earl of Gloucester, had taken advantage of the King's absence to rise in open rebellion along with other nobles, causing Stephen to become "…marvelously vexed…" (83). The Scots wasted little time, crossing the border again in mid-April, capturing the Bishop of Durham's castle at Norham (Beeler, 85). This convinced at least one powerful northern noble, Eustace fitz-John, to join the Scots, turning over his castles to them (Nicholl, 220). Here again, we have a situation where a powerful army proved an expedient reason to switch loyalties from one faction to the other. Matilda had supporters, many of them sitting by, simply awaiting a reason or an excuse to declare for her.

In May of 1138, Wark still remained in English hands. In fact, David was embarrassed when a sortie by the garrison managed to capture a Scottish supply train as it rode past the town (Nicholl, 220). The Scots did have some good news, however, when a force of Scots and allied Galwegians, led by King David's nephew, Fitz-Duncan, defeated an Anglo-Norman force at Clitharoe on June 10th (Beeler, 85). But David's hopes of any chance of an uprising by the English in the north in support of him was quashed by the depravations done by the invading Scots.

By July, the rebel Earl of Gloucester again raised the banner of rebellion in support for Matilda in England and David saw his chance once more, with King Stephen being involved in a growing civil war at home (Hollinshed, 83). Gathering his largest following yet, a reported 26,000 men - more likely 12-14,000 - David marched south toward Durham, aiming to lay siege to it and then move on into Yorkshire (Nicholl, 221). His army, concentrating in late July, was made up of the Gaelic Highland and Galwegian clans, lowlander spearmen, Islemen, Anglo-Norman rebels, sons of English families desiring to return to their homeland after self-imposed exile, and Eadgar Atheling, the Saxon exiled heir to the English throne (Oman, 391, Heath, 58).

Leaving the rebel Anglo-Norman Eustace fitz-John in charge of the continuing siege of Wark, the Scottish army surged south (Beeler, 85). Many northern nobles were forced to make a choice between loyalty and pragmatism. If they supported the wrong side, they would lose their land as well as their titles and, at the moment, Stephen's power seemed to be descending (Nicholl, 222). Henry of Huntingdon noted that Norman knights made up an important part of David's army, no doubt proving that the proximity of the Scottish king and his army swayed many to join what they perceived as the winning side (Hollister, Norman, 229-30).

It fell to the aging Archbishop Thurstan of York to rally the Anglo-Normans in opposition to the Scots. At age 68, Thurstan, limited to riding in a litter, rallied the forces to fight the Scots. He was greatly aided by the Scots themselves. As Henry of Huntingdon related, the Scots "…ripped open pregnant women, tossed children on the points of their spears, butchered priests at the altars, and, cutting off the heads from the images on crucifixes, placed them on the bodies of the slain…." (Chronicle, 266). According to a more recent writer, "The Scottish fury aroused the nearest thing to national resistance that 12th century England saw - the old fighting spirit of the Anglo-Scandinavian north" (Cronne, 36).

Thurstan sought to go one further. He would wage not just a military war of national defense, but a holy war against the hated ancient enemy. By appealing to not only their loyalty and honor, but to their faith in God to right the wrongs brought about by the Scots upon the Church and its clergymen, Thurstan asked his countrymen to vow not to be bested by the "utter savages" from the north, those "breechless and barbarous Scots" (Nicholl 222-223).

One reference made by a monastic historian in the Chronicle of Man and the Sundries, describes the Galwegians, who made up a good portion of the Scots army. "That detestable army, more atrocious than pagans, reverencing neither God nor man, plundered the whole province of Northumberland, destroyed villages, burned towns, churches, and houses. They spared neither age nor sex, murdering infants in their cradles and other innocents at the breasts, with the mothers themselves, thrusting them through with their lances, or the points of their swords, and glutting themselves with the misery they inflicted" (Manx Soc. Vol. 22, pg. 60). As can readily be seen, the Scots certainly did their best to rally the north in response to their invasion. But what forces did the northerners have to fight with?

The Sheriff of Yorkshire, Walter l'Espec, described as a huge man, with black hair and a flowing beard, "…his eyes large and penetrating", called out the English militia, or levy fyrd of Derby and Nottingham (Nicholl, 226, Oman, 391). Though fairly numerous, these levy foot were of uncertain value, especially when fighting the ravaging Scots, who were constantly at war with England or their neighboring clans. In any event, large numbers of them did flock to the support of their Archbishop and sheriff, eager to avenge wrongs done to family and friends by the hated Galwegians (Lang, 104).

Other nobles also joined in the defense of the north, including William Peuerell of Nottingham as well as Robert Bruce, William de Percy, Walter and Gilbert de Lacy along with Ralph, the Bishop of Durham (Beeler, 85; Hollinshed, 83-4). Although involved with own problems in the south, Stephen managed to send a small force north to assist the northerners in their battle. Bernard de Balloil entered York with a body of knights in time to join in the plans being made to counter the Scottish invasion (Beeler, 86).

To add to the ecclesiastical spirit of the 'holy war', Thurstan and Ralph had a silver casket, carrying consecrated host, placed in a wagon, that had a mast from which flew the banners of St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley and St. Wilfred of Ripon (Delbruck, 401). This would be the rallying point of the English army, an object of religious significance that could not in any true Christian heart be allowed to be lost to the enemy. The English levies along with the nobles and their retinues of knights mustered at York and by mid-August had determined to meet the Scots in open battle, a strategy urged by Thurstan (Beeler, 87; Oman, 391). Though no official commander-in-chief was named, Ralph of Durham found himself selected as spiritual leader when Thurstan could not undertake the physical trials necessary to conduct a rigorous military campaign. William de Aumale and Walter l'Espec, being the most influential nobles present, gravitated to the military command of the army (Beeler, 87). The English army began marching from north from York to Thirsk, astride the Scottish line of advance and emissaries were sent ahead to meet with the Scots to negotiate. What the English leaders expected from this is uncertain, but it did buy time for reinforcements from Derby and Nottingham to arrive along with 124 knights and their retinues, swelling the English ranks (Beeler, 87). Bernard de Balloil and Robert Bruce were the emissaries, and they met with David, who rejected their 'logic' that he was actually leading the enemies of his people, the Galwegians, against his real allies and friends, the Anglo-Normans (Lang, 105). They also offered the earldom Northumbria to David's son, Prince Henry, but David refused them (Appleby, 53). William fitz-Duncan reportedly broke off the talks at that point and both English nobles renounced their friendship to David and returned to their army (Lang, 105). On August 21, English scouts brought word that the Scottish army was advancing down the Great North Road toward them, resulting in a plan to steal a night march on the Scots and attack them in a surprise assault at dawn on the 22nd. Advance elements of the Scottish army, perhaps having the same thoughts, blundered into the English army in the early morning fog, causing both forces to immediately fall into some kind of battle order, not easy in the best of situations, on two low hills, approximately 600 yards apart (Beeler, 88).

William de Aumale formed his army up on a low hill, with the wagon carrying the standards positioned in the very middle of his forces. This provided a convenient point to rally around and, according to Richard of Hexham, "In doing this their hope was that our Lord Jesus Christ…might be their leader in the contest. They also provided for their men a certain and conspicuous rally-point" (Beeler, 88). The knights and retainers were then mostly ordered to dismount, their horses being sent to the rear along with a few hundred men who remained mounted providing a mobile reserve.

As Richard continues, "The greater part of the knights…became foot soldiers, a chosen body of whom, interspersed with archers, were arranged in the front rank" of the English army (Beeler, 89). The reason Richard of Hexham gives for dismounting the knights was so that the horses would not be panicked by the noise and shouting of the Scots (Appleby, 53). Aelred, abbot of Rievaulx, noted that the reason the English dismounted and removed their horses was so "That nobody could ride away" (Lang, 105), while the noted historian, C. Warren Hollister wrote that "Northallerton was almost Hastings in reverse", where the Saxon influence on the tactics of the Normans, i.e, dismounting in a static defense, could now be used along with archer fire to disrupt and thwart an enemy attack (Hollister, Norman, 287).

