-
2nd December 15, 06:13 AM
#1
2009 Telegraph article re: no kilts at Bannockburn
Comrades,
I stumbled across this article from The Telegraph from 2009 and while I'm confident that this topic has been discussed on this forum, I wanted to risk re-posting information to share the link anyway for your reading interest. The author reports on research which suggests that kilts were not worn until the end of the 15th century and, instead, the Scottish men more commonly wore a long tunic with a jerkin on top. I seem to recall that the Irish were traditionally depicted also wearing a long tunic, belted at the middle. Interesting and short reading anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...art-kilts.html
Regards,
Jonathan
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to jthk For This Useful Post:
-
2nd December 15, 10:09 AM
#2
The article is correct.
If anything I might suggest given the independent nature of Scots and Celts generally, the yellow shirt might be less universal than described. I can see Fergus looking at Angus in his yellow shirt and saying, "I'll no wear the same as tha' barsteward, I'll have a red shirt for my ain."
Braveheart is possibly the worst movie ever made as regards historical authenticity.
That said, I did enjoy it, but it sucked at costume, weaponry, tactics and particularly history.
Last edited by freep; 2nd December 15 at 10:13 AM.
Slàinte mhath!
Freep is not a slave to fashion.
Aut pax, aut bellum.
-
The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to freep For This Useful Post:
-
9th December 15, 02:01 PM
#3
Yes, tartan was not the norm for the men who fought at Culloden.
But that is not to say there was no tartan there. There were no “little kilts” because they had not been invented, but most of the Highland clansmen wore belted plaids.
However these were removed before battle commenced and left in the heather. The yellow shirt was what was seen on the battlefield.
It was because many of the plaids doffed at Culloden sank into the peat (because their owners were killed, captured or fled the scene) that they were preserved.
I did find the references to strange dyestuffs interesting. And it stands to reason that not everyone could afford saffron to dye their shirt material.
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.
[Proverbs 14:27]
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to Mike_Oettle For This Useful Post:
-
13th December 15, 08:30 AM
#4
As the linen shirts could be boiled and scrubbed clean they were a wiser thing to wear than wool if there was likely to be some injury - the shirt was likely to clean the blade before it cut the skin, and it could be used to bandage or hold together, or even as a tourniquet.
Although these days bandages are removed and renewed, in times past a piece of boiled linen might be placed over a wound and bound there until it was set in place. It then remained in place until the process of healing was almost complete. The nurse would be able to tell by the smell whether the wound was going bad underneath and would soak it in several changes of hot salt water to remove it and clean the wound - if possible.
Anne the Pleater :ootd:
I presume to dictate to no man what he shall eat or drink or wherewithal he shall be clothed."
-- The Hon. Stuart Ruaidri Erskine, The Kilt & How to Wear It, 1901.
-
The Following 6 Users say 'Aye' to Pleater For This Useful Post:
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks