The Clan Gunn - Clan Keith battle
Part One
The are a lot of bits about coroner Gunn's story which don't stand up to close examination; for an example note the following account. It concerns Earl Sigurd of Orkney (960 - 1014) in much earlier times than the Crowner...
Soon after Sigurd had undertaken the government of the country he, in conjunction with Thorfinson the King of Dublin, fitted out a large fleet with which they crossed over and subdued Caithness, along Sutherland, East Ross and a part of Morayshire. When the Scotch and Orcadian forces came in sight of each other a short truce was agreed upon and interview between the leaders arranged. The Earl Melbrigd and Jarl Sigurd were to retire to a convenient situation for the purpose of settling matters. It was stipulated that each Earl should attended by only forty men but Sigurd, ... mounted two men on each horse ... The Scotchmen were first at the place meeting and no sooner discovered the duplicity of Sigurd than they resolved to fight and die like men. The battle commenced and continued, marked desperation on both sides until after a series of hand to hand encounters the Scots were routed. As shewing the barbarity and gross which prevailed at that period we find it that Sigurd, in the pride of victory, gave orders each of his followers should carry at his saddle the head of a fallen foe. That of the Scots Earl, whose mouth protruded an extraordinary long tooth, was taken by Sigurd himself and when in the act of spurring his horse he was so severely wounded in the leg by this tooth that he soon became alarmingly ill and death speedily ... His followers buried him on the banks of the Ekkial or Orkell a river in Sutherlandshire.
Hand-book to the Orkney Islands 1868
Now the first leader to come up with the idea of putting two men on a horse to cheat at a battle was inventive although the idea ignores the whole issue of 'honour' which everyone was meant to have followed. It does, though, raise questions when a very similar story reappears as Gunn 'history' hundreds of years later in the Gunn - Keith big battle story.
Were the Gunns innocents abroad? Did they know anything about battle? If the coroner was as clever and important as is often suggested (and I don't think he was) then one would have expected, at the very least, a lookout to be posted. There wasn't. That is just so obviously something which should have been done it raises a question about the authenticity of the story. The Gunn - Keith 'battle' account is also just too close to the above Sigurd story ...
But coroner Gunn was of some importance - he was an officer of the law and major families (and the Keiths are of central importance in Sottish history) just don't go around killing offices of the law and it not be reported! It would have been too juicy a scandal for the Scottish aristocracy to ignore. I think the whole Gunn - Keith battle is extremely unlikely to have happened due to this key reason; as I say in my entry on Helen Gunn of Braemore -
The Keiths (the name is derived from the barony they held in East Lothian) being the Earls Marshall of Scotland ... note the title ‘Earl Marishal of Scotland’ was held by the Keith family until the 18th century. (Although the local Keiths - still the same family and it was part of the Earl Marishal estate - may have been a bit less important; the Earl Marishal may not have been there at the time...). Law and order was part of Scotland at the time. Even if the Highlands were a bit ‘wild west’ one suspects that killing locals ... was probably not accepted as normal aristocratic behaviour. It would have made the official papers and be well known given the importance of the Keiths in Scottish history, but it seems not to be visible... the lack of known consequence in official papers makes one suspect a myth.
The Keith family in a battle would have been in the mainstream news in Edinburgh. And it wasn't. This lack of being in the history texts is highly suggestive that the battle did not happen. In particular, the Keiths acting dishonourably in battle against the obscure Gunns would have been too important - too juicy a bit of gossip - for the Royal Court to ignore.
Another bit of Gunn history is far more likely to be a myth. What a surprise...
And if the event happened did it actually involve the Chief of the Keiths - or merely the Laird of Inverugie and Ackergill as stated in Alexander MacGregor's early account ? The Laird was a minor branch of the Keith family. (It's not the Chief of the Keiths - possible death dates do not match; see my booklet.)
(Macgregor, A. The Feuds of the Clans / Together with the History of the Feuds and Conflicts among the Clans in the Northern Parts of Scotland and in the Western Isles, from the Year MXXXI Unto MCDXIX. Stirling: Mackay, 1907. Print.)
*****
And don't forget that in the Orkneys in the 1100s Saint Magnus and his brother Haakon also had a very similar story attached to them - the brothers had fallen out and went to an island to do battle. Magnus bought the agreed two ships and his brother brought eight.
So, another cheating story. Did every family have one?
Part Two
The Gunn Keith 'Battle of St Tears' is critically analysed at http://ramscraigs.com/?p=444 where he writes
'In the well known story, several of the Gunn party at St. Tears survived, not the least of which is Henry Gunn who took revenge at castle Dirlot, and the Crowner’s oldest son James who claimed the chiefship after his father’s death. If the origin of family names, Robert Gunn also survived as did William Gunn and Sweyn Gunn. Come to think of it, quite a few of the Crowner’s sons seem to have survived St. Tears. If you are the Keiths, and you know that you outnumber your enemy 2:1, would you let any of them survive? You can count on the fact that they will be back in force to extract their revenge. In fact this cycle of attack and revenge been going on for decades. Are we to believe that the Keiths showed mercy to the Gunns at the exact moment when they held their doom in their gauntlets?
Simply put, a critical look at the story of St. Tears seems to indicate that the legend may not be the whole story...'
This is an excellent point; the common story of the St Tears battle just doesn't make sense as an historic account. But the story of it appeals to Clan Societies--note the Keith and Gunn Clan Societies treaty of 1978 to get over this very questionable historical possibility. Clan societies do seem to enjoy indulging in mythic (and / or near mythic) events. Wasn't there something more positive the Clan Gunn Society could have done in 1978 to commemorate or examine real events than create an olde worlde treaty ending non-existent feuds over questionable history?
See, as well, 'The Gunn Papers' The Northern Chronicle 15.2.1911 elsewhere on this site.
