kilt history question

[Carolina Kiltman]

Just throwing my tuppence in here. Religious garb, cassocks, nun's habits (pre Vatican II) and Academic robes, were all the normal wear of persons in the middle ages. As fashion changed, they stood still, pretty much so anyway. Since the traditional academic wear came from Northern Europe, it is signally unsuited to wear in much of the US in June, the traditional month of Graduation.

I had a colleague who, in his attempt to stay cool(er) had trousers legs with elastic tops he wore around his lower legs, and a shirt-dickey thing that had just enough showing plus a collar for his tie.

I will go along with the idea of horses being the cause of the demise of the unbifurcated garment, makes a lot of sense to me.

Remember, fabric, before the days of powered spinners and looms, was extremely expensive. Hence the practice of stripping the garments from the condemned and dividing them among the executioners. The same held true with the dead on the battlefield, they were routinely stripped and the "spoils of war" divided amongst the victors.

[kennethrmc]

I want to weigh in on the equestrian argument. Bottom line, over time & space practicality is probably the main reason for a particular garment. Nowadays, the only reason (other than peer pressure) not to wear a kilt is when bicycling (on a normal street bike). Sitting on a saddle and bumping along road or trail, the kilt just does not work for a variety of reasons. I'm no equestrian (other than my iron pony which is my main vehicle) but I can see the same being true of those who relied on horses for getting about.

[Nanook]

Yes, it strikes me as riding horses would be the main reason. Why exactly would she have ruled out war and warfare?

Horse, war and warfare, after all, are all intermixed.

Religion as a source of pants on men doesn't make a whole lot of sense,

Especially considering the influence of Arabia through trade into fashion (cloths, materials and techniques) and Islam. The demand for modesty in clothing in Islam is generally interpreted as requiring the areas where legs meet torso to be made unclear--- to disguise the pelvic region-- thus a tradition of wearing clothing by both men and women that could be seen as a dress or skirt over pants--- as some Haredi (Orthodox Jews) women do as pants are seen as unacceptable garments for women.
The development of the tradition of breeches is, I think, clear. What is interesting, however, is to note the development of the length of these-- at times, in fact, their absence among aristocrats--- and how trousers took over from both tights, shorts and knee length garments in the wake of the French revolution (ankle length pantaloons as a political statement against the breeches of the aristocracy) and later industrialization (which to be recalled was, at first, about and driven by textiles). Through both I think one can see how the attire of the lower classes shifted upwards in contrast to the bourgeois tradition of trying to adopt the symbols of the ruling class. Without the steam engine I doubt if there could have been a Beau Brummell. The Second Industrial Revolution also saw La Commune de Paris and a series of revolts throughout Europe against the old order.. The emerging new ruling classes, socialist movements and unified republics had significant impact on fashion.
This can get quite long.. But as a final word.. Since small children don't go to battle or ride horses.. One needs too to recall that up until WW-I--- and in some places somewhat later--- boys wore dresses and skirts (even pink ones was that was considered a masculine colour until the 1950s).

[BroosterB1]

I seem to remember something about how the Black Death contributed to the rise of hose, then later "hosen" or pants. Went something like this; bare legs were seen to be an obvious in road for the "daemons" that were killing people. By wearing hose (high stockings) less of the leg (and less of the "other portions") were visible, and thus less attractive to the foul spirits. by covering more and more of the body the "spirits" would have less to be attracted to; hence the idea of modesty as a prerequisite to "holiness".

Of course the farther north you went, the less likelihood of running into the rats and fleas that carried the Plague, so the far Highlands of Scotland did not see as great of infestation as more southern climes. This held true till the advent of the woolen mills and more crowded conditions made the "plague" a more common pestilence. Remember plague was one of the main reasons Cromwell fell into disrepute, deemed as a judgment of God on his "revolution". Of course the same held for the Restoration period; until public sanitation and routine hygiene decreased the flea to human transmission rate; but by then the custom of pants had been established.

I believe the Equestrian argument has more to do with mounted armour than with ease of riding. Many cultures well versed in horsemanship did not adopt the "pantaloon", till well after the advent of the mounted knight, especially a Knight in full Plate. American natives used at the most, a form of chaps, and certainly not full pants, until late in the 19th century. As the influx of European culture marched across the continent, the natives adapted as well. Here in New Mexico there are many early 20th century pictures of tribal elders in the traditional robes, and garments that look like unpleated kilts (skirts).

[Donnie]

Hello All,

An acquaintance of mine is doing her PhD on this very subject. That is to say the history of garments and dress and why men wear trousers and women wear skirts and dresses. Her argument is that the anatomy of men and women is different and as such we are (in general) all wearing the wrong garments - men have dangly bits and should be in a wrap around garment; women do not and should be in trousers.

She believes that there was some cataclysmic event which caused a domino effect and forced men into long hose and then trousers. She tells me that she has eliminated war and warfare and is now looking at religion or some form of pandemic to be the cause. It seems that the heart of the matter comes down to western education, which in turn points to religion.

When she next comes down to eat me out of house and home I will pump her for more information.

Regards

Chas

Horses happened! We needed transportation, and riding a horse was better in battle than riding in a chariot!

[McMurdo]

Gentleman can we please refrain from discussing religion, and leave it as close as possible to history.

[Paul Henry]

Sorry Glen, but where is religion being discussed?

[Downix]

Sorry Glen, but where is religion being discussed?

I was wondering that myself.

[McMurdo]

Perhaps I misread, I'll go through the entire thread again.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Because of anatomical differences it is easier for a woman to go to the toilet if all she has to do is hike up her skirt, rather than drop her trousers. Yes, in developed societies men wore trousers-- riding astride is one major advantage to the trouser over the kilt. But the highlands of Scotland was not a developed country-- in the classic sense it was poor, rude, and ignorant. People barely subsisted, and the thought of weaving a length of wool to be cut up (which implies wastage) into trousers didn't enter the head of the average highlander, who probably lacked as simple a tool as a scissors anyway. In the 16th-17th century, when a highland family could probably carry all of their possessions in both hands, one wrapped one's blanket about one's waist because it had to do double duty as both bed cover and clothing.

Gentlemen, these people were poorer than you can imagine, and had to make do with the absolutely barest of necessities. Poverty, above any other reason, is why the highlanders wore the kilt.