Sporran Origins!

[James]

In 1514 The Flemish artist Albrecht Durer did two engavings:-

The first of a bagpiper showed the piper wearing a belted tunic over 'leggings' and with a decorative pouch worn in today's conventional sporran position.

The other of two peasants dancing shows the women wearing a pouch similar to the modern side sporran low on her right hip.

All suggestive that in the pre-pocket era it was normal to wear some sort of pouch: albeit where convenient to the wearer.

Later it was normal in the 18thC-ce for soldiers to wear their ammunition pouch front and centre of their belt: allowing easy access to their ammunition. However clear of their other military impedimenta such as a sword/bayonet etc.

This all suggests that the conventonal placing of the sporran is due to two factors:-

First the heavily armed highlander-for they were renowned for being over armed needed to wear it in a position where it would not get mixed up with/impede use of such things as claybeg, dirk, dags.

Second that the Victorians with their love of uniformity and military precision decreed that it should be worn in the present position.

As an aside, it is interesting to note how often in military photographs circa the Boer War and WW1, the sporran was not worn.

James

[Graham]

Very interesting James, I love the historical stuff that is the hallmark of your posts.

[macwilkin]

As an aside, it is interesting to note how often in military photographs circa the Boer War and WW1, the sporran was not worn.

And as an aside to the aside, the kilt apron, the piece of kahki-coloured canvas that was worn over the apron of the kilt for camoflauge, had a "built-in" sporran or pouch to allow the apron to hang straight. In one of my books I have a great picture of highlanders in the Boer War wearing kilt aprons and Australian-style slouch hats! By WWI a back apron was introduced for the pleats of the kilt to further conceal the tartan, which presented a target to Boer snipers when the "jocks" were in a prone position!

I've also seen pictures of the Seaforth Highlanders in WWI wearing gas-mask haversacks for sporrans.

Cheers,

Todd

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Periodically you see those kilt aprons up for sale on ebay. I have one that I wear when I'm cleaning or doing other "dirty-work" around the museum.

People usually get a kick out of seeing me in it. Something about this big manly man in a skirt, wearing an apron, sweeping and dusting I guess.... lol...

BTW, if you are ever bidding for one of those on Ebay, I don't know how they size the darn things, but I got a Medium. At 6'3" with a 38" waist, it fits me just perfect and completely covers the front apron of my kilt.

Aye,
Matt

[Doc Hudson]

James are you certain about placement of the cartridge boxes?

The ones I'm familiar with were made to be worn on the right hip.

In fact, most of the pre-Napoleonic Era cartridge boxes I'm familiar with were suspended not from the waist belt, but from a cross belt. In fact, the crossing belts,( baldricks, bandoleros, straps whatever you want to call them) for the cartridge box and the bayonet scabbard used by British soldiers made perfect aiming points for Colonial snipers during the American Revolution

[macwilkin]

James are you certain about placement of the cartridge boxes?

The ones I'm familiar with were made to be worn on the right hip.

In fact, most of the pre-Napoleonic Era cartridge boxes I'm familiar with were suspended not from the waist belt, but from a cross belt. In fact, the crossing belts,( baldricks, bandoleros, straps whatever you want to call them) for the cartridge box and the bayonet scabbard used by British soldiers made perfect aiming points for Colonial snipers during the American Revolution

Doc, there is such a thing as the "belly box" that was worn on a waistbelt and positioned in a similar position as a sporran essentially. One unit that used them that comes to mind is the US Regiment of Riflemen in the War of 1812. Even in the Civil War, some soldiers wore their cartridge boxes on their waistbelts and would adjust them to help them load quicker -- there is a relatively new book about cartridge boxes in the Civil War that the Wilson's Creek library has that says this was fairly common.

Also, I should point out the "myth" of the American rifleman or sharpshooter in the Revolution -- we dealt with that quite a bit at the battlefield, as visitors could not understand why Civil War armies used linear tactics, when the Americans in the Revolution "hid behind the rocks & trees and shot the stupid British marching in lines" -- in fact, George Washington wanted the American army to be a "European" style army with proper discipline & tactics, because he had seen how unreliable colonial militia were, and knew they would be no match for discplined regulars like the British Army. Rifles were also slower to load and would foul much easier, thereby decreasing the rate of fire. There were also no bayonet lugs on rifles. Whilst some riflemen were used in the Revolution, the majority of colonial soldiers were "heavy infantry".

Sorry...that's the ranger coming out in me...back to kilts! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Todd

[bubba]

During the Revolution riflemen were most likely to be assigned specific targets because of the better accuracy at longer range. They generally weren't involved in the general volly. Once the armies actually engaged they were most often pulled back due to the slower rate of fire and problems loading due to fouling.

[Doc Hudson]

Also, I should point out the "myth" of the American rifleman or sharpshooter in the Revolution -- we dealt with that quite a bit at the battlefield, as visitors could not understand why Civil War armies used linear tactics, when the Americans in the Revolution "hid behind the rocks & trees and shot the stupid British marching in lines" -- in fact, George Washington wanted the American army to be a "European" style army with proper discipline & tactics, because he had seen how unreliable colonial militia were, and knew they would be no match for discplined regulars like the British Army. Rifles were also slower to load and would foul much easier, thereby decreasing the rate of fire. There were also no bayonet lugs on rifles. Whilst some riflemen were used in the Revolution, the majority of colonial soldiers were "heavy infantry".

Sorry...that's the ranger coming out in me...back to kilts! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Todd

Todd,

I'm not as familiar with War of 1812 uniforms as I am Revolutionary and War Between the States uniforms, so I'll take your word on that with no arguement.

I know the Continental Line used the same crossed belts as the British. Some regiments might have used "belly boxes" but I've never seen examples. As for Cartridge Boxes being worn in front during the War Between the States, lets just say that no one paid much attention to uniform regulation when the minie balls were whistling about the ears, one twisted things aroung were they were easiest to reach. However, on parade and for inspection, I believe the cartridge box was worn on the right hip with the cap box just in front.

I am not falling victim to the "myth" of the American Rifleman. I am quite aware of the shortcomings of the muzzle-loading rifle as a military weapon in the 18th Century, and even in the 19th Century. IIRC, Dan Morgan's Virginia Rifle Regiment was issued with "folding spears" in a effort to overcome the lack of bayonets.

I am also well aware of the shortcomings of Militia facing British Regulars, did militia win any major battle against Regulars other than Lexington-Concord and King's Mountain?

However, the effects of marksmanship should not be totally discounted. Even a well made musket can be made fairly accurate out to 60 yards, and pipe-clayed cross belts make for a perfect aiming point, especially when you can see the whites of their eyes.

We Americans should all thank God for good old von Stueben. That stubborn, profane old Prussian forged a ragged collection of ragged undisciplined militia into soldiers of the Continental Line. We ought to drop some other holiday and establish a von Stueben Day in his honor.

As for linear tactics, I suppose you tell them that they were used during the WBTS because they'd been used during the Napoleonic Wars and all the commanders were trained using Napoleonic Tactics. They worked well enough for a smooth-bore with a 100 yard effective range, but with a minie ball firing rifle-musket with a range of 600 or more, they were pretty suicidal, we'll leave improvements in artillery out of this round.

[macwilkin]

Well said, Doc...I won't continue the discussion, since it's "off-topic", but I only wish that the majority of visitors to the battlefield had your knowledge! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Todd

[MACKAY]

[/quote] Even a well made musket can be made fairly accurate out to 60 yards, and pipe-clayed cross belts make for a perfect aiming point, especially when you can see the whites of their eyes. [quote]

I know we are getting off topic, but it is interesting to note that the old saying from Bunker Hill was not the oft quoted "Don't fire until you see the WHITES of their eyes!” but rater "Don't fire until you see the COLOR of their eyes!". This was of course due to the limited amount of powder and ball available that day to the militia, and after the first few volleys the militia at Bunker Hill were soundly defeated as they quickly ran out of powder and the British Regulars countered with a vicious bayonet attack.

Okay .. just more totally useless information dumped from the memory bank to make more room for more useless information.

Brian Mackay