As the English army formed into their battle lines, the dismounted knights were placed in the front ranks, with the levies, both bow and spear-armed, placed behind them (Oman, 392). As Aelred noted, "The most vigorous knights (were) placed on the front line, so inserted spearmen and archers that, protected by the arms of the knights…shields were joined to shields" (Delbruck, 425). A number of knights along with the leaders, de Aumale and l'Espec, were stationed around the wagon bearing the standards as protection in case the Scots did manage to break through on the highest point of the hill they occupied.

There is an interesting anecdote about the battle. According to one source. Thurstan had sent some of the English with insturments, called petronces into caves underneath the field of battle. These intruments produced such a fearful noise that David, sending herds of animals against the English to break up their ranks, instead found these same beasts turning in panic and disrupting his own lines (Nicholl, 227). Since none of the other sources mention this, it is probably just a bit of folklore, though nothing can be totally discounted!

Ralph, as spiritual leader of the English, speaking for Thurstan, then absolved any who fell in this battle from their earthly sins (Nicholl, 225), as Pope Urban had absolved the Crusaders who marched to Jerusalem forty years before. He than spoke to the dismounted knights, formed up in the front of the army. "Normans…no one ever withstood you…. (The Scots) have neither military skill, nor order in fighting, nor self command. There is, therefore, no reason to fear. They do not cover themselves with armor…(while) your head is covered with the helmet, your breast with a coat of mail, your legs with greaves, and your whole body with a shield….What have we to fear in attacking the naked bodies of men who know not the use of armor? Is it their numbers? Numbers, without discipline, (hinder) success in the attack….But I close…as I perceive them rushing on, and I am delighted they are advancing in disorder" (Chronicle, 268-269).

Indeed, David's impetuous Galwegian allies were already surging through the dissipating morning mists, howling their war cries. The Scottish king had formulated a different plan of battle, but it had quickly gone awry. Initially, David desired to emulate the Norman tactics of William the Conqueror at Hastings, using his small number of archers to open gaps in the English ranks through which his knights would ride, destroying the English order and routing the uneasy levies (Oman, 392). He also may have given thought to dismounting his own knights, using them with his archers to open a hole in the English ranks through which the Galwegians and Highlanders would attack (Beeler, 90).

Needless to say the battle plan could not be implemented as the Galwegians refused to be left in the rear, away from the 'honor' of leading the attack (Beeler, 90). One chieftain proclaimed "Why trust..to the goodwill of these Frenchmen (the knights)? None of them, for all his mail, will go so far to the front as I, who fight unarmoured in today's battle" (Oman 392). Demanding that armor was "an impediment rather than a protection", and that they, not the knights, had won at the Battle at Clitharoe, they were entitled to lead the attack (Lang, 105-6). A Anglo-Norman rebel knight challenged the Galwegian for these statements and David, hoping to keep his army from self-destructing and knowing the fierce resolve of Donald and Ulgerich, the Galwegian chieftains, reluctantly ascented to their demands (Heath, 58)

As the Scottish army formed up into its respective divisions, David assigned his various leaders their commands. He would remain with the center and the reserves, flying his banner, the Dragon Standard of Wessex (Lang 106). His son, Prince Henry, would command the heavy cavalry, numbering only 200 men according to Florence of Worcester, as well as most of the archers (Beeler, 91). Fitz-Duncan would ostensibly be in command of the first lines of Galwegians, though they would obey their own local leaders before an Anglo-Norman noble.

As the Galwegians charged, David hoped they would at least clear some lanes through which his impetuous, frenzied troops could force their way into the enemy lines. At the first clash, the Galwegian "men of Lothian" attacked the English lines "with a cloud of darts (javelins) and their long spears", while the English "archers mingled with the knights, pierced the unarmored Scots with a cloud of arrows" (Chronicle, 269). The Scots did, in fact, cause the English levies to waver, but the dismounted Anglo-Norman knights held their ranks, as the English archers fired volleys of arrows into the struggling Galwegians, Aelred noting that the unarmored Scots "(looked) like hedgehogs with the shafts still sticking in their bodies" (Oman 393).

