Lets see historical Scottish weaponing...........

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Brian--
Thanks for the photos! Obviously this works, and gives greater credibility to the concept of the potential for the knife to be used for defensive, as well as utilitarian, purposes. Of the dozen or so knives that I've handled that have indisputable Scottish provenance, only three had sheaths, and none of those had belt hooks. Since belt hooks were a common feature on Scottish pistols, it would (I think) be reasonable to assume that they would feature on the sheathes of small, personal knives, such as the one owned by your wife (and pictured on this thread). Certainly it would be just about the only practical way of securing the knife to one's person, no matter how, or where, worn.

I am still somewhat dubious about the primary role of the knife as a concealed weapon; in an age and at a time when flatware (or cutlery, as some term it) was not ubiquitous in most households, it was not at all uncommon for a guest to bring his own spoon and knife-- and this continued into the 18th century. Given the manner of dress of the Highland Scots at this time, I would tend to think that tucked away under the arm and close to the body would be the most convenient place to carry a knife primarily intended for domestic duties.

Outside of the Highlands, where the carrying of a dirk well suited to self defense was not normally done, it could very well be that gentlemen did carry such a knife as much for protection as anything else.

As Jim Bowie was of Scots descent, it is a pity that none of his ancestors wrote a book on Scottish dirks, daggers, and knives. Then we'd know for sure.

[Tartan Tess]

Thank you for the photos. All these years ....when I hear "armpit knife" i kept imagining it in a braided armpit hair plait

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Photos of this (not for the faint hearted) my be found on the site, X Marks the Uzbekistani.

[Woodsheal]

Mac,

I agree with the "double duty" view of such a knife. It's obvious when you hold it in your hand: a great tool for chopping veggies, or slicing beef, is also a wicked little weapon superbly suited for sticking between someone's ribs...!

[Strings]

Actually, many tools have a more "sinister" use available. Not at all odd: just look at the weapons of the eastern martial arts...

About the only weapon I can think of that didn't originally have some form of utilitarian purpose is the gun...

[Tobus]

Woodsheal, thanks for the pics. That clears it up nicely and it makes perfect sense to me now.

About the only weapon I can think of that didn't originally have some form of utilitarian purpose is the gun...

Depends on what you mean by "utilitarian purpose". Firearms have always been (and still are) used primarily for hunting, defense against wild critters, and the like. Especially long guns - muskets, rifles, shotguns/fowling pieces - and pistols being a more convenient way to carry the tool. They have, of course, from the very start served double duty as weapons against other men (both offensive and defensive), but that doesn't mean that firearms didn't have a utilitarian purpose. Whether the absolute first gun was built as a hunting tool or a weapon against men, no one knows. But I think it's fair to say that guns carried by non-military people have always been considered tools as well as weapons. And likely used more in the role of tools than weapons.

[Strings]

{thread veer]

Guess I should have given a definition of weapon there: "tool intended to cause damage to a living being"...

If you think of the evolution of any weapon mankind has used, most can be traced back to a tool used for a "benign" purpose. Most of the impact weapons (maces and the like) go back to the basic rock used to break open foodstuffs. Edges trace back to our first constructed tool, the stone knife (which was meant to slice meat and skins).

Projectile weapons though (bows, spears, guns) have only ever been intended as weapons (using the definition used above). That basic rock Og used to bash Ug's head in had been used for breaking open coconuts for awhile before Ug's demise... not so the spear Og later used to harvest a deer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way going off on some sort of "weapons are evil" rant. Just making an observation. and I've made the opposite observation many times ("almost every basic tool man has created has been used as a weapon at some point").

[/thread veer]

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Technological historian Conrad Schreier published any number of articles on firearms in the 1970s and 80s, many of them in GUNS & AMMO magazine. According to him the gun was originally invented by the Chinese as a signaling device. Although a gun was expensive to produce and fire, the sound of exploding gun powder carried farther than the sound of a bell, drum, or trumpet. While these early signal guns performed their task quite well, they were not immediately adapted to the role of launching a projectile. This didn't happen until the Chinese had made sufficient advances in the technology of casting bronze and were able to produce guns that could withstand the pressures generated by firing a projectile without exploding.

Probably the most famous gun in Scotland is "Mons Meg", which dates from the 15th century (most likely 1449), and may be seen at Edinburgh Castle. The gun was last fired at midnight December 31/1 January, 2009/2010 during the Hogmanay celebrations. (Just to keep things on topic.)

[Strings]

Hmmm... that begs the question, is it really a gun of there's no projectile? A quick Google of "definition: gun" came up with the following:

"a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity (especially from a metal tube or barrel)"

I know that the legal definition in most US jurisdictions requires a projectile propelled by a chemical combustion.

But I think that's enough thread veer for the moment. Much further off course, and we'll be on another board entirely... ;)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Signal guns do fire a projectile-- called a wad-- usually made of thick paper. Without the wad compressing the powder it would merely burn, rather than explode. (Think of all those trails of gunpowder seen in the movies. They burn all the way to the compressed powder (usually in kegs) then... KA-BOOM!!!!!) The heavier the projectile the greater the pressures created in the gun. Paper wadding, with little or no weight, creates relatively low pressure, but still provides a suitably loud "BANG!"-- and a great puff of smoke. Any thing weightier than paper, a cannon ball for instance, requires a lot more explosive force to disgorge it from the mouth of the gun, resulting in huge pressures and the risk of the gun exploding.

The dire consequences of this are well illustrated by the death of James II in 1449, when he was killed by an exploding cannon while laying siege to Roxburgh Castle. (How's that for bringing the thread back to the topic of historical Scottish weaponry? )