head gear.

[MacGumerait]

I was going to agree that any hat is appropriate with a kilt until I remembered this hat.



Why do I think "put the toilet seat down" every time I see that hat? I understand that the UK has different styles this just does not do it for me.

From the look on her face and her eyes , I think it's her socially acceptable substitute for a tin foil hat , if you know what I mean .

[Father Bill]

You know, I think the hat is a marvellous joke as well as a delightful attempt at modern style... but it you look at the gentleman's topper behind her and remove your knowledge of its historical and correct use, is it really any more sensible?

[Mike_Oettle]

Topper? Dat’s a bicorne!

[Father Bill]

Doesn't go on his bottom! Goes on his top.

[Friday]

Off topic

... but it you look at the gentleman's topper behind her and remove your knowledge of its historical and correct use, is it really any more sensible?

I think it would be interesting to learn what was going through the mind of the military when it goes to uniform, especially dress uniform, choices. They probably made more sense at the time.

Now back to our regularly schedule topic.

[gordontaos]

I started out three years ago only wearing a traditional balmoral when kilted.
I then slowly began to realize that the kilt,(as I wear it), is a fine piece of clothing, and not a uniform.

I slowly began to branch out to find my own level of comfort and style. First by wearing my favorite hiking boots (as the occasion required), then by wearing a Bolo tie rather than a conventional tie, and this year have added big western hats rather than my balmoral, (I had gotten way to many sunburns).

Sometimes someone will say something about my choice of headgear, and I simply explain that I am not wearing a uniform, but clothing that makes sense in my geographic area.

[Friday]

. . . and I simply explain that I am not wearing a uniform, but clothing that makes sense in my geographic area.

Don't let the kilt fashion police hear this, I believe this is a flogging offense.

[Braw Cathairneach]

What sort of headgear would be appropriate with a black watch tartan?

I have a knitted bonnet, with bearskin flash and cockade, I'll probably end up wearing most of the time.

but what sort of modern headgear would be used in summer? in winter?

Not sure I would want to wear a ball cap to keep the sun off my head.

Kon

A loose knit Kangol with clan badge front and center is daily wear for me in triple-digit plus heat here in the Mojave when I’m wearing trousers. Complements on my cover are received almost daily. A kilt-kop busted me once in a diner for wearing a clan badge. He appeared to have a chip on his shoulder from the minute he entered. His angst only served to amuse me which only further aggravated him. I’ll be wearing the Kangol with the kilt when the temperatures cool off to double digits, but may remove the clan badge as overkill while donning the kilt. The Mojave is a long way from 55°28'37"N

[Tobus]

I think it would be interesting to learn what was going through the mind of the military when it goes to uniform, especially dress uniform, choices. They probably made more sense at the time.

Now back to our regularly schedule topic.

I wouldn't try to put too much logical thought into it. Military uniforms from centuries past had a few 'sensible' utilitarian aspects, but in large part were meant for showmanship and effect, not for maximizing one's ability to fight.

For example, spats were very utilitarian. They protect your feet and legs while marching or fighting. Even when gussied up in white (which is a terrible colour for keeping clean and sharp-looking in the field), it still retains its functionality.

But other parts of fighting uniforms, which were later relegated to dress uniforms, didn't have much utility. Like feather bonnets. Their only advantage was to make your side look taller and meaner. But the idea of fighting in one just seems absurd by today's standards. I sometimes wonder how many brave Scots lost their lives during hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield because they were hampered by wearing feather bonnets. Even when the Scottish regiments were wearing great kilts, one has to wonder how awkward it was to fight with all that extra cloth swinging around and tangling up. As I understand it (and I admit I could be wrong, if anyone cares to correct me), the original clansmen Highlanders were known to drop their belted plaids before going into battle so they could fight unencumbered. But when these belted plaids became part of a uniform in the British army, they fought with them on. And I have to believe this was detrimental to their ability to fight, even though they seem to have done very well in the fighting department.

