Truibhs – Friend Or Foe ?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Umm, because he is a gentleman, and because he is walking.

That was the first thought that crossed my mind...

[Lachlan09]

BTW the reason they were cut on the cross (diagonally) when they were tight-fitting was because there was a little more give in the weave in that direction, rather than the straight up and down.

[Tobus]

Umm, because he is a gentleman, and because he is walking.

First you said he was mounted. Now you say he was walking. Which is it?

Or was it customary for them to take a walking stick with them when they rode a horse somewhere, so that when they dismounted they'd never have to take a step without it?

I just don't see any reason to believe that the only reason people wore trews was for riding.

[JSFMACLJR]

First you said he was mounted. Now you say he was walking. Which is it?

Or was it customary for them to take a walking stick with them when they rode a horse somewhere, so that when they dismounted they'd never have to take a step without it?

I just don't see any reason to believe that the only reason people wore trews was for riding.

Well, what happens when you get off the horse? You walk!

Are you being serious or just having a little joke? Of course there were many reasons why trews were worn. What I am telling you though, Tobus, is that trews were usually worn by gentlemen because they rode. This was a mark of distinction, status, and wealth.

A stick when mounted has many uses. Ever heard of a crop?

[Tobus]

I'm not trying to make a joke, nor am I being facetious. Sorry, internet posts sometimes come across in a different 'tone' than I mean them to.

I'm really just trying to get down to the crux of what the lore is on trews. Some folks say that they were only used when riding, while I tend to think they were fashionable on their own, even for fellows who didn't plan on riding a horse. Leggings were popular throughout Europe, and there was plenty of European influence in Scotland that could have made tartan trews a distinctly Scottish form of this manner of dress.

And yes, I am well aware of what a riding crop is. I own several horses and do a lot of riding. And I can say as an avid horseman that I would never consider using a walking stick as a crop. It's too heavy and unbalanced for that. Crops are very light and very small diameter, meant to be used as a tactile aid. Trying to keep a large diameter stick in your hand while handling the reins (and I'm assuming the Scots rode English-style with both hands on the reins instead of one-handed 'cowboy style' like we do here) would be clumsy and uncouth for a gentleman.

I'll add the disclaimer that I'm not professing to be an expert on Scottish horsemanship by any means. But I do find the idea of using a walking stick as a riding crop to be very unlikely, especially considering the history and conventions of English (and pretty much all European) riding styles.

All that is to say that I would guess the fellow in the portrait is probably just on foot and choosing to wear trews instead of a kilt.

[Bugbear]

Hmmm, I was just reading a book where it was pointed out that the scots used lighter, smaller horses than the English, mostly during warfare, and often used no reins; controling the horse with their feet to leave their hands free for weapons. However, that was in a time period before this, I am guessing.

I have other books that describe the tunics that were worn by Roman soldiers, for example, while riding horses, and how there were slits in the front and back . I know nothing much of horse riding, though.

It must just be a Scots thing.

[JSFMACLJR]

The stick shown in the illustration is hardly a heavy and unbalanced item.

Nonetheless, this is getting pointless. The man is wearing trews. Gentlemen wore trews. They usually wore trews when riding. They carried sticks. Maybe Colquhoun rode to his destination, dismounted, and decided to take a walk. Perhaps a retainer ran along beside his pony carrying his stick, or else he carried it himself. It doesn't really matter, does it? The fact still remains that gentlemen wore trews because they often rode.

[Tobus]

Hmmm, I was just reading a book where it was pointed out that the scots used lighter, smaller horses, mostly during warfair, and often used no reins; controling the horse with their feet. However, that was in a time period before this, I am guessing.

Yes, it's true that Highland ponies were typically smaller (and shaggier) than other European breeds. And it's typical of many cultures that they would be able to ride into battle by using leg cues instead of direct reining so that their hands were free for weapons. However, for most regular riding, a combination of leg pressure and reins would have been used.

[Bugbear]

It just seemed interesting.

[Tobus]

It doesn't really matter, does it? The fact still remains that gentlemen wore trews because they often rode.

I don't disagree with that, nor am I trying to make a fuss over it. I just think there's probably some evidence that gentlemen wore trews for other reasons too. Like fashion. I saw in another thread (sorry, can't remember where) that someone quoted a Scottish historian as saying that it was incorrect to assume that all men work kilts. The quote was something along the lines of gentlemen could afford pants. While it may have been said tongue-in-cheek (or perhaps as an insult?), and I can't verify the source, it just seems that men may have worn trews while riding, yes, but also for occasions where they weren't riding.

But yes, the back-and-forth here is getting pointless so I'll stop.