Robert Bruce, apparently visible to the Scots where he stood in the English array, was loudly taunted as a traitor by David's knights (Oman 393). The Galwegians charged in once more, this time pushing back the English lines back, causing consternation in their ranks, but once again the dismounted knights held, cutting down the unarmored Galwegians.

Curiously, the bulk of the Scottish army apparently did little but sit and watch as their allies were slowly cut to pieces. One commander saw his chance to make a difference, however. Prince Henry, timing his attack, suddenly ordered his 200 heavy cavalry and the infantry under his command to attack the English left flank (Oman, 393). The cavalry very quickly outstripped their foot supports and smashed into the English lines. Fierce fighting found the heavy cavalry cutting right through the English ranks, but losing much of their strength in the furious hand-to-hand combat (Beeler, 92).

The knights managed to cut their way right through the English army, but instead of heading toward the standards and trying to capture them, which would probably have caused a major morale failure amongst the thousands of English levies, Henry led his attack against the English horse, behind the army, fully expecting his foot supports to follow him into the battle and complete his rout of the English left flank (Oman, 394). Unfortunately for the Scots, the English dismounted knights had closed their ranks back up again as soon as the enemy heavy cavalry had broken through and stopped the Scottish foot cold. Henry, instead of turning his remaining cavalry and hitting the wavering English army in the rear, led his knights against the Anglo-Norman mounted reserve, chasing off the horses of the dismounted knights, but letting his small force be destroyed in the process (Lang, 106). This is a prime example of an early knightly code of fighting a 'worthy opponent' when one was available, rather than doing the militarily sound alternative in order to win the battle.

At this point, the battle was still anyone's to win. As Prince Henry's knights fought and died, an Englishmen picked up a head from the bloody ground and proclaimed it to be King David's (Lang, 106). A groan went up from the Scottish ranks as the rumor spread, forcing David to ride out to the front and show himself to his men. Henry of Huntingdon notes that "then the chief of the (Galwegians) fell, pierced by an arrow, and all his followers were put to flight" (Chronicle, 269).

David, seeing the Galwegians streaming from the field, ordered his reserves into action, dismounting to lead the attack on foot, but this did nothing to rally the faltering Scottish morale as the infectious rout of the Galwegians spread to the other clans and contingents (Oman, 394). As the highlanders watched their allies flee past them, they turned and joined in the rout. The king drew his remaining forces and bodyguard together and fell back to the hill where they had started the battle from less than an hour previously. He managed to rally enough of his men around his banner to dissuade the English from attacking his strong position (Oman, 394).

After another hour or two of desultory combat, King David, fearing his son was dead, began to withdraw his remaining men back toward Scotland as the jubilant English praised God and proceeded to hunt down wounded and straggling Scots.

The battle was a bitter loss for the Scots. Contemporary estimates put the army losses at 10-12,000 Scottish dead, a hugely inflated number (Hollinshed, 85). As the Scots were able to maintain their operations in the north of England even after their losses, perhaps a more realistic estimate would be 1,500 Galwegians, and 1,500-3,000 others killed or, if very unlucky, captured. English losses were perhaps 500-1,000 in total. The Scottish retreat from the battle was not without its own drama, as the lowlanders and highlanders fought against each other as they fled the field, each accusing the other of being traitors and cowards (Oman, 396).

Of the heavy cavalry, the Scots had a total of 19 left with Prince Henry, miraculously escaping the English, thanks to his dispersal of the English horses (Lang, 106). The prince actually joined the English, along with his surviving men, mingling in with them until making their escape and rejoining King David three days later (Lang, 106).

As with many battles of the Medieval period, the results were not what one would expect. In 1139, the Treaty of Durham found King Stephen ceding Northumbria to David and recognizing the sovereign rights of Scotland, in order to settle the political situation in the north. He had his hands full with Matilda's growing support in England, a period that would become known as The Anarchy, giving some idea of it's severity and affect on the psyche of the chroniclers of the time. King David outlived his son Prince Henry by a year, dying peaceably fifteen years after the battle of The Standard. King Stephen died a year later, in 1154, leaving the throne of England to Matilda's eldest son, King Henry II.

Bibliography

Note: an edited version of this article appeared in Military Heritage Magazine.