The late 1700s and 1800s saw some pretty ridiculous military uniform choices, especially in the realm of headwear. In many cases, certain hats were intended to provide quick identification on the battlefield, since the tops of peoples' heads are the thing you're going to see the most of during a battle. But I'm sure it also had a lot to do with showmanship and fashion, for lack of a better word. In those days, looking splendid was very important. Especially to the officers, for whom their rank was a measure of their financial standing and their socio-political place in society. Instead of concerning themselves solely with fighting and winning battles, they spent a lot of time, money, and effort in looking grandiose.

It would be very interesting to see a dissertation on this subject by one of our historians. I know there are several people here who have memorized all the particulars of the regiments (from colours to minor differences between their uniforms). But it would be interesting to hear the hows and whys of certain parts of the uniforms.

[macwilkin]

Yes, many aspects of historical military uniforms were designed for "effect", but you're judging the past on today's standards. I used to hear this a lot at the battlefield where I worked from visitors who didn't understand why Civil War soldiers "stood straight up & got shot when the Americans hid behind the rocks and trees in the Revolution". The answer of course was that Washington's Army, with a few exceptions, also adopted linear tactics like their British adveraries.

It should be pointed out the tactics of the day were designed around the weaponry, namely muzzle-loading muskets. While loading a musket from the prone or kneeling position can be done, it does diminish the rate of fire compared to simply standing and going through the 9-12 steps of firing. Soldiers were not taught be individual fighting men, but part of a larger unit -- a smoothbore musket has an effective range of about 100-150 yards. Smoothbore ammunition does not have the direction and purpose of a conical bullet, so infantrymen were massed together and essentially formed into human shotguns to increase the amount of casualities on the enemy.

Tall caps and hats, brightly-coloured uniforms and even fixed bayonets were an important part of the psychological aspects of the battlefield, as as pipers and pipe music were supposed to be a tool of intimidation.

Also remember that soldiers have always practiced "field expedient" measures when it comes uniforms. As uniforms (made by the lowest bidder usually) fall apart, there are numerous references in history of soldiers purchasing or even steeling replacement pieces of kit, including civilian items.

There is an excellent (but expensive) book by Thomas Abler entitled Hinterland Warriors and Military Dress: European Empires and Exotic Uniforms (Berg Pub., 1999) which deals with this subject. Yes, period uniforms do seem silly in our 21st century eyes, but they were a reaction to the enviroment they were created from. And lest we think we no longer make such mistakes:

http://now.msn.com/army-scraps-eye-c...-camo-uniforms

T.

I wouldn't try to put too much logical thought into it. Military uniforms from centuries past had a few 'sensible' utilitarian aspects, but in large part were meant for showmanship and effect, not for maximizing one's ability to fight.

For example, spats were very utilitarian. They protect your feet and legs while marching or fighting. Even when gussied up in white (which is a terrible colour for keeping clean and sharp-looking in the field), it still retains its functionality.

But other parts of fighting uniforms, which were later relegated to dress uniforms, didn't have much utility. Like feather bonnets. Their only advantage was to make your side look taller and meaner. But the idea of fighting in one just seems absurd by today's standards. I sometimes wonder how many brave Scots lost their lives during hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield because they were hampered by wearing feather bonnets. Even when the Scottish regiments were wearing great kilts, one has to wonder how awkward it was to fight with all that extra cloth swinging around and tangling up. As I understand it (and I admit I could be wrong, if anyone cares to correct me), the original clansmen Highlanders were known to drop their belted plaids before going into battle so they could fight unencumbered. But when these belted plaids became part of a uniform in the British army, they fought with them on. And I have to believe this was detrimental to their ability to fight, even though they seem to have done very well in the fighting department.

The late 1700s and 1800s saw some pretty ridiculous military uniform choices, especially in the realm of headwear. In many cases, certain hats were intended to provide quick identification on the battlefield, since the tops of peoples' heads are the thing you're going to see the most of during a battle. But I'm sure it also had a lot to do with showmanship and fashion, for lack of a better word. In those days, looking splendid was very important. Especially to the officers, for whom their rank was a measure of their financial standing and their socio-political place in society. Instead of concerning themselves solely with fighting and winning battles, they spent a lot of time, money, and effort in looking grandiose.

It would be very interesting to see a dissertation on this subject by one of our historians. I know there are several people here who have memorized all the particulars of the regiments (from colours to minor differences between their uniforms). But it would be interesting to hear the hows and whys of certain parts of the uniforms.