The are a lot of bits about coroner Gunn's story which don't stand up to close examination; for an example note the following account. It concerns Earl Sigurd of Orkney (960 - 1014) in much earlier times than the Crowner...
Soon after Sigurd had undertaken the government of the country he, in conjunction with Thorfinson the King of Dublin, fitted out a large fleet with which they crossed over and subdued Caithness, along Sutherland, East Ross and a part of Morayshire. When the Scotch and Orcadian forces came in sight of each other a short truce was agreed upon and interview between the leaders arranged. The Earl Melbrigd and Jarl Sigurd were to retire to a convenient situation for the purpose of settling matters. It was stipulated that each Earl should attended by only forty men but Sigurd, ... mounted two men on each horse ... The Scotchmen were first at the place meeting and no sooner discovered the duplicity of Sigurd than they resolved to fight and die like men. The battle commenced and continued, marked desperation on both sides until after a series of hand to hand encounters the Scots were routed. As shewing the barbarity and gross which prevailed at that period we find it that Sigurd, in the pride of victory, gave orders each of his followers should carry at his saddle the head of a fallen foe. That of the Scots Earl, whose mouth protruded an extraordinary long tooth, was taken by Sigurd himself and when in the act of spurring his horse he was so severely wounded in the leg by this tooth that he soon became alarmingly ill and death speedily ... His followers buried him on the banks of the Ekkial or Orkell a river in Sutherlandshire.
Hand-book to the Orkney Islands 1868
Now the first leader to come up with the idea of putting two men on a horse to cheat at a battle was inventive although the idea ignores the whole issue of 'honour' which everyone was meant to have followed. It does, though, raise questions when a very similar story reappears as Gunn 'history' hundreds of years later in the Gunn - Keith big battle story.
Were the Gunns innocents abroad? Did they know anything about battle? If the coroner was as clever and important as is often suggested (and I don't think he was) then one would have expected, at the very least, a lookout to be posted. There wasn't. That is just so obviously something which should have been done it raises a question about the authenticity of the story. The Gunn - Keith 'battle' account is also just too close to the above Sigurd story ...
But coroner Gunn was of some importance - he was an officer of the law and major families (and the Keiths are of central importance in Sottish history) just don't go around killing offices of the law and it not be reported! It would have been too juicy a scandal for the Scottish aristocracy to ignore. I think the whole Gunn - Keith battle is extremely unlikely to have happened due to this key reason; as I say in my entry on Helen Gunn of Braemore -
The Keiths (the name is derived from the barony they held in East Lothian) being the Earls Marshall of Scotland ... note the title ‘Earl Marishal of Scotland’ was held by the Keith family until the 18th century. (Although the local Keiths - still the same family and it was part of the Earl Marishal estate - may have been a bit less important; the Earl Marishal may not have been there at the time...). Law and order was part of Scotland at the time. Even if the Highlands were a bit ‘wild west’ one suspects that killing locals ... was probably not accepted as normal aristocratic behaviour. It would have made the official papers and be well known given the importance of the Keiths in Scottish history, but it seems not to be visible... the lack of known consequence in official papers makes one suspect a myth.
The Keith family in a battle would have been in the mainstream news in Edinburgh. And it wasn't. This lack of being in the history texts is highly suggestive that the battle did not happen. In particular, the Keiths acting dishonourably in battle against the obscure Gunns would have been too important - too juicy a bit of gossip - for the Royal Court to ignore.
Another bit of Gunn history is far more likely to be a myth. What a surprise...
And if the event happened did it actually involve the Chief of the Keiths - or merely the Laird of Inverugie and Ackergill as stated in Alexander MacGregor's early account ? The Laird was a minor branch of the Keith family. (It's not the Chief of the Keiths - possible death dates do not match; see my booklet.)
(Macgregor, A. The Feuds of the Clans / Together with the History of the Feuds and Conflicts among the Clans in the Northern Parts of Scotland and in the Western Isles, from the Year MXXXI Unto MCDXIX. Stirling: Mackay, 1907. Print.)
*****
And don't forget that in the Orkneys in the 1100s Saint Magnus and his brother Haakon also had a very similar story attached to them - the brothers had fallen out and went to an island to do battle. Magnus bought the agreed two ships and his brother brought eight.
So, another cheating story. Did every family have one?
Part Two
The Gunn Keith 'Battle of St Tears' is critically analysed at http://ramscraigs.com/?p=444 where he writes
'In the well known story, several of the Gunn party at St. Tears survived, not the least of which is Henry Gunn who took revenge at castle Dirlot, and the Crowner’s oldest son James who claimed the chiefship after his father’s death. If the origin of family names, Robert Gunn also survived as did William Gunn and Sweyn Gunn. Come to think of it, quite a few of the Crowner’s sons seem to have survived St. Tears. If you are the Keiths, and you know that you outnumber your enemy 2:1, would you let any of them survive? You can count on the fact that they will be back in force to extract their revenge. In fact this cycle of attack and revenge been going on for decades. Are we to believe that the Keiths showed mercy to the Gunns at the exact moment when they held their doom in their gauntlets?
Simply put, a critical look at the story of St. Tears seems to indicate that the legend may not be the whole story...'
This is an excellent point; the common story of the St Tears battle just doesn't make sense as an historic account. But the story of it appeals to Clan Societies--note the Keith and Gunn Clan Societies treaty of 1978 to get over this very questionable historical possibility. Clan societies do seem to enjoy indulging in mythic (and / or near mythic) events. Wasn't there something more positive the Clan Gunn Society could have done in 1978 to commemorate or examine real events than create an olde worlde treaty ending non-existent feuds over questionable history?
See, as well, 'The Gunn Papers' The Northern Chronicle 15.2.1911 elsewhere on this site.
